Reductionism is a method of problem-solving that begins at the lowest possible level of analysis and works upwards. Implicit assumptions are that (a) any system can be reduced to basic elements, (b) the observer in the system can be neglected (implying that totally objective observations are possible) and (c) complete knowledge of these elements will provide complete information about the system. Reductionism seeks a complete explanation of a phenomena, failing to recognize that a complete solution may be impossible. While reductionism can be a powerful method of analysis, it is often insufficient as a tool for understanding, since those assumptions are often wrong.
Despite the shortcomings of this approach, reductionism is still widely used, and is the current paradigm in science (though systems analysis / hierarchy theory and chaos are gaining popularity). The laboratory is not the only place reductionism has made an impact on human affairs, however. To a great degree, it has infiltrated our modern culture. I propose to examine the origins of reductionism in the Victorian Era after the Industrial Revolution, and then illustrate with a few examples just how reductionist we are today.
To gain an understanding of why reductionism is so pervasive, it is necessary to consider the roots of reductionist thought. The origin of this mind-set harkens back to the very source of our society's technological advancement: The Industrial Revolution. In particular, the Victorian Era makes an excellent example, for it was during the Queen's reign that British civilization truly had its heyday. Nowhere else are the reductionist roots of our culture so wonderfully illustrated.
The Victorian Age was the pinnacle of the Industrial Revolution. During this period, Britain had a lead in textile, iron, and steel production, London became the financial capitol of the world, and Britain had an Empire spanning the globe. The upheavals (social and economic) caused by the Industrial Revolution had been finally put to rest by new, liberal Social Reforms Acts of Parliament. Great personalities of the time included scientists like Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Michael Faraday, and James Maxwell, authors like Sir A.C. Doyle and H.G. Wells, and poets like Tennyson and Wordsworth. These people alone represent a quantum leap forward in modes of thought and scientific accomplishment, and yet are only a small fraction of the army of thinkers, leaders and entertainers of this period.
This atmosphere of success and prosperity fostered an attitude of control and superiority. Any problem seemed solvable, no goal loomed beyond England's reach, or so it seemed at the time. As one essayist writes about the period, "...the Englishmen in the nineteenth century were the first men to feel that exhilaration, that sense of power, that belief that everything is possible, that seems to come when a nation learns to use machinery." A typical approach to an intractable problem was to apply more pressure, generate more steam, exploit more resources, build a bigger machine, or employ more workmen. Raw power would win in the end. The legendary Great Exhibition of 1851 was a showcase for these technological marvels and feats of engineering excellence, and exemplified the ideals of the day. In such an atmosphere of confidence and success, reductionism could not help but be taken for granted as a solution that works.
Scientific thinking in particular exemplified the reductionist attitude. For example, consider Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, first published in Origin of Species, 1859. Natural Selection maintains the only mechanism for evolution is selection on an individual basis. This theory assumes that there is no purpose to evolution, that all changes in organisms are due to random single mutations, and that somehow these one-in-a-million genetic aberrations are totally responsible for the evolution of a species.
Darwin had an enormous impact upon Victorian society, for his beliefs challenged ancient religious beliefs and caused much controversy. The paradigm defense caused by his ideas stirred up enough intellectual furor to firmly ingrain Natural Selection in the minds of all Victorians, and brought reductionist thought to the forefront of human conciousness.
Physics felt the onset of reductionist thought as well. Science in general (and physics in particular) sought essentially deterministic solutions: given all the present conditions, the future state of the (classical) system could be calculated with utmost precision. The whole structure of 19th century physics was based on Newton's Laws of Motion, which were deterministic in nature. Maxwell's Equations of Electromagnetism, the single greatest physics breakthrough of the century, were a discovery in the same tradition of Newtonian determinism, as was every other major advance in the field from that era.
The Victorians feared the implications on mankind's philosophy if deterministic systems turned out to have universal validity. They had to ask whether science really embraced all the phenomena of nature. The belief in freedom of will was strongly held, as was natural in an adventurous era which felt itself master of its fate. It was supported by religious ideas about personal responsibility. All these seemed antagonistic to the findings of science. In essence, the Victorians thought that if Science could predict via determinism the entire behavior of very simple systems, then that implied personal behavior could also be predicted. As Thomas Henry Huxley wrote in 1870, "'...the thoughts to which I am now giving utterance, and your thoughts regarding them, are the expression of molecular changes in that matter of life which is the source of our other vital phenomena.'" The Victorians truly believed "...all our mental life, and whatever spiritual life we might consider we had as well, was ultimately reducible to the movements of masses according to strict mathematical laws." The desire for belief in free will in spite of the apparent contradiction with the trend of scientific thought was typical of this age; the conciousness of this perceived conflict weighed heavily on learned men's' minds.
This conflict is solely due to reductionist thinking. The assumption that all human behavior is deterministic simply because basic physical laws are deterministic is false; they believed that a complete understanding of the lowest possible level of analysis (molecules) automatically implied total predictive power at the highest levels (human behavior). This was "...the apparently inevitable implication of Victorian science." This fallacy can be compared to analyzing the chemical content of printer's ink so as to understand Shakespeare - clearly ludicrous. Yet the Victorians were unable to grasp this due to their reductionist tendencies.
Reductionism in Victorian culture makes a visible impact in the popular literature stemming from the period. A famous classic is H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, in which time itself is conquered by man. The Time Traveler builds a machine out of ordinary materials (the most exotic element is a crystal of extremely pure quartz); the theory behind the Machine's operation is based on the simple idea of Time as a Fourth Dimension in which travel at different rates and directions is possible. The Traveler has 'merely' combined these basic elements to create a machine that travels through time. In perfect accord with reductionist theory, the Time Traveler has broken down the problem of time travel into simple parts, which he then proceeded to master; this gave him the requisite knowledge to totally master the Fourth Dimension.
A curious omission is any mention of paradox or other theoretical conundrums that would result from actual time travel (becoming your own father, meeting yourself, that sort of thing). A possible motive on Wells' part may be the discomforting thought that a person may be in two places at one time; just as a particle may seem to be traveling through two slits at once. It seems Wells followed the reductionist path and glossed over the inherent impossibilities associated with mucking about in the Fourth Dimension. Considering his audience, this omission was a reasonable one, of course.
Another classic of literature from the Victorian times was the famous Sherlock Holmes series, authored by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Holmes' modus operandi of deductive reasoning is perhaps the greatest example of reductionism possible. Consider a selection from the short story "The Crooked Man":
To my astonishment, it was Sherlock Holmes who stood upon my step. "Ah, Watson," said he, "I hoped that I might not be too late to catch you." "My dear fellow, pray come in." "You look surprised, and no wonder! Relieved, too, I fancy! Hum! you still smoke the Arcadia mixture of your bachelor days, then! There's no mistaking that fluffy ash upon your coat. It's too easy to tell that you've been accustomed to wear a uniform, Watson; you'll never pass as a pure-bred civilian as long as you keep that habit of carrying your handkerchief in your sleeve. Could you put me up for to-night?" "With pleasure." "You told me that you had bachelor quarters for one, and I see that you have no gentleman visitor at present. Your hat-stand proclaims as much." "I shall be delighted if you will stay." "Thank you. I'll fill the vacant peg, then. Sorry to see that you've had the British workman in the house. He's a token of evil. Not the drains, I hope?" "No, the gas." "Ah! He has left two nail marks from his boot upon your linoleum just where the light strikes it."
As you can see, Holmes takes extremely fine-grained observations and integrates them into deductions of greater extent. Based on near-insignificant small clues (a scratch on a floor, some ash on a shoulder, even the absence of a hat on a hat-stand) Holmes is able to create an incredibly detailed model, from which he can infer all sorts of facts. For Holmes, no crime or problem was unsolvable, because he was always so painstakingly observant - he never loses once in any of the short stories or novels detailing his adventures. This is pure reductionism.
Another illustrative example of Holmes' deductive analysis is in the "Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist" case. Note the reference to Holmes' demeanor during his observations:
With a resigned air and a somewhat weary smile, Holmes begged the beautiful intruder to take a seat and to inform us what it was that was troubling her. "At least it cannot be your health," said he, as his keen eyes darted over her; "so ardent a bicyclist must be full of energy." She glanced down in surprise at her own feet, and I observed the slight roughening of the side of the sole caused by the friction of the edge of the pedal. "Yes, I bicycle a good deal, Mr. Holmes, and that has something to do with my visit to you to-day." My friend took the lady's ungloved hand and examined it with as close an attention and as little sentiment as a scientist would show to a specimen. "You will excuse me, I am sure. It is my business," said he, as he dropped it. "I nearly fell into the error of supposing that you were typewriting. Of course, it is obvious that it is music. You observe the spatulate finger-end, Watson, which is common to both professions? There is a spirituality about the face, however" -he gently turned it towards the light- "which the typewriter does not generate. This lady is a musician." "Yes, Mr. Holmes, I teach music." "In the country, I presume, from your complexion."
Doyle stresses the scientific manner Holmes displays during his inspection. Holmes is perfectly dispassionate in his analysis, and from his unbiased and objective observations he is able to deduce with utmost precision details about the lady. Only in reductionist thinking can the observer be objective! A basic tenet of modern holist thinking is the impossibility of objectivity in observation, for the very presence of an observer affects the outcome. A classic example is quantum mechanics, in the particle - wave duality. Depending on your observation method, the electron appears to be either a particle, or a wave, but never both. If you insist on ignoring the duality inherent in the system, then you see an electron passing through two slits simultaneously! Doyle would have us believe Holmes is incapable of subjectivity; we can forgive this however, since it is fiction after all, and accordingly makes a damn fine story.
This selection also illustrates a fascinating belief among the Victorians. In particular, Holmes is able to distinguish between typewriters and musicians by a "...spirituality about the face..." despite the commonality of fingers between the two professions. The Victorians felt that much of a person's personality could be identified by physical features of this sort. Again, an example from Doyle will suffice as an example:
"You interest me very much, Mr. Holmes. I had hardly expected so dolichocephalic a skull or such well-marked supra-orbital development. Would you have any objection to my running my finger along your parietal fissure? A cast of your skull, sir, until the original is available, would be an ornament to any anthropological museum. It is not my intention to be fulsome, but I confess that I covet your skull."
The implication is, of course, that Holmes is a remarkably intelligent man, which of course any avid fan of Baker Street already knows. The Victorians believed that the shape of the skull, the slope of the forehead, the bearing and 'spiritual' appearance, and even the bloodline were indicative of personality. The most striking example from Doyle is Holmes' description of his nemesis, Professor Moriarty:
"...[he] had, to all appearance, a most brilliant career before him. But the man had hereditary tendencies of the most diabolical kind. A criminal strain ran in his blood, which instead of being modified, was increased and rendered infinitely more dangerous by his extraordinary mental powers... He is a genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker. He has a brain of the first order... I was sitting in my room thinking the matter over, when the door opened and Professor Moriarty stood before me... He is extremely tall and thin, his forehead domes out in a white curve, and his two eyes are deeply sunken in his head. He is clean-shaven, pale, and ascetic-looking, retaining something of the professor in his features. His shoulders are rounded from much study, and his face protrudes forward, and is for ever slowly oscillating from side to side in a curiously reptilian fashion... 'You have less frontal development than I should have expected,' said he at last.'"
In essence, the entire personality of a man may be deduced from basic physical traits. Note the emphasis on forehead slope and size with regard to intelligence, and the 'reptile' allusion as an indicator of malicious tendency. Doyle's intent in these passages was to underline the dangerousness and brilliance of Moriarty, pointing out his extremely large forehead, lean build, and reptilian eyes in a protruding face to emphasize the inhumanity and evil of the archenemy. This is a wholly reductionist belief, for it assumes that the observer is totally unbiased in their stereotypical observations, and that these tiny physical traits reveal volumes of information about the character.
As we have seen, the Victorian Era first saw the large-scale appearance of reductionist thought. The impact of those times can still be felt a hundred years later, in today's culture. Instead of steam, we now have harnessed nuclear energy. Instead of Great Exhibitions and empire-building, we have moon shots and Cold Wars. And instead of factories we now have mass-production assembly lines. We still assume any problem is solvable, and we still strive for greater understanding by turning to smaller and smaller scales, using scanning electron microscopes to probe the Human Genome or Hubble Space telescopes to probe the earliest origins of the Universe.I will take a look at two cultural elements in particular: presidential elections (specifically the 1992 election) and the television show Star Trek: The Next Generation.
On November 3rd, 1992, the United States of America elected a Democratic president after twelve years of Republican rule. Whether the American public made a better choice or not remains to be seen; the election process, however, certainly needs an overhaul. American politics have always been dirty, and a fair amount of voter apathy has sunk into the American psyche. An exit poll conducted by Time magazine showed an increase of only 4.2% in voter turnout since the '88 election, up to a record high of only 54%. The half that did vote supplied many statistics for history to mull over; the election was really quite reductionist, as we shall see.
The majority of voters vote for the candidate who they think will represent them on the most issues, and accept the fact that no candidate will be ideal. This means that most people identified where they stood on a position, and checked to see which candidate represented their belief. The candidate in most agreement usually received that person's vote. For example, according to an exit poll conducted by CNN, Bill Clinton garnered 67% of the health-care vote, meaning 67% of people who had an opinion on health-care voted for him (i.e.. most people who had an opinion about it favored having health-care). In a similar vein, Bush won 86% of the foreign policy vote, clearly indicating that voters interested in the issue of foreign affairs considered his skills in the field superior.
This is reductionist. The voters are assuming that whoever 'solves' the majority of the problems (in the way that particular voter wants them solved) will be the most qualified, and that the country will improve overall. Most people believe that if all the issues were settled during the next four years, then this country would become a utopia. This is patently false, unless you look at the situation in a reductionist light.
Politics is always a touchy subject, due to its close affiliation with our culture. No decade passes without some major scandal or another (Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair come to mind). No subject generates more discussion, speculation, or irritation in the public eye. Politics is for these reasons an excellent probe into our culture's behavior, especially with reductionism as we have seen. However, there is more to our society than elections and scandal. Mass entertainment, such as television, also plays a gigantic role in the shaping of America's identity.
Star Trek is not just a television show, it is a cultural icon, with a cult following of untold millions across the globe. The phenomenal success of the show has made Star Trek: The Next Generation the most widely-watched syndicated show on television, with the broadest demographic range of viewers in history. It is also a goldmine of reductionist assumptions, due to its science-fiction premise. The show shows the human race at an unprecedented level of social and technological development, far ahead of our present-day states. The eagerness to astound the audience with technological wonders reveals trace elements of reductionism, as I will explain.
The Starship Enterprise travels through space. If she were restricted to speeds lower than the speed of light, her five-year mission would quickly stretch to 5 millennia, just to traverse the distance from the Earth to the nearest star, over four light-years distant. The solution to this conundrum is the warp drive, which propels the Enterprise through space:
Warp Field coils in the engine nacelles are energized in sequential order, fore to aft. The firing frequency determines the number of field layers, a greater number of layers per unit time being required at higher warp factors. Each new field layer expands outward from the nacelles, simultaneously transferring energy and separating from the previous layer at velocities between 0.5c and 0.9c. This is well within the bounds of traditional physics, effectively circumventing the limits of General, Special, and Transformational Relativity.
Clearly, this 'official' explanation is a bit contrived. The very idea that someday mankind will be able to circumvent the limits of General, Special, and Transformational Relativity is reductionist. No amount of painstaking research into the nature of the universe will ever reveal equations that describe the essentials of superluminal flight, due to the mathematical impossibility of such in this universe. If we had a magic wand that allowed access to an alternate universe, then perhaps it would be possible, but as long as we remain in this universe faster-than-light travel will remain a science fiction plot device.
A similar technological contrivance in Star Trek is the transporter. This is the device that deconstructs an object (including living things) atom by atom, then rebuilds that object atom by atom in a different location, up to 40,000 kilometers away. In other words, human scientists in the Star Trek universe are skillful enough at the subatomic scale to be able to utterly dismantle matter, retain complete control over every single atom in that object (keeping in mind that there are over 1023 atoms in just a few grams of ordinary matter), and reform that object with all atomic and molecular connections and relationships intact, with no harmful effects. There is even a biofilter option, that detects known forms of viral infections and other hazardous bacteriological forms. If found, the biofilter renders them inert automatically.
Reductionism is an integral part of the transporters' operation. The degree of mastery exhibited by this machine is totally unrealistic. The transporter's operation is almost the very definition of reductionism - break the problem (the object to be transported) down into the simplest possible parts (atoms), master these pieces (keep track of everything perfectly), and understand the original system completely as a result (reintegrate the object with no mistakes or harmful effects). The biofilter is just icing on the cake.
A problem with this device involves the transport of beings. To insure the delicate balance of life is not disrupted, the transporters must operate at 'quantum resolution' (as opposed to 'molecular resolution' for mere cargo). This is done by utilizing data from Heisenberg Compensators, which effectively cancel out the uncertainty in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and thus make such detailed transports possible.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a direct result of particle-wave duality. It basically states that the position and velocity of an atomic particle cannot both be known. If you want to know the position, then you will have large uncertainty in the velocity (particle case). If you need the velocity to any accuracy you will find a huge uncertainty in position (wave case). If you try to observe both, your observation will change the system and render your observations useless. For example, if you know the velocity of an electron, but you need its position, the only way to detect it is to bounce light off it. If you bounce light off, you will find the electron, but the light hitting the electron will change its velocity through recoil!
This is reductionism at its ugliest! This device solves the particle-wave duality conundrum by removing it completely with "24th century technology," making totally objective observations possible. This then gives free rein to the transporter in cataloguing the position and velocity of every atom in a human being, and thus allowing transport to occur without complications. The very idea of a Heisenberg Compensator is completely reductionist in every possible way.
Finally, the Universal Translator deserves some recognition. This handy device is why it seems all the aliens in the Star Trek Universe speak English:
The first step in deriving a translation matrix is to obtain as large a sample as possible of the unknown communication. Wherever possible, this sample should include examples of at least two native speakers conversing with each other. Extensive pattern analysis yields estimates on symbology, syntax, usage patterns, vocabulary, and cultural factors. Given an adequate sample, it is usually possible to derive a highly simplified language subset in only a few minutes.
Once again, an essentially reductionist idea emerges. The computers are able to break any language down into 'basic elements' of symbology, etc. despite differences in biology, culture, or concepts. Then the original language is deduced from these smallest elements, all in a matter of minutes. The basic elements common to all languages independent to biology or culture are naturally assumed to exist - any problem is solvable according to reductionism. The differences that should appear due to culture and biology are swept under the rug with the assumption that such common elements exist, and work for all races anywhere.
Apparently, Star Trek is a bastion of reductionism. Actually, most of the more absurd concepts were originally developed for the original series in the 1960's; Star Trek: The Next Generation was forced to continue to use them for continuity's sake. However, most of the reductionist elements are ignored or missed completely by fans of the show, as (a) most trekkies are reductionists themselves and (b) most fans don't care, since the focus of the show, after all, is the characters. The technology in most good episodes serves merely as a subplot or in a background role. Reductionism makes for a good story, as we saw in the Sherlock Holmes examples earlier.
Reductionism is a part of our culture, and has been ever since the Victorian Era. The late nineteenth century, thanks to the intense growth of the Industrial Revolution, was a period of success and superiority for the British Empire. The atmosphere was conducive to the formation of reductionist thought. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection was an example of reductionism, as were works of literature from popular writers such as H.G. Wells and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The Victorians experienced conflict between the determinism of their science and the free will spirit brought about by their prosperity, due to the reductionist attitude they took. In the modern world, reductionism can be found in very diverse elements of our culture. Political elections operate on extremely reductionist principles, for example, and television shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation use reductionist technology as a plot enhancement.
In this analysis of the origins and modern influences of reductionism, the manner in which I analyze is reductionist itself, for I look at individual elements only and then proceed to sweeping generalizations. The point of this analysis is not that reductionism is terrible, but rather that it is insufficient. Reductionism is part of the paradigm of human thought, and has been for a century. It would be impossible (and foolish) to eradicate it completely, for it runs too deep.