Dr. Firdous Ahmad Malik
Assistant Professor of Economics,
Department of Management,
University of People, USA

Mr. Owais Ismaeil
Doctoral Fellow
University of Delhi, Delhi, India

Methodological individualism and holism are two primary approaches that dominate the academic and policy debate concerning wars, diplomacy, and societal change. Each of these approaches brings its own interpretation of the social life of humans and the systems in which they exist. Individualism, as the term suggests, starts with the individual, whereas holism views the society as likely a collective. For instance, the emphasis placed on states, institutions, cultural systems, and unit as opposed to individuals marks the distinction on the emphasis placed by holism. With geopolitics facing new challenges such as global conflicts, climate change, inequality, heightened global tensions, and multilateral diplomacy, it has become necessary to deepen the understanding of such systems.

The Foundation of Methodological Individualism

Like all ISM, the essence of methodological individualism revolves around its name: it defines an ‘ISM’ whereby every social activity can be ultimately explained by the actions, methods of an individual or group of individuals. This is a clearly dominant approach to studying sociocultural issues to make sense of the world we live in. It’s associated with the classical liberalism of social democracy as well as rational choice theory. Max weber, for instance, alongside fictitious hayek tried constructing classical ideas s social realities however based on choices and behaviors of people.

In international relations, methodological individualism considers the impact that major world affairs figures set by presidents, diplomats, and citizens have on state relations and international politics. For instance, the reasoning behind Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to lead Ukraine’s fight in the war, alongside Vladimir Putin’s choices as a Russian president, could be examined in the context of their personal interests, perceptions, systems, and strategic calculations. This reasoning accounts for the more proximate reasons that lead to conflicts and peace attempts agency rather than structure. 

Holism, A Macro-Structural Perspective 

By contrast, Holism posits that people are integral to social systems which they, in fact, shape, constrain, and influence the individuals within these frameworks. From Émile Durkheim to today’s sociologists and the system theorists, holism pays attention to collective consciousness, institutions, and history that frame the individual actions. 

Considering global issues such as wars and diplomacy, a holistic approach would look at the persistent effects of nationalism, the capitalist order, or institutionalized norms of dominant international organizations, like the UN. In the case of renewed polarization in international relations, holism is particularly useful in explaining the structural reasons for conflict, such as colonial heritage, inequality, ideological divides, and bloc politics.

War Through Two Lenses, The Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The Russia-Ukraine war represents a conflict that is illustrative of the tension between these two views. Individualism may give attention to some important actor’s personal goals and psychological profiles Putin’s craving to bring back the Russian empire or the decisions that NATO leaders made to support Ukraine. This helps understand the conflicts and the de-escalations that can arise on account of specific leaders and their decisions. 

Holism, by contrast, looks at the founding approaches to the problem like the systemic causes of conflict. NATO’s eastward movement, the historical context of Russian-Ukrainian relations, and the changes in the world balance of power after the Cold War. This approach focuses on how structural determinants are shaped by the state’s actions, which does not stem solely from individual will. 

In Diplomacy, Artificial Intelligence Methods and A Focused Individualistic Angle

In diplomacy, methodological individualism provides a useful approach on internationals relations and focuses on negotiations and cooperation that need high-level ethical intervention. It would be interesting to explain how particular diplomats organize, prioritize, and negotiate among themselves to understand individual actors and how they affect engagements in summits, and treaties, and bilateral meetings. The outcome of such efforts is best captured in The Abraham Accords which can be described as the outcomes of America’s Jared Kushner’s personal diplomacy and negotiations and regional leaders’ individual initiatives to alter the geopolitics of the Middle East.

Nonetheless, these critics contend that such an argument does not adequately capture the interplay of institutional contexts and the evolution of diplomatic relations. This provides a holistic perspective that balances the previous view.

Holism and the Challenge of Global Governance

Climate change, global pandemics, and international economic crises are all describing the same systemic threat to humanity a problem. These issues deem individual actions insufficient and require systemic changes, institutional innovations, and coordinated collective endeavors to address the scope and scale of such challenges. To offset climate change, one must consider the entire industrial complex, global energy networks, and geopolitical systems of domination that go beyond mere individual actions.

The holistic approach also generates some critique, though. A prominent shortcoming is the overly deteministic assumption of lacking human influence. Without leadership, innovation, and active resistance within oppressive systems, these interpretations fall flat. Additionally, a predominant reliance on structuralism may cause stagnation where policies go unimplemented until complete systemic transformation is perceived achievable.

The Strain and Complementarity of the Two

There is a debate on the balance between ‘methodological individualism and holism’, which seems to some as a paradox. Many scholars instead offer a blended perspective. Take the case of complex global problems; oftentimes, they require understanding individual agency at both the micro-level, as well as social structures at the macro level. For example, peacebuilding in post conflict regions requires community level action, but also needs institutional scaffolding by international organizations.

The COVID–19 pandemic is a case in point of this duality. Mask-wearing and vaccination are forms of individual behavior, albeit heavily woven into the collective’s system of governing, healthcare, and communication. However, taking an individualistic approach to these aspects sheds light and addresses the complexity of the issue.

Thinking of Global Analysis Differently 

The increase in geopolitical conflicts, intricate humanitarian issues, and climate change are altering the modern world. The methods that we use to study these factors, including the frameworks, directly affect our comprehension and responses. Even with their differences, methodological individualism and holism simultaneously provide frameworks for understanding the causes and possible solutions to global issues. Scholars and policymakers accept using these methods because of their relative strengths and adapt means to address sensible solutions. In the end, finding a middle ground between individual motivations and the underlying structure may yield success in solving the most difficult challenges in the world.

---

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the Global South Research Foundation or its members.

---