ABSTRACT
This chapter shows that the explanatory role of groups offers prima facie support for the plausibility of ontological holism. An opponent of holism who grants the link between ineliminability and realism is committed to explaining how groups can be systematically analysed out of explanation, thereby denying them the ineliminable role required for holism. The core issue between ontological individualism and holism is ultimately the modality of the ineliminable role of groups in the forms of discourse. Individualism maintains that, notwithstanding the appearances and presuppositions of ordinary and social scientific talk, there are compelling reasons to conclude that groups cannot play the role holism requires. Ontological holism is not committed to the scope of this conception of holist explanation in its subordination of the role of the individual. A good reason to take ontological holism seriously is that it allows us to understand the peculiar harm or badness in certain kinds of sanctions and practices.
