This article compares the efKcacy of abstracted system analysis and concrete syetems analysis for the study of d e t y . Arguments for both the abstracted approach and the concrete approach are presented. A number of disadvantages of the abstracted approach are noted which hinder ita usefulnew an an isolated approach to sociology. These include the d i f f k d y of system boundary determination, and the difficulty of consistently excluding the individual ae the unit of analysis. The conclusion is reached that currently sociology PBBdB a holistic model that is isomorphic with the empirical compler society, and that only a concrete systems model will eatis$ this need. Such a model has the fiuther advantage that it is easily applicable to the analysis of various system levels such as the in&vidual, group, world, etc. The holistic model is evaluated in terms of the arguments for absrtraeted systems, and is found to be coneistent with the aims of adherents of thie approach. Thus, it is concluded that the concrete approach does not preclude abstrected analysis, but may in fact facilitate such analysis by p ~~i d i ~g needed empirical grounding and model/data isomorphism. "he article concludes with some thoughts on the need for exploring llnka between conceptual, abstracted, and concrete systems.