Seeking Unity Where It Is and Is Not
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/irtp.v3i1.167368Keywords:
fragmentation, incommensurability, organic whole, unity psychologyAbstract
Since its inception as a science, psychology has been characterized by disunity and opposition. Over time it increasingly differentiated into various specializations. Such fragmentation led to doubts whether psychology could be a coherent discipline. After considering some of the solutions for resolving disunity, the source of the problem is sought in the historical development of the discipline. The emulation of the established sciences and their methods meant the adoption of strategies of reductionism and elementalism and a quest for abstract, universal principles that transcended individuality. Whole human beings were subjected to analysis and dismemberment and the resulting abstractions were hypostasized and disengaged from their context—the organized whole. The result was an apparent irreconcilability between specializations. Rather than trying to amalgamate the divergent disciplines, it is argued that humans, prior to analytic dismemberment, are a basis for unification. It is within the undivided person that the phenomena of the different disciplines cohere. Consequently, experimental findings must be recontextualized and concretized by returning to whole persons for validation. It is through concrete validation that specializations are reunited, and division overcome. Finally, it is contented that a science of the unified, psychological-being-in-context is needed
References
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Henry Holt.
Allport, G. W. (1940). The psychologist’s frame of reference. Psychological Bulletin, 37, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060064
Allport, G. W. (1942). The use of personal documents in psychological science. Social Science Research Council. https://doi.org/10.1037/11389-000
Allport, G. W. (1962). The general and the unique in psychological science. Journal of Personality, 30, 405–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02313.x
Allport, G. W. (1964). The fruits of eclecticism: Bitter or sweet? Acta Psychologica, 23, 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(64)90073-3
Amsel, E. (2015). Conceptual and pedagogical challenges in understanding the whole person. New Ideas in Psychology, 38, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.10.001
Anastasi, A. (1992). Are there unifying trends in the psychologies of the 1990s? In M. E. Donnelly (Ed.), Reinterpreting the legacy of William James (pp. 29–48). American Psychological Association.
Baars, B. J. (1985). The logic of unification. Contemporary Psychology, 30(4), 340. https://doi.org/10.1037/023768
Billig, M. (1994). Repopulating the depopulated pages of social psychology. Theory & Psychology, 4(3), 307–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354394043001
Bower, G. (1993). The fragmentation of psychology? American Psychologist, 48(8), 905–907. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.8.905
Cantril, H., Ames Jr., A., Hastorf, A. H., & Ittelson, W. H. (1949a). Psychology and scientific research. I. The nature of scientific inquiry. Science, 110(2862), 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.110.2862.461
Cantril, H., Ames Jr., A., Hastorf, A. H., & Ittelson, W. H. (1949b). Psychology and scientific research. II. Scientific inquiry and scientific method. Science, 110(2863), 491–497. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.110.2863.491
Cantril, H., Ames Jr., A., Hastorf, A. H., & Ittelson, W. H. (1949c). Psychology and scientific research III. The transactional view in psychological research. Science, 110(2864), 517–522. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.110.2864.517
Caporael, L. R. (2001). Evolutionary psychology: Toward a unifying theory and a hybrid science. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 607–628. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.607
Carlson, R. (1971). Where is the person in personality research? Psychological Bulletin, 75(3), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030469
Catania, A. C. (2013). A natural science of behavior. Review of General Psychology, 17(2), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033026
Cervone, D. (1999). Bottom-up explanation in personality psychology: The case of cross- situational coherence. In D. Cervone and Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 303–341). Guilford Press.
Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 423–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070133
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511524059
Denmark, F. L., & Krauss, H. H. (2005). Unification through diversity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Unity in psychology: Possibility or pipedream? (pp. 15–36). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10847-002
Descartes, R. (1993). Meditation on first philosophy in which the existence of God and the distinction of the soul from the body are demonstrated (3rd ed.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1641)
Dewey, J. (1900). Psychology and social practice. Psychological Review, 7(2), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0066152
Dewey, J. (1928). Body and mind. Mental Hygiene, 12, 1–17.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Henry Holt.
Dewey, J. (1939). The unity of the human being. In J. Ratner (Ed.), Intelligence in the modern world: John Dewey’s philosophy (817–835). The Modern Library.
Dewey, J. (1948). Common sense and science: Their respective frames of reference. Journal of Philosophy, 45(8), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/2019042
Dewey, J. (1950). Reconstruction in philosophy. Mentor Books. (Original work published 1920)
Dewey, J. (1998a). Context and thought. In L. A. Hickman, & T. M. Alexander (Eds.), The essential Dewey: Pragmatism, education, and democracy (Vol. 1, pp. 206–216). Indiana University Press. (Original work published 1931)
Dewey, J. (1998b). Time and individuality. In L. A. Hickman, & T. M. Alexander (Eds.), The essential Dewey: Pragmatism, education, and democracy (Vol. 1, pp. 217–226). Indiana University Press. (Original work published 1940)
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Beacon Press.
Endler, N. S. (1984). Interactionism. In N. S. Endler, & J. M. Hunt (Eds.), Personality and the behavioral disorders (pp. 183–217). Wiley.
Eysenck, H. J. (1951). The organization of personality. Journal of Personality, 20, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1951.tb01515.x
Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1224–1237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1224
Fryer, D., & Henry, E. R. (1937). An outline of general psychology. Barnes & Noble.
Giorgi, A. (1970). Psychology as a human science. Harper and Row.
Giorgi, A. (1985). Theoretical plurality and unity in psychology. Psychological Record, 35(2), 177–181.
Gleitman, H., Fridlund, A. J., & Reisberg, D. (1999). Psychology (5th ed.). W.W. Norton.
Gleitman, H., Gross, J., & Reisberg, D. (2011). Psychology (8th ed.). W.W. Norton.
Harré, R. (2015). Unitas multiplex: The person as agent. New Ideas in Psychology, 38, 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.10.002
Heidbreder, E. (1933). Seven psychologies. Prentice-Hall.
Henriques, G. (2003). The tree of Knowledge System and the theoretical unification of psychology. Review of General Psychology, 7(2), 150–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.2.150
Hermans, H. J. M., & Bonarius, H. (1991). The person as co-investigator in personality research. European Journal of Personality, 5(3), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410050303
Hilgard, E. R. (1987). Psychology in America: A historical survey. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Holzkamp, K. (2016). Conduct of everyday life as a basic concept of critical psychology. In E. Schraube and C. Højholt (Eds.), Psychology and the conduct of everyday life (pp. 65–98). Routledge. (Original work published 1995)
Hutto, D. D. (2013). Psychology unified: From folk psychology to radical enactivism. Review of General Psychology, 17(2), 174–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032930
James, W. (1892). A plea for psychology as a ‘natural science.’ Philosophical Review, 1(2), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.2307/2175743
James, W. (1905). Talks to teachers on psychology: And to students on some of life’s ideals. Henry Holt. (Original work published 1899)
James, W. (2018). The meaning of truth. Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1909)
Kimble, G. A. (1984). Psychology’s two cultures. American Psychologist, 39(8), 833–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.8.833
Koch, S. (1951). Theoretical psychology, 1950: An overview. Psychological Review, 58(4), 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055768
Koch, S. (1961). Psychological science versus the science-humanism antinomy: Intimations of a significant science of man. American Psychologist, 16(10), 629–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048714
Koch, S. (1971). Reflections on the state of psychology. Social Research, 38, 669–709.
Koch, S. (1973). Psychology cannot be a coherent science. In F. Matson, (Ed.), Without/within: Behaviorism and humanism (pp. 80–91). Brooks/Cole. (Originally published 1969.)
Koch, S. (1975). Language communities, search cells, and the psychological studies. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 23, 477–559.
Koch, S. (1981). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a century qua “science”. American Psychologist, 36(3), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.3.257
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001
Ladd, G. T. (1894). President’s address before the New York meeting of the American Psychological Association. Psychological Review, 1(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0064711
Lamiell, J. T. (2013). On psychology’s struggle for existence: Some reflections on Wundt’s 1913 essay a century on. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33(4), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033460
Leighton, J. A. (1902). The Study of Individuality. The Philosophical Review, 11(6), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.2307/2177021
Leontyev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind (M. Kopylova, Trans.). Progress Publishers.
Levine, M. (1974). Scientific method and the adversary method: Some preliminary thoughts. American Psychologist, 29(9), 661–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037627
Lichtenstein, P. E. (1980). Theoretical psychology: Where is it headed? Psychological Record, 30, 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394697
Maiers, W. (2022). Replication crisis—just another instance of the replication crisis in psychology? Historical retrospections and theoretical-psychological assessments. Review of General Psychology, 26(2), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211033915
Martin, J. (2000). Fragmentation, hermeneutics, scholarship, and liberal education in psychology. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 21(3), 305–314.
Martin, J. (2010). The psychology of personhood: Conditions for a viable, neo-meadian pluralism. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(2), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.09.015
Martin, J. (2012). Coordinating with others: Outlining a pragmatic, perspectival psychology of personhood. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(1), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.11.007
Martin, J. (2015). A unified psychology of the person? New Ideas in Psychology, 38, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.10.003
Martin, J., & Bickhard, M. H. (2012). An introduction to the special issue on “The New Psychology of Personhood” [Editorial]. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(1), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.11.009
Mayer, J. D., & Allen, J. L. (2013). A personality framework for the unification of psychology. Review of General Psychology, 17(2), 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032934
McClelland, D. C. (1951). Personality. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. https://doi.org/10.1037/10790-000
Mead, G. H. (1895). Review of An introduction to comparative psychology [Review of the book An introduction to comparative psychology, by C. L. Morgan]. Psychological Review, 2(4), 399–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0068594
Novikoff, A. (1945). The concept of integrative levels and biology. Science, 101(2618), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.101.2618.209
OSS Assessment Staff. (1948). Assessment of men: Selection of personnel for the Office of strategic services. Rinehart & Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/11118-000
Petrovsky, A. V., & Yaroshevsky, M. G. (1987). A concise psychological dictionary. Progress Publishers.
Richards, G. (1996). Putting psychology in its place: An introduction from a critical historical perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003093848
Robinson, D. N. (1985). Science, psychology, and explanation: Synonyms or antonyms. In S. Koch and D. E. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp. 60–74). McGraw-Hill.
Robinson, D. N. (2000). Paradigms and ‘the myth of framework’: How science progresses. Theory and Psychology, 10(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354300101004
Rosenzweig, S. (1937). Schools of psychology: A complementary pattern. Philosophy of Science, 4, 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1086/286446
Royce, J. R. (1970). Prologue. In J. R. Royce (Ed.), Toward unification in psychology: The first Banff conference on theoretical psychology (pp. 1–7). University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487577506
Sampson, E. E. (1978). Scientific paradigms and social values: Wanted—A scientific revolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(11), 1332–1343. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.11.1332
Sanford, N. (1965). Will psychologists study human problems? American Psychologist, 20(3), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022184
Scripture, E. C. (1897). The new psychology. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Shorey, P. (1895). Mind and body. Psychological Review, 2(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070369
Spence, J. T. (1987). Centrifugal versus centripetal tendencies in psychology: Will the center hold? American Psychologists, 42(12), 1052–1054. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.12.1052
Staats, A. W. (1975). Social behaviorism. Dorsey Press.
Staats, A. W. (1981). Paradigmatic behaviorism, unified theory, unified theory construction methods, and the zeitgeist of separatism. American Psychologist, 36(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.3.239
Staats, A. W. (1986). Unified positivism: A philosophy for psychology and the disunified sciences. Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 6(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091427
Staats, A. W. (1999). Unifying psychology requires new infrastructure, theory, method, and a research agenda. Review of General Psychology, 3(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.3.1.3
Staats, A. W. (2005). A road to, and philosophy of, unification. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Unity in psychology: Possibility or pipedream (pp. 159–177). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10847-010
Stagner, R. (1988). A history of psychological theories. Macmillan Publishing.
Stam, H. J. (2004). Unifying psychology: Epistemological act or disciplinary maneuver? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(12). 1259–1262. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20069
Stetsenko, A. (2012). Personhood: An activist project of historical becoming through collaborative pursuits of social transformation. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(1), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.11.008
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997.) Problems of the theory and methods of psychology. In R, W, Rieber and J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Problems of the theory and history of psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 333–343). Plenum Press. (Original work published circa 1927)
Vygotsky L. S. and Luria, A. R. (1993). Studies on the history of behavior: Ape, primitive, and child, In V. I. Golod and J. E. Knox (Eds. and Trans.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Original work published 1930)
Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the modern world. Macmillan.
Wieser, M. (2020). The concept of crisis in the history of western psychology. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, Article e470. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.470
Woodworth, R. S. (1951). Contemporary schools of psychology (8th ed.). Methuen. (Original work published 1931)
Yanchar, S. C. (1997). Fragmentation in focus: History, integration, and the project of evaluation. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 17(2), 150–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091167
Yanchar, S. C. (2000). Progress, unity, and three questions about incommensurability. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 21(3), 243–259.
Yela, M. (1987). Toward a unified psychological science: The meaning of behavior. In A. W. Staats, & L. Mos (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology. (Vol. 5, pp. 241–274). Plenum.
Young, K. (1924). The history of mental testing. Pedagogical Seminary, 31(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/08919402.1924.10532922
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Brad Piekkola
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
IRTP operates based on a non-exclusive publishing agreement, according to which the journal retains the right of first publication, but authors are free to subsequently publish their work. The copyright of all work rests with the author(s).
All content published in IRTP is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This license allows authors and readers to share and adapt content for non-commercial purposes, provided that they abide by the following terms:
- Give credit to the original author(s)/creator(s) and attribution parties (i.e., IRTP);
- Provide a link to the original source, to the extent practicable;
- Include the copyright notice and/or indicate the corresponding Creative Commons license;
- Indicate what, if any, adaptations were made to the original; and
- Share adapted content under the same license as the original.
Authors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the various Creative Commons licenses. Readers are advised to consult the licensing information embedded in each published work to ensure that they are familiar with the terms of use that apply.
