Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theory & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Derksen, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Against Integration

Why Evolution Cannot Unify the Social Sciences

Maarten Derksen

University of Groningen, m.derksen{at}rug.nl

A lack of integration is often identified as a fundamental problem in psychology and the social sciences. It is thought that only through increased cooperation among the various disciplines and sub-disciplines, and integration of their different theoretical approaches, can psychology and the social sciences make real progress. An increasing number of psychologists have recently been proposing that the theory of evolution must be accepted as the foundation of all the sciences that deal with human beings, including their behaviour and culture. I argue, however, that the ideal of integration is based on a mistaken idea of natural science as a seamless whole. Moreover, the close connection between language and mind entails the need for a different approach to behaviour and culture than the one offered by evolutionary psychology. Rather than to seek integration, psychology and the social sciences need to make the existing pluralism more productive. I argue that the concept of boundaries offers a good starting-point for reflecting on disciplinary diversity.

Key Words: culture • disciplinary boundaries • dualism • evolutionary psychology • human nature • integration • unification

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 2, 139-162 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354305051360


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
S. W. Quackenbush
Special Section: Theoretical Unification as a Practical Project: Kant and the Tree of Knowledge System
Theory Psychology, December 1, 2008; 18(6): 757 - 777.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
J. R. Goertzen
On the Possibility of Unification: The Reality and Nature of the Crisis in Psychology
Theory Psychology, December 1, 2008; 18(6): 829 - 852.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
J. R. Goertzen
Against Integration or Against Using Evolutionary Theory to Homogenize Psychology?: A Comment on Derksen
Theory Psychology, August 1, 2006; 16(4): 565 - 570.
[Abstract] [PDF]