Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

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
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 Goertzen, J. R.
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?

Notes

Against Integration or Against Using Evolutionary Theory to Homogenize Psychology?

A Comment on Derksen

Jason R. Goertzen

York University

This paper comments on an article by Derksen, who argues that the theory of evolution cannot unify the social sciences in general and psychology in particular. Derksen also elevates his ‘against integration’ argument to an in-principle level whereby he rejects integration as a solution to the problem of fragmentation. Where Derksen limits his arguments to evolutionary theory, they are welcome; however, where he elevates his arguments to an in-principle level, they become unmindful of a vast history on fragmentation and integration/unification. Derksen also implicitly defines integration as seamless homogeneity, which is only one definition of integration/unification used in the literature. Finally, his alternatives to integration are found to be lacking in detailed explanation and critical reflection.

Key Words: evolutionary psychology • fragmentation • integration • pluralism • unification

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 4, 565-570 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354306064287
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
M. Derksen
Anti Anti-dualism: A Reply to Goertzen
Theory Psychology, August 1, 2006; 16(4): 571 - 574.
[Abstract] [PDF]