The neurosciences and the search for a unified psychology: the science and esthetics of a single framework

The search for a so-called unified or integrated theory has long served as a goal for some psychologists, even if the search is often implicit. But if the established sciences do not have an explicitly unified set of theories, then why should psychology? After examining this question again I argue that psychology is in fact reasonably unified around its methods and its commitment to functional explanations, an indeterminate functionalism. The question of the place of the neurosciences in this framework is complex. On the one hand, the neuroscientific project will not likely renew and synthesize the disparate arms of psychology. On the other hand, their reformulation of what it means to be human will exert an influence in multiple ways. One way to capture that influence is to conceptualize the brain in terms of a technology that we interact with in a manner that we do not yet fully understand. In this way we maintain both a distance from neuro-reductionism and refrain from committing to an unfettered subjectivity.

The brain as an instrument: Comment on Gergen’s “The acculturated brain”

In “The acculturated brain,” his critical analysis of the current brain hype, Kenneth Gergen concludes that we should consider the brain primarily as an instrument for achieving culturally constructed ends, and challenge the determining power of the brain with the question “Could I do otherwise?” In my reply, I point out that the pressing issue is usually “How could I do otherwise?,” not sorting out determined behavior from culturally constructed action. The challenge is to understand the increasing traffic between brain and culture, rather than to keep mechanism and meaning separate. Secondly, the notion of the brain as an instrument needs to be developed in the light of technology studies, in order to avoid both neuro-reductionism and the instrumentalism implied in Gergen’s proposal.