No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

There has been in the field of psychology a long and well-documented discontent with an apparent disorganization in its literature, most often interpreted as reflecting the absence of a unifying theory. This article examines some alternative ways in which some of the disorganization is being actively created by forms of argumentation used in reporting and discussing psychological research. One institutionalized form of argumentation used in reporting data actually generates the proliferation of theoretical terms in the literature. A second form of argumentation reifies theories into social groups, incorporating values that discourage theoretical integration. Some of the discontent arises from the incompatibility between the values latent in such social organizations and the values that motivate scientific inquiry at a personal level.

There is no single answer to the unity-multiplicity problem regarding the self for the simple reason that the term "self" is used by too many different theorists in too many different ways. In fact, there are several important substantive topic areas that need to be distinguished and studied scientifically. The topic areas I examine in this article are reflexivity, unit coherence, agency, and subjectivity. Each of these areas will be evaluated in terms of what it contributes to, and can be interpreted in terms of, the unity-multiplicity issue. It is proposed that we need a more differentiated technical vocabulary if we are to better understand the phenomena we are examining. Matching our technical vocabulary to this empirical detail sharpens the questions being asked and places the empirical facts in better focus. A more elaborate framework of conceptual differentiation provides a better basis for developing an integrated theory.