Abstract
Zagaria et al. (2020) have aptly suggested that as a discipline, psychology is a giant with feet of clay. Drawing on the content of introductory textbooks, the authors show that there is little coherence and consensus about the meaning of key psychological terms – including such terms as psychology, mind, behavior. Drawing on evidence marking psychology is a “soft” science, the authors suggest that psychology can profit by adopting the “hard” foundation of evolutionary psychology as its metatheory. While Zagaria et al.’s characterization of psychology’s fractious foundation has deep merit, their desire to erect a psychological metatheory on evolutionary psychology is unlikely to solve the problem they so aptly identify. At the least, I suggest a unified metatheory must: (a) establish a shared psychological lexicon; (b) elaborate a methodology that coordinates first-, second- and third-person modes of inquiry, and (c) develop a process model that describes psychological functioning at the biological, psychological and socio-cultural levels of analysis. To illustrate, I describe how contemporary relational and systems frameworks provide a framework that can move us in these directions.