Abstract

Comments on the article, "Levels of analysis and the received view-hermeneutics controversy," by E. Morgan. The absence of criteria with which to compare and evaluate the legitimacy of dissimilar clinical psychology theories has fueled the quest for a "superordinate epistemology." This paper addresses Morgan's use of a constructivist analysis to make claims regarding the constitutive nature of a superordinate epistemology. It is argued that constructivism, as a post-epistemological position, is inappropriate to the task Morgan sets. Also, it is held that the notion of a superordinate epistemology is the spectre of an ill-founded allegiance to metaphysical realism. Further discussion is offered in light of Rorty's notions of solidarity and pragmatism. 2012 APA, all rights reserved)