Abstract

This article provides a broad outline of a hermeneutic unity of psychology, by way of a reply to Martin's comment . It is argued that the metaphysical and ontological impasses that concern Martin may occur because of two reasons &emdash; genuine incomparability or the lack of motivation on the part of potential interlocutors. We argue that neither of these reasons necessarily precludes the dialogue and evaluation called for under this hermeneutic approach. We then show how a proper understanding of dialogue, as well as a group of psychologists to facilitate this dialogue &emdash; theoretical psychologists &emdash; are keys to a coherent and unified, yet pluralistic and responsive psychology.