Why psychology and history don’t have overarching theories — and probably never will
Physics has two dominant paradigms: quantum mechanics and general relativity. And physicists are actively attempting to merge the two into a unified theory of fundamental reality. Biology has one unifying theory: the so-called Extended Synthesis that built on the original Darwinian insight of the middle 19th century. Chemistry has its own unified theory: it basically boils down to physics.
But when we move from the natural to the social sciences, like psychology, or the humanities, like history, we don’t find anything analogous. Why?
Sure, there have been attempts in that direction. In psychology, several overarching theories have been proposed, and eventually abandoned: Freudianism and behaviorism, to mention the big ones. In history, people used to subscribe to something akin to what is now derisively referred to as “The Great Men” theory, where things happen because a great man — Julius Caesar, Napoleon, what have you — single-handedly redirects the course of events. At the opposite extreme, we have Marxist theories of history, where great men don’t count for nothing, and it all comes down to economics and the class struggle. None of that has worked out too well.
Of course, there are currently ongoing attempts at a unified theory, in both fields…
