In his commentary on the dialectical model offered by Adams, Day, Dyk, Frede, and Rogers, Lerner suggests that dialectical theory be abandoned in favor of developmental contextual theory on the grounds that dialectical theory shares an identity with organicism, a metatheoryfatally flawed with a teleological causality. An examination of the concepts identified by Lerner show that although his reservations concerning organicism appear justified, no compelling reason is given to reject dialectics as an analytical tool within contextualisnm
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, G. R.
, Day, T., Dyk, P. H., Frede, E., & Rogers, D. R. (1992). On the dialectics of pubescence and psychosocial development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 348-365.
2.
Lerner, R. M.
(1992). Dialectics, developmental contextualism, and the further enhancement of theory about puberty and psychosocial development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 366-388.
3.
Lerner, R. M.
, Skinner, E. A., & Sorell, G. T. (1980). Methodological implications of contextual/dialectic theories of development. Human Development, 23, 225-235.
4.
Pepper, S. C.
(1942). World hypotheses. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
Riegel, K. F.
(1976). The dialectics of human development. American Psychologist, 31, 689-700.
