Merging

This presents a conundrum; both Goldhaber and Lerner say that key philosophers consider the three models to be mutually exclusive. If the models are each insufficient on their own and mutually exclusive of the other, then a new model is required. Before tossing all three, however, there is another option to consider. Viewing the world exclusively through a single lens may blind the observer to truths available through the other lenses. Merging ideas from all three may provide a more accurate perspective on human development, but may result in just another lens.

As far as humans are creatures of habit, the mechanistic perspective seems to serve as an acceptable model to understand human behavior. Likewise, as far as humans can shape themselves and their environment toward potential, the organismic model provides acceptable insights into the human being. In addition, as far as humans behave differently depending on the situation, the contextual model helps understand the human within the context of history and society. If the human being dynamically integrates tendencies that are simultaneously machine-like, organismic, and contextual, why should mechanism, organicism, and contextualism be mutually exclusive?

Overton (1984) seemed to address this question when he proposed merging organicism and contextualism to form a new philosophy called, appropriately, contextual-organicism. Lerner's (2002) preferred term for the merger is "developmental contextualism" (p. 74), as long as the user understands "developmental" refers to the organismic roots of the emerging philosophy. Developmental contextualism is more broadly know as "developmental systems theory" and represents "a synthesis between organismic processes and changes and contextual ones" (p. 74).