Malagodi E F
Behav Anal. 1986 Spring;9(1):1-17. doi: 10.1007/BF03391925.
Our culture at large continues many practices that work against the well-being of its members and its chances for survival. Our discipline has failed to realize its potential for contributing to the understanding of these practices and to the generation of solutions. This failure of realization is in part a consequence of the general failure of behavior analysts to view social and cultural analysis as a fundamental component of radical behaviorism. This omission is related to three prevailing practices of our discipline. First, radical behaviorism is characteristically defined as a "philosophy of science," and its concerns are ordinarily restricted to certain epistemological issues. Second, theoretical extensions to social and cultural phenomena too often depend solely upon principles derived from the analysis of behavior. Third, little attention has been directed at examining the relationships that do, or that should, exist between our discipline and related sciences. These practices themselves are attributed to certain features of the history of our field. Two general remedies for this situation are suggested: first, that radical behaviorism be treated as a comprehensive world view in which epistemological, psychological, and cultural analyses constitute interdependent components; second, that principles derived from compatible social-science disciplines be incorporated into radical behaviorism.
我们的整体文化延续着许多不利于其成员福祉及其生存机会的做法。我们的学科未能发挥其潜力，为理解这些做法并提出解决方案做出贡献。这种未能实现的情况部分是由于行为分析师普遍未能将社会和文化分析视为激进行为主义的基本组成部分。这种疏忽与我们学科的三种普遍做法有关。首先，激进行为主义通常被定义为一种“科学哲学”，其关注点通常局限于某些认识论问题。其次，对社会和文化现象的理论扩展往往仅依赖于从行为分析中得出的原则。第三，很少有人关注审视我们的学科与相关科学之间确实存在或应该存在的关系。这些做法本身归因于我们领域历史的某些特征。针对这种情况提出了两种一般补救措施：第一，将激进行为主义视为一种全面的世界观，其中认识论、心理学和文化分析构成相互依存的组成部分；第二，将来自兼容社会科学学科的原则纳入激进行为主义。
