Considerations on Behavior Based on Merleau-Ponty’s Criticisms
Henrique Mesquita Pompermaier, Carlos Eduardo Lopes
Theory & Psychology March 23, 2026 DOI: 10.1177/09593543261429033 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Philosophy of mind |
| Keywords | Behaviorism Ambiguity Distancing Meaning existential Ontology Diversity politics Phenomenon Epistemology Philosophy of science |
| Key points | Argues that a relational-ontology understanding of behavior can allow radical behaviorism to respond to Merleau-Ponty's challenges and to dialogue with traditions that aim to overcome mentalism and physiological reductionism. |
Abstract
In this paper, we explore the possibility of radical behaviorism to respond to the challenges posed by Merleau-Ponty to scientific psychology. According to this philosopher, modern dichotomous thinking places every psychological project in a stalemate: it adopts either mentalism, distancing itself from science, or physiologism, distancing itself from psychology. For Merleau-Ponty, the notion of behavior could be a way to avoid this impasse as long as behavior was taken as a phenomenon in its own right. However, the first behaviorist proposals did not follow this path. But what about radical behaviorism? To answer this question, we begin with different understandings of the notion of behavior found both in B. F. Skinner’s works and in the behavior-analytic literature. Considering the diversity of positions, we adopt the Merleau-Ponty stance that sees ambiguity as a constitutive characteristic of the behavioral phenomenon. From there, we present an understanding of behavior based on a relational ontology that could respond to the challenges posed by Merleau-Ponty. This proposal updates the philosophical potential of radical behaviorism, allowing it to dialogue with other traditions that have historically attempted to overcome the alternatives of mentalism and physiological reductionism.