SDP: Revisiting the "Situation" Issue from the Self-Life-Mind Perspective

by Oliver Ding

July 5, 2026

This paper is part of the Strategic Developmental Psychology (SDP) project.

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Three Debates, One Divide

2.1 A Common Axis: Stability versus Dependency
2.2 The Person–Situation Debate
2.3 The Nomothetic–Narrative Debate
2.4 The Brain–Environment Debate

3. A Self-Life-Mind Analysis of the Three Debates

3.1 Units of Analysis and the Unit of Synthesis
3.2 The Person–Situation Debate Revisited
3.3 The Nomothetic–Narrative Debate Revisited
3.4 The Brain–Environment Debate Revisited
3.5 Summary: Situation as a Unit of Analysis, Not of Synthesis

4. What the Comparison Reveals

4.1 The Anti-Dualist Heuristic as a Diagnostic Lens
4.2 A Gradient, Not Three Separate Problems
4.3 The Shared Assumption None of Them Drops

5. Why "Strategy" Has No Home in Psychology

5.1 An Operational Word, Not a Theoretical Concept
5.2 Strategy Requires a Global Unit
5.3 Strategy Requires a Potential Dimension
5.4 The Missing Concept, Named

6. SDP's Answer: From Situation to Gejunction

6.1 Two Words, One Confusion
6.2 Gejunction as a Unit of Synthesis
6.3 The Four Aspects of a Gejunction
6.4 Gejunction and the Four Action Opportunities

7. Conclusion

7.1 SLM's Diagnosis and SDP's Answer
7.2 Summary of the Argument

References

1. Introduction

The two previous papers in this series addressed, in turn, the "self" issue and the "belief" issue. Revisiting the "Self" Issue diagnosed a tripartite confusion in which the self is asked to serve simultaneously as ontological presupposition, empirical variable, and explanatory construct, and proposed the Self-Life-Mind (SLM) schema — Self, Life, and Mind as analytically distinguishable but ontologically inseparable aspects of a single whole — as a way out of the confusion. Revisiting the "Belief" Issue took up a parallel problem in a different domain, showing that no existing account of belief — propositional, probabilistic, or generative — was built to address belief system transformation as a whole-person developmental phenomenon, and that SLM's heuristic questions could organize an existing toolkit (World of Activity, Creative Life Theory) to fill the gap.

This paper takes up a third issue, and it is in some ways the most consequential of the three for the Strategic Developmental Psychology (SDP) project as a whole. The project's original motivating question was never simply "what is the self" or "what is a belief." It was: why has psychology never developed a proper theoretical concept of strategy? People talk about strategic thinking, strategic planning, strategic decision-making — but psychology, across its many subfields, has no settled concept of strategy as a psychological phenomenon in its own right, comparable to its concepts of trait, emotion, motivation, or cognition. This paper argues that the absence is not an oversight. It is a structural consequence of how psychology has handled — and mishandled — the concept of situation.

The argument proceeds in six stages. Part 2 reviews three of psychology's most consequential internal debates — the person–situation debate in personality psychology, the nomothetic–narrative debate over modes of psychological explanation, and the ongoing brain–environment debate in cognitive science — and shows that all three are regional expressions of a single deeper divide. Part 3 uses the Self-Life-Mind (SLM) meta-framework's own vocabulary — units of analysis versus a unit of synthesis — to revisit all three debates in turn, showing that each is a distinct case of the same underlying error. Part 4 applies the anti-dualist heuristic already developed elsewhere in this body of work (in the analysis of Activity Theory's genidentity) to ask, of each debate, whether and how the divide was resolved — and finds that even where resolution was achieved, a shared methodological assumption was never dropped. Part 5 draws out the consequence: this shared assumption is precisely what has kept "strategy" from finding a home in psychology. Part 6 introduces SDP's answer — a distinction between 情境 (qingjing), the local surround, and 处境 (chujing), one's overall standing, operationalized not as an English gloss but through a newly coined term, Gejunction (格局，格-局) — and shows how this answer addresses the gap the debates leave open. Part 7 concludes.

2. Three Debates, One Divide

Psychology's history contains several deep and recurring controversies that, on the surface, look like disputes about different subject matter — personality, modes of explanation, cognition — but that share an underlying structure. This section reviews three of them.

2.1 A Common Axis: Stability versus Dependency

Before examining the debates individually, it is worth naming the axis they share: is the relevant explanatory locus internal and stable, or external and situationally dependent? Trait psychology says the person carries stable dispositions; situationism says behavior is a function of the immediate context. The paradigmatic mode of explanation seeks universal, phylogenetically inherited mechanisms; the narrative mode says psychological meaning is a historically and culturally specific construction. Classical cognitivism says cognition is computation internal to the brain; ecological and enactivist approaches say cognition is constituted in the coupling between organism and environment. In each case, one pole locates the explanation inside a bounded, temporally stable unit; the other locates it in the organism's ongoing relation to something outside itself.

This is not a coincidence of vocabulary. It is the same epistemological fault line running through three different regions of the discipline, each region having developed its own name for the same disagreement.

2.2 The Person–Situation Debate

Personality psychology's foundational assumption — that stable traits (measured, for instance, by the Big Five) predict behavior across situations — was directly challenged by Walter Mischel's 1968 book Personality and Assessment. Mischel's central empirical finding was that cross-situational consistency correlations for personality traits rarely exceeded about 0.3 — the so-called "personality coefficient" — suggesting that situational factors, not stable dispositions, were doing most of the explanatory work in predicting behavior.

The first response was Endler and Magnusson's interactionism: behavior is a joint function of the person and the situation, modeled statistically as a person × situation interaction term. This was a genuine advance, but it left the underlying dualism intact — person and situation remained two independent variables entered into the same equation, not two aspects of a more fundamental unity.

A deeper resolution came later, with Mischel and Shoda's (1995) Cognitive-Affective Personality System (CAPS) and its behavioral elaboration in Fleeson's Whole Trait Theory. CAPS redefined personality itself: rather than a fixed disposition, a person's personality is the stable if-then signature of how they behave across different situation types — this person behaves one way under condition A and another way under condition B, and it is the pattern of variation itself, not any single behavior, that is stable and distinctively theirs. This is a genuine instance of the anti-dualist move: person and situation are no longer external to each other, competing for explanatory credit, but are woven into a single higher-order unit — the if-then profile — of which each is now an internal moment.

But the story does not end with CAPS. In parallel, the study of situations developed into a dedicated research specialty in its own right, most visibly documented in The Oxford Handbook of Psychological Situations (Rauthmann, Sherman, & Funder, 2020) — thirty-one chapters, more than fifty contributors. Notably, the handbook does not present this as a break from personality psychology: its own framing describes the psychological assessment of situations as "a new and rapidly developing area of research, particularly within the fields of personality and social psychology" — a specialization organized around situation itself, but still housed within, not split off from, the disciplines that produced the original debate. Even so, even as "behavior is a function of an interaction between the person and situation" had become a truism, the situation side of that truism had been comparatively under-theorized, and this specialty set out to correct the imbalance.

What did that correction look like in practice? Rauthmann's own DIAMONDS taxonomy — Duty, Intellect, Adversity, Mating, Positivity, Negativity, Deception, Sociality — decomposes any given situation into eight measurable dimensions, in direct structural parallel to the Big Five's decomposition of personality into five trait dimensions. Situational psychology, in other words, did not escape the decompositional assumption that trait psychology had always carried. It reproduced that assumption on the other side of the ledger. Whatever distinctiveness the specialty won for itself was a distinctiveness of subject matter, not of method.

2.3 The Nomothetic–Narrative Debate

The clearest staging of this debate is not a paper about identity but a paper about modes of explanation itself. Jerome Bruner's (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds argued that human cognition operates through two fundamentally different modes: the paradigmatic (or logico-scientific) mode, which seeks formal propositions subject to empirical test and organizes explanation around general, context-independent laws; and the narrative mode, which organizes experience into particular, temporally structured, meaning-laden stories. Bruner's claim was explicit and strong: the two modes are complementary but irreducible to one another — neither can be translated into the other without losing what made it distinctive.

Evolutionary psychology (Tooby and Cosmides, 1992; Buss, 2019) is the paradigmatic mode's most ambitious recent instantiation within the study of the mind. Its explanatory strategy is thoroughly nomothetic: human psychological mechanisms — mate preferences, kin altruism, threat detection, and the like — are treated as domain-specific, computational adaptations shaped by natural selection, holding across individuals and cultures by virtue of a shared evolutionary history. The explanatory arrow points backward to a universal ancestral environment, not forward or inward to any particular life.

Narrative psychology, in the tradition Bruner helped found and that Sarbin and others extended, takes the opposite starting point: the phenomena that matter most about a psychological life — its meaning, its coherence, its direction — are not explained by universal mechanism but constructed, through the stories a person builds about their own particular, historically and culturally situated existence. Where the nomothetic mode explains by subsuming the particular case under a general law, the narrative mode explains by rendering the particular case intelligible on its own terms.

The most influential integration of the two modes, within personality psychology specifically, comes from Dan McAdams's tripartite model (McAdams, 1995; McAdams & Pals, 2006). The model distinguishes three layers: dispositional traits (temperament-level, closest to what a nomothetic, evolutionarily informed account addresses), characteristic adaptations (situated, contextualized goals and strategies), and integrative life narratives (the culturally and historically shaped story a person constructs to give their life coherence). By nesting the nomothetic layer inside a larger, narratively organized architecture — rather than treating paradigmatic and narrative explanation as two rival accounts of the same phenomenon — McAdams performs the same anti-dualist move already seen in CAPS: what Bruner had declared irreducible becomes, in this architecture, two layers of a single hierarchically organized system.

This resolution is now close to a working consensus within academic personality psychology; McAdams's model appears in the field's standard textbooks. But Bruner's original claim of irreducibility has not disappeared from the wider discourse. The nomothetic/narrative divide persists vigorously outside the specific context in which McAdams resolved it — most visibly in the recurring public friction between evolutionary psychology and its critics, who continue to object, in essentially Brunerian terms, that a universal mechanism cannot do justice to a meaning that only a particular history can carry. The gap between an achieved theoretical integration in one subfield and its incomplete diffusion elsewhere is itself worth noting: a resolution can exist and still fail to dissolve the dualism at the level of the discipline's wider self-understanding.

2.4 The Brain–Environment Debate

Classical cognitivism treats cognition as computation performed by the brain on internal representations, with the body and environment supplying inputs and receiving outputs but playing no constitutive role in cognitive processing itself. Gibson's ecological psychology rejected this picture at the root, arguing that perception is direct — that an organism picks up affordances, action possibilities structured into the environment itself, without the mediation of internal representation. The "4E" movement that followed (embodied, embedded, enacted, extended cognition — Clark, Varela, Thompson, Rosch, and others) generalized Gibson's challenge into a broad research program contesting the brain-bound picture of mind.

Of the three debates surveyed here, this is the least settled and the most actively contested. The predictive processing and Free Energy Principle literature (Friston, Clark, Hohwy) has become the primary site where reconciliation is being attempted — and the attempts themselves have split into competing camps, with predictive coding (Hohwy) keeping explanatory priority with the brain and predictive processing (Clark) extending it to the whole embodied organism.

A recent and instructive case is Candeloro, Napolione, Tolone, and Sacco's (2026) paper, "The Yinyang of Cognition," which argues that the apparent opposition between predictive processing and enactivism dissolves once the two are recognized as operating at different levels of analysis, serving different explanatory purposes — a relationship the paper calls perspectival complementarity: each approach illuminates what the other underemphasizes, and neither is reducible to the other. This is, in the vocabulary developed elsewhere in this body of work, a dual-aspect monism move: not the introduction of a wholly new third element (as CAPS introduced the if-then signature, or McAdams introduced the three-layer architecture), but a reframing in which two apparently rival accounts become two internally related perspectives on one underlying process.

Unlike the person–situation debate (where CAPS provides a fairly settled resolution, alongside a still-decompositional research specialty devoted to situations) and the nomothetic–narrative debate (where McAdams's model has achieved something close to disciplinary consensus, even if the wider discourse lags behind), the brain–environment debate remains genuinely open. There is no comparably settled resolution — only an active, ongoing argument about what form a resolution should take.

3. A Self-Life-Mind Analysis of the Three Debates

3.1 Units of Analysis and the Unit of Synthesis

The SLM framework, introduced in the first paper of this series, distinguishes two kinds of unit. A unit of synthesis is the indivisible whole — Self, Life, and Mind as inseparable aspects of one living reality. A person is never, in lived experience, a bare Self detached from Life, nor a Life unfolding without a Mind interpreting it, nor a Mind operating without a Self whose mind it is; the three are given together, and SLM treats this togetherness — not any one of the three terms alone — as the primary unit.

A unit of analysis, by contrast, is one of four operationalized cuts into that whole. Each unit is named container(contained): the outer term names the aspect exerting the shaping action, the inner term names the aspect being shaped. Life(Self) — where am I? — Life acts on Self, locating it within objective circumstances. Mind(Self) — where should I be? — Mind acts on Self, orienting it by norms and ideals. Mind(Life) — how do I see it? — Mind acts on Life, interpreting and constructing it. Life(Mind) — what does this call me to work on? — Life acts on Mind, feeding it material and setting its agenda. Each of the four units is a legitimate and useful cut; a research program organized around any one of them can generate real findings. What a unit of analysis cannot do, by construction, is stand in for the unit of synthesis it was cut from. Mind(Life) tells us how a person construes their circumstances without telling us how those circumstances are, in turn, reshaping what the mind is able to construe; Life(Self) tells us where a person objectively stands without telling us what that standing calls on them to think or do. The four units are partial views; the unit of synthesis is the whole they are views of.

These four are examples, not an exhaustive inventory. They are the paired, two-term cuts most directly relevant to the analysis that follows, but they are not the only way a unit of analysis can fall short of the unit of synthesis. A theory can also isolate a single term altogether — treating Self, Life, or Mind as a self-sufficient object of study with no paired term at all, rather than as one side of a container-contained relation. The sections that follow will encounter this more extreme case directly: classical trait theory treats Self alone, and evolutionary psychology treats Mind alone, neither one paired with anything. A single-term isolation of this kind is, in a sense, the most severe form a unit of analysis can take — not merely a partial cut of the whole, but a cut that drops two of the three terms entirely.

This distinction — units of analysis versus a unit of synthesis — is the vocabulary the following three sections use to revisit each of the debates reviewed in Part 2 in turn.

3.2 The Person–Situation Debate Revisited

The person–situation debate's history traces a single trajectory across the four units.

Classical trait theory, in its strong and historically decisive form — the form that provoked Mischel's challenge — is best described as a hypothesis about Self alone, held apart from Life rather than analyzed in relation to it. Its implicit answer to "who am I" is self-sufficient: whatever life circumstance a person is in, their behavior is the expression of a fixed disposition that belongs to Self and Self only. Life's variability is treated as noise surrounding a fixed signal, not as something that must be explained together with the signal. Self and Life are, on this construal, severed from the outset.

Mischel's situationist challenge, read through SLM, is not simply "situation matters more than trait." It is better understood as an insistence that Self cannot be analyzed while Life is held constant — that the low cross-situational consistency correlations are evidence of exactly this severing error. The challenge pulls the analysis back toward the Life(Self) unit: behavior must be understood as a function of how life circumstances locate the self, not as an expression of self in isolation.

CAPS's resolution can now be stated precisely. The if-then signature is not merely "a new unit"; it is the recognition that Life(Self) itself is the correct, integrated unit of analysis for personality. A person's personality just is the stable pattern of self-response across varying life circumstances, comprehended together — not two separable factors (a person-variable and a situation-variable) entered into a statistical interaction term, but one relational unit from the start.

The subsequent emergence of situational psychology as a dedicated research specialty then performs a further, and in some ways more revealing, move. Having established that situation deserves theoretical attention in its own right, this specialty does not remain within the integrated Life(Self) unit CAPS had achieved. It exits to the Life unit alone — building a taxonomy of situations (DIAMONDS) that describes life circumstances independent of any given self's traits, dispositions, or behavior. This is, in effect, a mirror-image repetition of trait theory's original error. Where trait theory isolated Self and set Life aside, situational psychology isolates Life and sets Self aside.

The symmetry is worth stating plainly: the debate's history moves from one decompositional error (Self alone), through a genuine resolution (Life(Self) as an integrated unit, via CAPS), and then drifts back into the opposite decompositional error (Life alone, via the specialized study of situations). The unit of analysis that actually resolves the dualism — Life(Self), held together — is neither of the two poles the debate has spent a century oscillating between.

3.3 The Nomothetic–Narrative Debate Revisited

Evolutionary psychology, in SLM terms, isolates Mind alone — not Mind acting on Self or on Life, but Mind treated as a self-standing universal architecture, prior to and independent of any given Self or any given Life circumstance. Its central claim is that mind consists of domain-specific modules shaped by natural selection, holding across every particular self and every particular life by virtue of a shared species history. This is a hypothesis about Mind alone, in exactly the sense that classical trait theory is a hypothesis about Self alone: both isolate one term of the SLM whole and treat the other two as irrelevant to what is essential about it.

Bruner's narrative mode does not perform a comparable isolating move. Where evolutionary psychology detaches Mind from Self and Life, Bruner's contribution works from within a unit that was never severed in the first place. His claim operates simultaneously across two directions: Mind(Life) — mind's interpretive, constructive engagement with life — is not homogeneous; it takes two irreducible forms, the paradigmatic and the narrative. And which form is called for is not fixed by Mind alone: it depends on Life(Mind) — how life's own dynamic, particular, temporally structured character feeds into and shapes which interpretive mode mind reaches for. A particular, historically situated event solicits narrative rather than paradigmatic construal precisely because of what that event, as a piece of a particular life, actually is. Bruner does not isolate a unit; he articulates the internal richness and bidirectionality of a unit — Mind(Life) together with Life(Mind) — that was already whole.

McAdams's resolution, read this way, is the only one of the three debates' resolutions that draws on more than two of SLM's units at once, and it does so through nesting rather than fusion. Dispositional traits are the domesticated remainder of evolutionary psychology's isolated Mind — the same universal-mechanism claim, demoted from a self-sufficient theory of personality to one layer within a larger structure. Characteristic adaptations sit at Life(Self) and Mind(Self) together: the situated goals and coping strategies a particular self forms in response to particular life circumstances, evaluated against internalized norms. Integrative life narratives are Mind(Life) and Life(Mind) jointly at work: the self's own narrative construction of its life, itself shaped by what that life has actually contained. McAdams's architecture is not a fusion of two isolated units into one, the way CAPS fuses Self-alone and Life-alone into Life(Self). It is a nesting of one isolated unit (Mind) inside a structure that already spans the remaining units. This is why McAdams's resolution, alone among the three, gestures toward something close to the full Self-Life-Mind unit of synthesis — not by naming it as such, and not by achieving full synthesis, but by achieving layered inclusion where the other two debates achieve, at best, a fusion of exactly two terms.

3.4 The Brain–Environment Debate Revisited

Classical cognitivism isolates Mind(Life) as a one-way directional unit — mind's construction of an internal model of the world — while denying that Life(Mind), the reverse direction, does any real constitutive work: environment supplies input, and the brain's internal computation does everything that matters. This is a partial isolation, distinct in kind from evolutionary psychology's isolation of Mind alone: cognitivism does not detach Mind from Life altogether, but it insists the relationship between them runs one way only, mind acting on life's data, never life acting back to constitute what mind is.

Gibson's ecological psychology and 4E cognition assert the missing direction. Affordances are perceived directly, Gibson argued, because the environment already contains, in its own structure, the action-possibilities an organism needs; there is no gap for internal representation to bridge. This is a claim that Life(Mind) is not merely real but constitutive: life's structure enters into and partly constitutes what cognition is, not merely what cognition happens to be about.

The Yinyang paper's resolution is, in this light, the least complete of the three. Where CAPS fuses two isolated units into a genuinely new one (Life(Self)), and McAdams nests one isolated unit inside an already broader, multi-unit structure, "perspectival complementarity" does not fuse or nest Mind(Life) and Life(Mind) at all. It leaves them as two separate, mutually irreducible units, each valid at its own level of analysis, without offering any single unit of synthesis that holds both together. This is consistent with the diagnosis in Part 2: the brain–environment debate remains the least resolved of the three, and the SLM analysis now shows precisely why. Its most recent proposed resolution is not a synthesis at all, but a disciplined agreement to keep switching between two units of analysis, neither reducible to the other and neither yet woven into a third.

3.5 Summary: Situation as a Unit of Analysis, Not of Synthesis

Read together, the three cases show that "situation," across all three debates, is without exception a unit-of-analysis concept, not a unit of synthesis — and a concept that, at different moments in each debate's history, gets pinned to a different single unit (Self alone, Life alone, Mind alone, Mind(Life), Life(Mind)) rather than ever being allowed to range across all four simultaneously. Each debate's most successful resolution moves toward — but never fully reaches — the complete unit of synthesis: CAPS fuses exactly two terms into one; McAdams nests one isolated term inside a broader but still incomplete structure; the brain–environment debate has not yet managed even a fusion, let alone a nesting.

Strategic action cannot be organized around a unit of analysis of this kind, because a strategic reading of one's position is, by definition, a reading that already holds Life(Self), Mind(Self), Mind(Life), and Life(Mind) together — where I am, where I should be, how I am construing it, and what it calls for me to do, comprehended in a single act rather than answered by four separate research literatures, or even by the partial fusions and nestings the most successful resolutions above have managed. What strategy requires, in SLM's own vocabulary, is not a better unit of analysis on the situation side of the ledger. It requires that the situation side be given a unit of synthesis of its own — something that stands to "where a person is" the way the SLM whole stands to "who a person is." This is precisely what none of the three debates in Part 2 has ever attempted to supply, even in their most sophisticated resolutions.

4. What the Comparison Reveals

4.1 The Anti-Dualist Heuristic as a Diagnostic Lens

Elsewhere in this body of work — in the analysis of Activity Theory's genidentity — a recurring coordination mechanism was identified across a century of theoretical development: each major contributor inherited a dualism, exposed its inadequacy, and resolved it by introducing a third element that transformed the binary opposition into an internally related whole. Two variants of this move were distinguished: neutral monism, in which a genuinely new third element is introduced (Vygotsky's mediation, Blunden's Project), and dual-aspect monism, in which the two poles are reframed as two perspectives on one underlying process (the Outside–Inside resolution via Engagement).

Applying this same lens to the three debates reviewed in Part 2 is instructive, because it reveals that psychology's various subfields have, largely without naming what they were doing, been performing exactly this operation — with uneven success.

The person–situation debate resolved through a neutral-monism move: CAPS's if-then signature is a genuinely new unit, not a perspective on person or on situation but a third thing — the pattern of covariation between them — that neither person-focused nor situation-focused analysis, on its own, could name. The nomothetic–narrative debate resolved through a structural move that is closer to nesting than to either pure variant: McAdams's three layers are not exactly two perspectives on one process (dual-aspect monism), nor exactly one new emergent unit (neutral monism), but a hierarchy in which the nomothetic layer becomes an internal moment within a larger narratively organized architecture. The brain–environment debate, still unresolved as a settled matter, is nonetheless being approached, in its most recent attempts, through a dual-aspect monism move — perspectival complementarity across levels of analysis.

4.2 A Gradient, Not Three Separate Problems

Placed side by side, the three debates form a gradient rather than three independent case studies. The person–situation debate is the most fully resolved, complete with a settled research specialty devoted to the situation side within personality and social psychology. The nomothetic–narrative debate has an academically consensual resolution that has not yet fully permeated the wider discourse. The brain–environment debate is the least resolved: a live, contested frontier where competing resolution strategies are still being tested against each other.

This gradient itself deserves attention. It suggests that psychology's various subfields are not randomly distributed with respect to the anti-dualist operation; they are at different points along the same developmental trajectory, working out the same underlying epistemological problem at different speeds and with different degrees of success.

4.3 The Shared Assumption None of Them Drops

But the more important finding is what the three debates share even in their most successful resolutions: none of them, at any point, drops the assumption that the external, situational, environmental pole can be — indeed, must be — approached by decomposition.

CAPS's if-then signature presupposes a taxonomy of situation types against which the pattern is measured — and situational psychology, once it became independent, produced exactly this taxonomy in the DIAMONDS framework, decomposing "situation" into eight orthogonal dimensions in direct structural mimicry of the Big Five. McAdams's characteristic-adaptations layer treats context as a set of situated goals and coping strategies, themselves decomposable and codeable. The predictive processing literature treats "environment" primarily as a source of sensory input whose statistical structure the organism's generative model is built to predict — environment as signal, decomposable into its statistical regularities.

In other words: even the discipline's most sophisticated resolutions of its internal dualisms have resolved the person side of the equation into something richer and more holistic (an if-then signature, a three-layer self-narrative architecture, a whole embodied organism), while leaving the situation/environment side of the equation in its original, decomposable, variable-based form. The dualism has been repeatedly re-fought and partially won on the side of the person; it has never been fought at all on the side of the situation.

5. Why "Strategy" Has No Home in Psychology

5.1 An Operational Word, Not a Theoretical Concept

Before proceeding, a distinction needs to be made precise, because "strategy" is in fact an extremely common word in the psychological literature — which makes the claim of this section easy to misread. Coping strategies, learning strategies, emotion-regulation strategies, negotiation strategies, intervention strategies: the word appears constantly, across clinical, cognitive, developmental, and social psychology alike. The claim here is not that psychology lacks the word strategy, or even that it lacks well-developed operational uses of it.

The claim is narrower and more specific: in every one of these ordinary uses, "strategy" functions as an operational label for a specific technique or behavior pattern — a named item in an inventory (a particular coping strategy, a particular study strategy), measured, taxonomized, and correlated with outcomes, exactly the way a decomposed situational variable is measured, taxonomized, and correlated with outcomes. What psychology has never developed is strategy as a core theoretical concept — a construct with the same standing as emotion, cognition, or personality: something with its own structure, its own units of analysis, its own developmental account, capable of organizing a research program in the way "emotion" organizes affective science or "personality" organizes trait research. There is no theory of strategy in the sense that there is a theory of emotion or a theory of personality; there is only a long list of context-specific strategies, each studied on its own operational terms.

This is precisely what the asymmetry identified in Section 4.3 predicts. An operational label can be attached to any decomposed variable — a situational cue, a coping response, a study technique — without ever requiring the holistic, non-decomposable unit that a genuine theory of strategy would need as its object. Psychology's fluency with "strategy" as an operational word, and its complete absence of "strategy" as a theoretical concept, are two sides of the same fact.

The consequence extends beyond psychology's own disputes. Strategy is the central, defining object of study in several other fields — strategic management, military theory, organizational development, personal development — each of which has built substantial bodies of theory or practice around it. When these fields look to psychology for a systematic, theoretically grounded account of strategy as a psychological phenomenon — how a person actually perceives, holds, and acts from a strategic understanding of their own position — there is nothing of comparable depth for them to draw on. Psychology can supply fragments: a coping-strategy inventory here, a decision-making bias there. It cannot supply a theory of what it means, psychologically, to grasp one's own situation strategically. This is the gap Strategic Developmental Psychology is built to fill.

5.2 Strategy Requires a Global Unit

Part 3 established, using SLM's own vocabulary and revisiting all three debates in turn, exactly what is missing on the situation side of the ledger. "Situation" is a unit-of-analysis concept, not a unit of synthesis, in every debate reviewed in Part 2 — pinned, at different moments in each debate's history, to a single one of SLM's units (Self alone, Life alone, Mind alone, or a one-directional Mind(Life)/Life(Mind) split) rather than allowed to range across all four together. Even the most successful resolutions only partially close this gap: CAPS fuses exactly two terms; McAdams nests one isolated term inside a broader but still incomplete structure; the brain–environment debate has achieved neither.

Strategic action cannot be organized around a unit of analysis of this kind, because a strategic reading of one's position holds Life(Self), Mind(Self), Mind(Life), and Life(Mind) together in a single act — where I am, where I should be, how I am construing it, and what it calls for me to do — rather than answered by four separate research literatures. What strategy requires is not a better unit of analysis on the situation side of the ledger. It requires that the situation side be given a unit of synthesis of its own — something that stands to "where a person is" the way the SLM whole stands to "who a person is." This is precisely what none of the three debates in Part 2 has ever attempted to supply, even in their most sophisticated resolutions.

5.3 Strategy Requires a Potential Dimension

A second requirement compounds the first. Even a synthesized reading of one's present standing is not, by itself, sufficient for strategic action, because strategy is inherently oriented toward the future: it is a way of acting now in light of possibilities not yet actual. This requirement has a precedent inside psychology's own history — Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development explicitly distinguished a person's actual developmental level from their potential developmental level, arguing that development itself is best understood in terms of the gap between the two. Aristotle's classical distinction between dynamis (potentiality) and energeia (actuality) supplies the deeper philosophical grounding for the same move: potentiality is not nothingness but a real mode of being, and development is the ongoing actualization of what is, for now, only latent.

But this potential–actual distinction, where it has appeared in psychology, has almost always been applied within the Self layer — a person's developmental level, their capacities, their traits-in-potential. It has almost never been applied to the synthesized standing itself — the Life(Self)/Mind(Self)/Mind(Life)/Life(Mind) whole discussed in Part 3. That whole is not simply a fixed state of affairs to be read off; it, too, has a potential dimension — relationships not yet activated, positions not yet occupied, meanings not yet drawn out, thematic possibilities not yet pursued. A theory of strategy needs a unit of synthesis for standing that is itself internally structured by a potential/actual distinction, not merely a concept of a person whose potential is measured against an externally given, already-actual situation.

5.4 The Missing Concept, Named

Put together, the diagnosis is this: psychology has never developed a proper theoretical concept of strategy because it has never developed (a) a unit of synthesis for a person's overall standing, comparable to the unit of synthesis SLM proposes for the self, and (b) a way of treating that unit itself — not just the person facing it — as containing a potential dimension awaiting actualization. Every one of the three debates reviewed in Part 2, even in its most successful resolution, leaves both of these gaps in place. This is the precise theoretical space that Strategic Developmental Psychology is built to occupy.

It is worth being precise about what SLM itself can and cannot do at this point. As a meta-framework, SLM's contribution is exactly the diagnosis just stated: it supplies the vocabulary (units of analysis versus unit of synthesis) that makes the gap visible, and it generates the heuristic requirement that a theory of strategy must meet. SLM is deliberately content-neutral — it does not itself specify what the missing unit of synthesis for standing should be built from, any more than it specifies the content of a healthy belief system. Naming that unit, and committing to a specific theoretical account of it, is the work of a substantive theory operating underneath SLM's heuristic questions. That theory is SDP.

6. SDP's Answer: From Situation to Gejunction

6.1 Two Words, One Confusion

Part 5 established, at the level of SLM's heuristic vocabulary, what a theory of strategy requires: a unit of synthesis for a person's overall standing, itself internally structured by a potential/actual distinction. SLM, being a content-neutral meta-framework, stops there. It does not, and by design cannot, commit to what that unit of synthesis actually is — in the same way that, in the previous paper of this series, SLM did not itself specify what belief systems are made of, only what questions a theory of belief systems must answer. Naming the unit is the task of a substantive theoretical position, and Strategic Developmental Psychology is exactly that: not a further meta-framework alongside SLM, but a theory prepared to commit.

Before naming the unit, though, it is worth being explicit about why "situation" itself — the word, not just the methodology attached to it — has to be set aside rather than simply redefined. Three reasons converge.

The first follows directly from the person–situation debate's own history, traced in Part 3.2. Situational psychology, even in its most independent-minded form, never broke from the decompositional method it inherited from the trait psychology it was reacting against — it rebelled in content while remaining, methodologically, a direct descendant. This means "situation," as a word, now carries a specific disciplinary lineage: in psychology, it is bound tightly to the person–situation debate and to a research program built on decomposing circumstances into measurable, orthogonal dimensions. A concept built to serve strategy research cannot simply borrow this word and mean something else by it; the word's working history in the field would keep pulling it back toward the very method a theory of strategy needs to leave behind.

The second reason is that "situation," in English, is asked to do the work of two different Chinese concepts at once. 情境 (qingjing) names the local, piecemeal surround — the register the North American psychology of situations operates in exclusively, down to the DIAMONDS taxonomy. 处境 (chujing) names one's overall, holistic standing — a sense qingjing-based situational psychology has never captured, because its methodological commitments make chujing structurally invisible to it. A theory of strategy needs both concepts — a person does need to register local cues as well as read their overall standing — but it is chujing, not qingjing, that does the heavier theoretical work for strategy, for exactly the reasons given in Part 5: strategy requires the global, potential-bearing unit that only chujing, not qingjing, can supply.

The third reason is narrower but decisive: even granting the qingjing/chujing distinction, chujing cannot simply be glossed in English as "situation, but the holistic kind," because translating chujing back into English collapses it into the very word — situation — whose disciplinary lineage and qingjing-only history created the confusion in the first place. A distinction that exists in Chinese but disappears the moment it crosses into English is not a stable foundation for a theoretical concept meant to travel.

For these three reasons together, SDP does not propose "chujing" or "predicament-as-standing" as its working term, but introduces a new one: Gejunction. The term is coined from the Chinese 格局 (ge-ju). 格 carries the sense of 格物 — investigation, the disciplined examination of a thing to discern its structure. 局 carries the sense of a configuration, a state of affairs, a position in an unfolding situation — as in 局势 (the shape of affairs) or 局面 (the configuration in play). As a noun, 格局 names the configuration itself — the standing a person occupies. But 格局 can also be read as a verb, 格-局: to actively discern, investigate, and read the configuration one is in. This dual sense — a noun naming the standing, and a verb naming the act of grasping it — is precisely what a theory of strategy needs a single term to hold together, and it is what neither "situation" nor "chujing" written in English can carry.

SDP's answer, then, begins with a distinction the English word "situation" collapses but Chinese preserves: qingjing, the local, piecemeal surround — the register every debate in Part 2 has operated in — and chujing, one's overall, holistic standing — the unit of synthesis Part 5 showed to be missing. Every debate reviewed in Part 2 has, in effect, been conducted entirely in the register of qingjing, because the discipline's dominant methodological commitments — operationalization, measurement, decomposition into independent variables — are commitments that qingjing satisfies and chujing structurally resists. A chujing cannot be decomposed into orthogonal dimensions without ceasing to be a chujing; decomposition is precisely the operation that converts a standing back into a set of situational cues.

This is not a merely terminological point. It is SDP's theoretical commitment, not a further elaboration of SLM's meta-framework, that chujing should not be added as a fourth item to the existing methodological toolkit, alongside DIAMONDS or the if-then signature, but should instead be given a genuinely different kind of unit, under a genuinely new name — one that is synthesized rather than decomposed from the outset.

6.2 Gejunction as a Unit of Synthesis

Gejunction (格局) is that unit. As developed in the companion note Creation Note: Gejunction: Toward a Unit of Synthesis for Social Life, a Gejunction is explicitly not a unit obtained through decomposition and analysis. It is a unit constituted through the synthesis of multiple dimensions of social life at once — the basic configuration a person is standing inside at a given moment, apprehended as a whole rather than assembled from parts.

This makes Gejunction the direct theoretical answer to the gap identified in Part 3 and Section 5.2. Where DIAMONDS asks "what dimensions describe this situation," Gejunction asks "what is the whole configuration this person is standing inside" — and refuses, by design, to answer the second question by first answering the first. A Gejunction is chujing given theoretical precision.

6.3 The Four Aspects of a Gejunction

A single Gejunction shows a different face depending on which analytical vocabulary one approaches it with — and these four faces are not four separate things requiring their own decomposition, but four ways of describing one and the same synthesized whole:

• As a RelationField, it is a structure of Subject–Subject (Subject–Object) relations — who a person stands in relation to, and how.
• As a Living Coordinate, it is a position within the person's own developmental territory — where a person is, in the sense their own life-history gives that question.
• As a Weave-point, it is a symbolic site where concepts, narratives, values, and meanings become woven together within a broader symbolic universe.
• As a Thematic Space, it is a cognitive container where attention, interest, and commitment become organized around a theme.

These four aspects are not separate entities. They are four analytical perspectives on the same social unit.

A Gejunction appears as a Thematic Space when viewed from a thematic perspective. It appears as a Weave-point when viewed from a symbolic perspective. It appears as a Relationfield when viewed from a relational perspective. It appears as a Living Coordinate when viewed from a territorial perspective.

The ontological foundation of this formulation is the HLS Framework. Within HLS, social life unfolds across four interconnected dimensions: Symbolic Universe, Thematic Space, Social Landscape, and Social Territory. Gejunction does not belong exclusively to any one of these dimensions. Instead, it emerges at their intersection.

For this reason, Gejunction should not be understood as a static structure. It is continually generated and transformed through four mechanisms:

• Mental Moves
• Generative Narratives
• Social Moves
• Strategic Curation

These mechanisms contribute to the ongoing formation of thematic spaces, weave-points, relationfields, and living coordinates. Together they explain how agency and structure become intertwined within social life.

6.4 Gejunction and the Four Action Opportunities

Section 5.3 identified a second requirement: a theory of strategy needs the standing itself, not only the person, to carry a potential dimension. Gejunction meets this requirement by connecting directly to the four positive frontiers already developed within the Ecological Practice Approach: Affordance, Supportance, Attachance, and Curativity. Each names a type of ecological opportunity — a latent, not-yet-actual possibility for action — that a given Gejunction makes available to a person positioned to perceive it. Strategic action, on this account, is precisely the actualization of one or more of these opportunities within a specific, comprehended Gejunction: not a reaction to a situational cue, but a move made in full view of one's overall standing, toward a possibility that standing has made available but has not yet realized.

This is where the Aristotelian and Vygotskian potential–actual distinction, discussed in Section 5.3, finds its proper home. It is not merely a fact about the person's developmental level, measured against an externally fixed situation. It is a fact about the Gejunction itself: every standing a person occupies contains both actualized and merely potential relations, positions, meanings, and themes, and strategic capacity is the capacity to read a Gejunction well enough to see which of its latent possibilities are worth actualizing, and how.

7. Conclusion

7.1 SLM's Diagnosis and SDP's Answer

As in the two preceding papers of this series, the contribution here divides cleanly along the line between meta-framework and substantive theory. SLM's contribution is a structural diagnosis, not a new empirical finding about situations: three of psychology's most consequential internal debates share a single unresolved dualism, and even their most sophisticated resolutions have repeatedly enriched the person-side of the equation while leaving the situation-side locked into a decompositional method it has never actually questioned.

SLM further shows, through its own vocabulary of units of analysis versus a unit of synthesis, exactly what shape an adequate answer would need to take. But SLM, being content-neutral, does not supply that answer. SDP does: a distinction, already present but under-theorized in ordinary language (qingjing versus chujing), given precise theoretical form through the concept of Gejunction — a unit of synthesis rather than of analysis, internally structured by a potential–actual dimension via its connection to the four action opportunities.

7.2 Summary of the Argument

Three of psychology's most consequential internal debates — person–situation, nomothetic–narrative, brain–environment — share a single unresolved axis: internal stability versus external, situational dependency. Even their most successful resolutions have repeatedly enriched the person side of the equation while leaving the situation side locked into a decompositional method never seriously questioned.

This asymmetry is the direct explanation for why psychology has no proper theoretical concept of strategy: strategic action requires a holistic, non-decomposable reading of one's overall standing, and it requires that standing itself — not only the person facing it — to carry a potential dimension awaiting actualization.

Gejunction, as a unit of synthesis rather than of analysis, and as a concept internally structured by its connection to the four action opportunities of Affordance, Supportance, Attachance, and Curativity, is offered here as the concept that meets both requirements at once.

References

Buss, D. M. (2019). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (6th ed.). Routledge.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.

Candeloro, G., Napolione, A., Tolone, O., & Sacco, P. (2026). The Yinyang of cognition: Predictive processing and enactivism as perspectival complementarity. University G. d'Annunzio of Chieti-Pescara. SSRN.

Ding, O. (2026a). Creation Note: Gejunction: Toward a Unit of Synthesis for Social Life. Activity Analysis Center. https://www.activityanalysis.net

Ding, O. (2026b). SDP: Two Diagrams about the Self-Life-Mind Schema. Activity Analysis Center. https://www.activityanalysis.net/self-life-mind/

Ding, O. (2026c). SDP: Revisiting the "Self" Issue from the Self-Life-Mind Perspective. Activity Analysis Center. https://www.activityanalysis.net/the-self-issue/

Ding, O. (2026d). SDP: Revisiting the "Belief" Issue from the Self-Life-Mind Perspective. Activity Analysis Center. https://www.activityanalysis.net/the-belief-issue/

Ding, O. (2026e). World of Life: Four Positive Frontiers of Project Engagement. Activity Analysis Center. https://www.activityanalysis.net/world-of-life-four-positive-frontiers-of-project-engagement/

Ding, O. (2026f). Supportive Self-Actualization as Anticipatory Activity. Activity Analysis Center. https://www.activityanalysis.net/supportive-self-actualization/

Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 83(5), 956–974.

Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 83–87.

McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality, 63(3), 365–396.

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61(3), 204–217.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. Wiley.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246–268.

Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (Eds.). (2020). The Oxford handbook of psychological situations. Oxford University Press.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

v1.0 — July 5, 2026