"The unity of science" has been a traditional rallying point for both philosophers and scientists. However, in the last quarter-century, this image of unified science has lost its previously compelling nature. Yet there are very good reasons to defend a constructivist version of unificationism and reject the fashionable image of science depicted by the realist disunificationists. Specifically, realist disunificationists align "the natural" and "the normative" in such a way as to allow scientists to avoid their social responsibilities. The sections of this chapter are divided to explain how the image of disunity has come to eclipse that of unity and then to suggest some ways out of that predicament: (1) The unificationist project is described by its opponents, who are often also its historians. In this context, the leading images of unity are misrecognized and sometimes perversely interpreted. (2) The problem of unifying the sciences is nowadays displaced by other philosophical debates — especially realism versus constructivism — that are considered to be more fundamental. (3) Unificationism has been generally more persuasive as a program for the reformation than the legitimation of the sciences. We live in a period when philosophers happily "underlabor" for the sciences, a role too modest for the legislative ambitions of the various calls for unity. Finally, in section (4), I discuss some ways of turning the tide back toward unificationism.