All philosophers are generalists. I'm not sure, though, the distinction between generalities and specialization addresses the question of the relevance or scope of the physicist's vocabulary. I mean, it's a bit of a dodge. The issue isn't just the breadth of certain vocabularies, but whether there are emergent properties here in minds and soceities that call for the special sciences.

We can miss the wood for the trees, but we can also miss the trees for the wood. It's hard to tell, then, whether your explanations should be considered scientific or metaphorical.

In any case, the shift in perspective and the juxtaposition of these contexts (physics and society) are interesting.