It is well known that it is harder to integrate conflicting insights across disparate disciplines than similar ones. In this article, I focus on the relation between economics, which is dominated by views that one could characterize as "pro-capitalist," and English, which is dominated by views that one could characterize as "anti-capitalist." It is crucial to examine this specific pair of disciplines because each has recently shown an apparent increased interest in the other, but without seriously challenging their own dominant views. I consider why current attempts at interdisciplinarity between economics and English have been inadequate. Whereas one might attribute this conflict mainly to the gap between economics' quantitative methods and English's traditionally qualitative ones, I find instead that differing assumptions are more important than differing methods in explaining conflicting insights between those in these two fields. Each discipline's interest in the other's concepts or methods remains superficial, falling short of deep engagement with the other in a way that truly challenges its own assumptions. To chart a possible way out of this impasse, I identify four key areas in which those in economics and English harbor conflicting assumptions about capitalism that undergird each discipline's internal consensus and suggest how to apply Allen F. Repko's and Rick Szostak's (2021) tools of integration to those assumptions. I find that different combinations of integrative techniques such as redefinition, transformation, organization, and extension are likely to work better at yielding common ground on some sets of assumptions than others. My goal is not to accomplish full integration, nor do I take it for granted that such integration is ultimately possible. Rather, I want to set an agenda and hone a toolset for integration without preconceptions about how this effort at integration will turn out. I conclude with a reflection on obstacles to integration and how researchers might try to overcome them.