I find accounts that try to reconcile the two approaches unconvincing. Andy Clark tries to do this and his books and articles suffer greatly for it. There's no reason you couldn't combine the two, of course, but the problem is coming up with a reason why somebody would hang on to representationalism if it's no longer "the only game in town." Representationalism/computationalism is unmotivated by evidence, creates more problems than it explains and is biologically-implausible. If you have alternative explanations without these problems then I fail to see why you wouldn't use them.

Hmm, in what alternative approach do the 100 behaviors not interact?