About Theory

Freud (1896, p. 204), once wrote a passage illustrating, without realizing it until years later, that his own strongly held theory about seduction was seriously distorting his interpretation of the clinical psychoanalytic data (Sadow et. al., 1968). Even Ernest Jones wrote on this occasion that Freud's efforts showed “less psychological insight than we are accustomed to… [from him]” (1953, p. 264). Yet if Freud, at the height of his creative powers, could err in this manner, imagine how much easier for most of us to succumb to errors of observation based on the intrusion of theory. As the great French neuropsychiatrist and teacher of Freud, Jean Martin Charcot, cautioned, theory is fine, but it doesn't keep facts from existing!

This vignette provides an effective starting point for examining the vicissitudes of theory: what theory is about, what the word might mean and its history, and what makes theorizing and observing activities in analysis so treacherous for the unwary. My concept of “theory” makes use of an evolutionary, developmental perspective. I also attempt to link these thoughts about theory to the work of John Gedo, especially his use of theory in his epigenetic model.

The American Heritage Dictionary definition of theory is “a general principle, formula, or ideal construction offered to explain phenomena and rendered more or less plausible by evidence in the facts or by the exactness and relevancy of the reasoning.” A second definition in the same source is “a hypothesis offered on the basis of thought on a given subject; loosely, any idea, guess, etc. put forward to be accepted or rejected in seeking the explanation of some condition or occurrence.” Implicitly and explicitly, both these definitions suggest a close connection between theory and evidence. Yet it is at this interface that many of the problems specific to our field occur, as I attempt to describe.

As a general rule, analytic theories seem to linger on long after contravening evidence has been