You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
It is a truism that a hypothesis cannot be evaluated unless it is understood. It is less immediately obvious that intelligent understanding of any contribution to theory demands not only understanding of the hypothesis itself and of the grounds for it, but also the establishment of perspective in regard to it, preferably, in the first place, historical perspective. This is especially important in the case of theories that appear strikingly new or revolutionary. In such instances a comparative study of the new and the old will serve to bring out not only what is really original in the new, but also the relationship between the new and the old. It will establish the nature and direction of positive advance and at the same time bring to light any special angle of approach or change of emphasis involved in it, that, if unrecognized, might lead to extremism or to the premature discarding of older proven values better retained. The establishment of historical perspective is thus a useful safeguard against actual or potential negative values in new contributions. It appears to the writer that a comparative study of the essentials of the theory of 'internalized objects' with special reference to depression might help to advance mutual understanding in a region at present highly controversial.2 Such a study might at least tend towards an ultimate harmonious integration of theory, even