The Strawman Cometh

In their opening paragraph, the Richards pose two important questions: (1) Does theory have technical consequences? and (2) Can theories be compared? Their article gives an affirmative answer to both questions. I would ask a different question: Can theories and their technical consequences be compared fair-mindedly by avid adherents to one of the theories being compared? After reading the Richards' article, I must answer with a resounding “No!” My own orientation, intersubjectivity theory, has long maintained that psychoanalytic theories are psychological products reflecting the subjective concerns of their creators and that every psychoanalytic investigator is an inseparable part of the field he or she seeks to investigate (Atwood and Stolorow, 1993). The Richards can no more assess the psychoanalytic landscape objectively than can Reed (1987), whose pronouncements about self psychology the Richards cite approvingly and uncritically.

A common strategy employed by defenders of a theoretical orthodoxy against criticisms offered by proponents of an alternative viewpoint is to accuse the critics of erecting and then demolishing straw men. The Richards, both in their current article and in an earlier book review (Richards, 1992), make ample use of this strategy. It may come as a surprise to some that, upon reflection, I see some limited validity in the Richards' charge as it applies to my own work. I think there is a tendency for those who offer an alternative perspective to simplify earlier viewpoints in order to sharpen the differences between the old and the new and highlight the advantages of the latter over the former. A beneficial consequence of this simplifying tendency for the advancement of theory is that it brings into bold relief fundamental differences in scientific paradigm. For example, although it is true, as the Richards rightfully claim, that numerous