This paper is based on an exploratory study. It provides preliminary information about how some analysts in the United States think about theory, specifically theory in relation to dreams, in the current climate of theoretical diversity. I use analysts' theoretical and clinical approaches to dream material to illustrate the diversity and inconsistency of ideas and techniques among analysts identifying themselves with a particular theoretical school. I provide some examples of the relatively loose correspondence between the espoused theory and practice demonstrated in the work of individual analysts. Despite an increased acceptance of pluralism of ideas among many analysts, there are reasons why theory, and often a specific theory, remains important for them. I offer some ideas about why theory remains so important.