How Do We Use Theory Now? Commentary on Paper by Melanie Suchet

Melanie Suchet's frank and engaging paper exemplifies a narrative-based discourse that is gaining prominence in the analytic literature. Eschewing any definition of terms, this discourse appropriates a wide array of analytic concepts to support a narration of co-creation of meaning and self-restoration in the clinical encounter. I examine a portion of the clinical case material to highlight some perceived pitfalls that arise from an uncritical and unsystematic use of theory. A particular pitfall is revealed in the way the author, while jettisoning the constraints of orthodox clinical theories, ends up overvaluing a singular explanatory model, thus unwittingly imposing a top-heavy, over-saturated interpretation on the clinical material. This unexamined theoretical bias leaves it unclear what should constitute the data of analytic observation: While ascribing crucial explanatory significance to socio-political narratives, which lead the analyst to feel that historical guilt over intercommunal conflicts must actually be redressed in the patient–analyst relationship, the author nevertheless pays little attention in the report to guilt dynamics arising from actual conflict in the here-and-now of the therapeutic encounter. Conceptual disarray is particularly noticeable in the confusion between identity and identification—that is, between a relatively fixed and consciously symbolized identity narrative, and something unconsciously taken on as a transient identification.