Problems of Methodology and Theory Construction in Psychoanalysis

The interest in psychoanalytic theory construction and validation has varied widely. Among those working in the behavioral sciences there appears to be a continuum from those working on psychoanalytic theory to the group that regards anything connected with theory as a waste of time and effort. Even strictly within the group of psychoanalysts themselves there is often a negative attitude taken toward theory with the attitude of “why bother with theory if psychoanalytic therapy works,” a conclusion which some question in its own right. This attitude is an excellent illustration of the mechanism of isolation as the daily application of techniques and methods is well separated from attempts to evaluate and re-examine theoretical concepts. There is a failure to grasp the implications of general (psychological) concepts as distinguished from the special (clinical) concepts. The resulting confusion may often lead to the belief that nothing more is needed for a psychological theory than empirical laws with a distrust of hypotheses as “too speculative;” this has been referred to by Feigl as “hypothesis phobia.”6 Much of this confusion is undoubtedly due to the problem of identity psychoanalysis has in functioning both as a method of therapy and as a psychological theory. Unless otherwise specified, we will be concerned with theory construction in this paper and not specific therapeutic techniques and maneuvers.

The first part of this paper will deal with the formal aspects of some crucial concepts in psychoanalytic theory, such as the unconscious, instincts and libido. This will involve attempts at definitions