ABSTRACT
Phil Cohen (1992) writes that ‘most theories have a strong, if disavowed, autobiographical element in them’ and ‘most of the general theories have rested on a very slender and sometimes non-existent, empirical base’. But what if the autobiographical element is made to stand in a clearer light and the general seen to be very particular indeed, what then? Sherry Turkle (1992) argued about the mixing of personal and theoretical in the psychoanalyst, that the idea that the analyst who is revealed to have particular problems in a specific area (the most notable being Melanie Klein’s relationship with her daughter, highlighted by the play about her) must be said to be biased, her vision clouded by pathology. Instead, Turkle argues that indeed, her very difficulties in this area made her especially sensitive to the issues involved. Of course, aspects of her personal biography drove her obsessions, but this had to be understood as quite opposite from the idea that this perverted and distorted an objective search for scientific truth. It was precisely what she knew, was sensitive to, had problems with, that gave her work strength in a particular direction.
