ABSTRACT
Psychoanalysis seems poised in its theoretical stance between two worlds. The first is that of our classical theory—one that is based on the principles of all natural science, one that is familiar, has served us well, and yet one that is periodically attacked for its mechanical and outdated models. The other position is less clear. It ranges from simple efforts to rid us of psychic energy and similar concepts to those elaborate and detailed endeavors that urge analysis to abandon all scientific pretense and/or to establish itself as a discipline similar to history or even art. This latter stance is, more often than not, felt to be of passing interest to analytic scholars but rarely seems to be of much clinical importance. Somewhere in between is a position of examining new, but still essentially scientific, alternative theoretical positions. Self psychology may offer us such an opportunity. Of course, only when clinical necessity demands a modification of theory should a tried and tested way of looking at things be reexamined and should alternative theoretical outlooks be entertained. In the evolution of any new theory, we see a time during which parallel use of the old theory usually precedes replacement. Theories are not fighting it out for the truth, but rather are vying over maximum usefulness. Only the exercise of a theory allows one to make reasonable choices, and only a flexible approach allows one to be objective.
