Lindon J A
UCLA School of Medicine.
Bull Menninger Clin. 1991 Winter;55(1):30-7.
In response to Gabbard's paper, "Do We Need Theory?" the author disputes the suggestion that his early therapeutic successes were theory-specific. He also takes issue with the view that "the analyst's personality is a constant," emphasizing instead the continual fluidity of an effective analytic relationship. While agreeing that atheoreticism is itself a theory, the author differentiates between the universal presence of content as defined by formal psychoanalytic metapsychological theory (e.g., primary instinctual envy, the Oedipus complex) and the centrality of affect attunement that illuminates developmental processes. He cautions therapists to guard against believing that they know "objective reality," and he urges them to assume a "know-nothing" position conducive to eliciting each patient's psychic reality.
针对加巴德的论文《我们需要理论吗？》，作者对其早期治疗成功是特定于理论的这一观点提出质疑。他还对“分析师的个性是恒定不变的”这一观点表示异议，而是强调有效分析关系的持续流动性。虽然作者同意无理论主义本身就是一种理论，但他区分了由正统精神分析元心理学理论所定义的内容的普遍存在（例如，原发性本能嫉妒、俄狄浦斯情结）与阐明发展过程的情感协调的核心地位。他告诫治疗师要谨防认为自己了解“客观现实”，并敦促他们采取一种“一无所知”的立场，这种立场有助于引出每个患者的心理现实。
