ABSTRACT
Contemporary researchers tend to invoke psychoanalytic theories to support the view of personality functioning as a “unitary capacity” involving “psychological maturity.” In this piece, I argue against this false equivalence by raising three points. First, I show that psychoanalysis is not a homogenous discipline that converged on a shared developmental ontology, but rather a deeply heterogenous tradition marked, if anything, by persistent disagreement. Second, I briefly review commonly-cited psychoanalytic theories (including classic Freudian, ego psychological, and object relational theories) to illustrate how none of them supports the view of personality functioning as a “unitary capacity.” Third, I argue that the origins of the construct “personality functioning” are rooted more in descriptive empirical findings rather than traditional psychoanalytic perspectives. Finally, I conclude by suggesting that researchers should stop flattening psychoanalytic theory to support their “unitary” perspective and should instead conduct rigorous empirical tests to determine whether there is any merit in their otherwise theoretically empty viewpoint.