The origins of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder a

THE ORIGINS OF NARCISSISM 45
the same phenomena according to their preferred theoretical constructs;
(b) sampling bias, with Kernberg having treated more disturbed narcissists
and Kohut having treated healthier individuals; and (c) interview
bias resulting from differences between Kernberg’s confrontational
stance and Kohut’s more empathic approach. Of these, the firstparadigm
clash-is by far the most important.
Because sampling and interview biases follow from paradigmatic
assumptions, thoughtful research technique and design can control for
the last two factors only to some extent. The belief that complex theoretical
controversies can be resolved simply by appeals to supposedly
objective data, as if data could be collected independent of the means
of observation used and the research questions asked, or as if scientific
knowledge could exist without some process of interpretation, is untenable
(e.g., Grunbaum, 1984; Lakatos, 1970; Manicas & Secord, 1983;
Putnam, 1990). Contrary to the arguments of several highly sophisticated
thinkers in the tradition of Dilthey (e.g., Habermas, 1968/1971;
Ricoeur, 1970; Schafer, 1976), the well-intentioned attempt to rescue
the social sciences from positivism and reductionism by characterizing
them as sciences of understanding or interpretation, rather than of
explanation, fails because it inaccurately characterizes natural sciences
as objective or noninterpretative. Instead of permitting less rigorous
standards of evidence in fields like psychoanalysis or psychology, a
more cogent view therefore rejects positivism as an inadequate epistemology
not only for the social sciences but for the natural sciences
as well. Because all scientific knowledge is to some extent interpretative,
the claim that psychoanalysis is only a hermeneutic and not also an
empirical discipline really amounts to a rejection of the means by which
scientists attempt to contain the influence of their interpretative biases.
Reports and paraphrases of patient communications are just as dependent
upon the investigator’s theoretical presuppositions as are the
data of empirical studies but usually are gathered without observational
controls and without the possibility for public critique, revision, or
replication of findings.
A lack of investigative controls is one reason, among others, that
Grunbaum (1984) has argued that the validation of psychoanalytic
theories requires extraclinical studies. Although transcripts of psychotherapeutic
and psychoanalytic sessions likely also constitute adequate
data sources for testing psychoanalytic hypotheses (Edelson, 1984; Luborsky
& Spence, 1978), the continued appeal to uncontrolled case