Abstract

This dissertation examines the contentious debate within psychology and society today concerning the psychotherapeutic practice of recovering "repressed" memories of child abuse. Participants in the "recovered memory movement" share the view that uncovering hidden memories of child abuse is an essential step toward healing and well-being. Therapists who focus on past abuse acknowledge the moral and practical commitments that motivate their work. But they insist that their methods reveal reliable historical truths about their patients' lives. Skeptics and critics accuse these practitioners of being ideologically motivated rather than being committed to sound scientific practice. Critics contend that some therapists are manipulating and "emotionally crippling" their patients by creating false memories of child abuse. ;This controversy highlights the existence of deficiencies in the current scientific understanding of human memory, in our grasp of the complex process of psychotherapy, and in our ability to untangle the intermixture of fact and value in current psychological theory. The dissertation links the recovered memory controversy with the broader debates in the social sciences concerning the nature of knowledge and the role of cultural and moral values in social inquiry. The relative merits of both mainstream scientific or naturalistic approaches and newer social constructionist viewpoints are discussed. The need for a perspective beyond the objectivizing stance of naturalism and the relativizing stance of constructionism is highlighted. It is argued that a broad hermeneutic or interpretative social science framework offers a promising metatheory for sorting out the key issues in the memory debate. In turn, a better understanding of what is at stake in this controversy may shed valuable light on the broader questions about the nature of modern psychology and its contribution to our society