Theory is often invoked as a moral or political gesture - a means of resistance, enlightenment, or critique, especially in dark times. Yet such invocations often rest on the assumption that theory stands outside the very social conditions it seeks to explain. This talk proposes a different view: theory itself is an operation of observation within the social system of science. Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory (Luhmann, 2020a, 2020b), it argues that psychological theories do not merely describe human reality but construct it through their own distinctions, such as normal/pathological, rational/irrational, or resilient/vulnerable. These distinctions are communicative acts through which psychology organizes its visibility - and its blindness.

Against the backdrop of the current theory crisis in psychology (Eronen & Bringmann, 2021; Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019), the problem lies not in a lack of models but in a blindness to the very forms of observation through which psychological knowledge is produced. This blindness is not a deficit but the necessary shadow of observation itself – the darkness theory constructs in order to see. It becomes visible in contemporary narrative discourses, where stories themselves function as psychological and social categories that distribute meaning, responsibility, and truth. When we speak of “true” or “false” narratives - about resilience, climate, or war - psychology itself participates in the political production of truth. In dark times, observing this darkness may be the most political act theory can perform.

References

Eronen, M. I. & Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The Theory Crisis in Psychology: How to Move Forward. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970586

Luhmann, N. (2020a). Theory of Society, Volume 1. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804786478

Luhmann, N. (2020b). Theory of Society, Volume 2. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804787277-fm

Oberauer, K. & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(5), 1596–1618. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2