Tag: BPS: British Psychoanalytical Society

Who was Wilfred Bion?

Published on by Andrew Marshall1 Comment

Introduction

Wilfred Ruprecht Bion DSO (08 September 1897 to 08 November 1979) was an influential English psychoanalyst, who became president of the British Psychoanalytical Society from 1962 to 1965.

Wilfred Bion in uniform in 1916.

Early Life and Military Service

Bion was born in Mathura, North-Western Provinces, India, and educated at Bishop’s Stortford College in England. After the outbreak of the First World War, he served in the Tank Corps as a tank commander in France, and was awarded both the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) (on 18 February 1918, for his actions at the Battle of Cambrai), and the Croix de Chevalier of the Légion d’honneur. He first entered the war zone on 26 June 1917, and was promoted to temporary lieutenant on 10 June 1918, and to acting captain on 22 March 1918, when he took command of a tank section, he retained the rank when he became second-in-command of a tank company on 19 October 1918, and relinquished it on 07 January 1919. He was demobilised on 01 September 1921, and was granted the rank of captain. The full citation for his DSO reads:

Awarded the Distinguished Service Order.

[…]

T./2nd Lt, Wilfred Ruprecht Bion, Tank Corps.

For conspicuous gallantry, and devotion to duty. When in command of his tank in an attack he engaged a large number of enemy machine guns in strong positions, thus assisting the infantry to advance. When his tank was put out of action by a direct hit he occupied a section of trench with his men and machine guns and opened fire on the enemy. He moved about in the open, giving directions to other tanks when they arrived, and at one period fired a Lewis gun with great effect from the top of his tank. He also got a captured machine gun into action against the enemy, and when reinforcements arrived he took command of a company of infantry whose commander was killed. He showed magnificent courage and initiative in a most difficult situation.

“Bion’s daughter, Parthenope…raises the question of just how (and how far) her father was shaped as an analyst by his wartime experiences…under[p]inning Bion’s later concern with the coexistence of regressed or primitive proto-mental states alongside more sophisticated one”.

Education and Early Career

After World War I, Bion studied history at The Queen’s College, Oxford, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1922, before studying medicine at University College London.

Initially attracted to London by the “strange new subject called psychoanalysis”, he met and was impressed by Wilfred Trotter, an outstanding brain surgeon who published the famous Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War in 1916, based on the horrors of the First World War. This was to prove an important influence on Bion’s interest in group behaviour. Having qualified in medicine by means of the Conjoint Diploma (MRCS England, LRCP London) in 1930 Bion spent seven years in psychotherapeutic training at the Tavistock Clinic, an experience he regarded, in retrospect, as having had some limitations. It did, however, bring him into fruitful contact with Samuel Beckett. He wanted to train in Psychoanalysis and in 1938 he began a training analysis with John Rickman, but this was brought to an end by the advent of the Second World War.

Bion was recommissioned in the Royal Army Medical Corps as a lieutenant on 01 April 1940, and worked in a number of military hospitals including Northfield Military Hospital (Hollymoor Hospital, Birmingham) where he initiated the first Northfield Experiment. These ideas on the psychoanalysis of groups were then taken up and developed by others such as S.H. Foulkes, Rickman, Bridger, Main and Patrick De Mare. The entire group at Tavistock had in fact been taken into the army, and were working on new methods of treatment for psychiatric casualties (those suffering post-traumatic stress, or “shell shock” as it was then known.) Out of this his pioneering work in group dynamics, associated with the “Tavistock group”, Bion’s papers describing his work of the 1940s were compiled much later and appeared together in 1961 in his influential book, Experiences in Groups and other papers. It was less a guide for the therapy of individuals within or by the group, than an exploration of the processes set off by the complex experience of being in a group. The book quickly became a touchstone work for applications of group theory in a wide variety of fields.

In 1945, during the Second World War, Bion’s wife Betty Jardine gave birth to a daughter, but Betty died a few days afterwards. His daughter, Parthenope, became a psychoanalyst in Italy, and often lectured and wrote about her father’s work. Parthenope died, together with her 18-year-old daughter Patrizia, in a car crash in Italy in July 1998.

Later Career

Returning to the Tavistock Clinic Bion chaired the Planning Committee that reorganised the Tavistock into the new Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, alongside a new Tavistock Clinic which was part of the newly launched National Health Service. As his interest in psychoanalysis increased, he underwent training analysis, between 1946 and 1952, with Melanie Klein. He met his second wife, Francesca, at the Tavistock in 1951. He joined a research group of Klein’s students (including Hanna Segal and Herbert Rosenfeld), who were developing Klein’s theory of the paranoid-schizoid and the depressive positions, for use in the analysis of patients with psychotic disorders. He produced a series of highly original and influential papers (collected as “Second Thoughts”, 1967) on the analysis of schizophrenia, and the specifically cognitive, perceptual, and identity problems of such patients. To this he added a valuable final section called Commentary, showing how some of his views on clinical and theoretical matters had changed.

Bion’s theories, which were always based in the phenomena of the analytic encounter, revealed both correspondences and expansions of core ideas from both Sigmund Freud and Melanie Klein. At one point, he attempted to understand thoughts and thinking from an ‘algebraic’, ‘geometric’ and ‘mathematised’ point of view, believing there to be too little precision in the existing vocabulary, a process culminating in “The Grid”. Later he abandoned the complex, abstract applications of mathematics, and the Grid, and developed a more intuitive approach, epitomised in Attention and Interpretation (1970).

In 1968, Bion moved to Los Angeles, California, where he remained until 1977. During those years he mentored a number of psychoanalysts interested in Kleinian approaches, including James Gooch (psychoanalyst) and other founding members of the Psychoanalytic Centre of California. Shortly before his death, he returned to Oxfordshire.

Reception and Stature

Bion left a reputation which has grown steadily both in Britain and internationally. Some commentators consider that his writings are often gnomic and irritating, but never fail to stimulate. He defies categorisation as a follower of Klein or of Freud. While Bion is most well known outside of the psychoanalytic community for his work on group dynamics, the psychoanalytic conversation that explores his work is mainly concerned with his theory of thinking, and his model of the development of a capacity for thought.

Wilfred Bion was a potent and original contributor to psychoanalysis. He was one of the first to analyse patients in psychotic states using an unmodified analytic technique; he extended existing theories of projective processes and developed new conceptual tools. The degree of collaboration between Hanna Segal, Wilfred Bion and Herbert Rosenfeld in their work with psychotic patients during the late 1950s, and their discussions with Melanie Klein at the time, means that it is not always possible to distinguish their exact individual contributions to the developing theory of splitting, projective identification, unconscious phantasy and the use of countertransference. As Donald Meltzer (1979, 1981), Denis Carpy (1989, p.287), and Michael Feldman (2009, pp.33, 42) have pointed out, these three pioneering analysts not only sustained Klein’s clinical and theoretical approach, but through an extension of the concept of projective identification and countertransference they deepened and expanded it. In Bion’s clinical work and supervision the goal remains insightful understanding of psychic reality through a disciplined experiencing of the transference–countertransference, in a way that promotes the growth of the whole personality.

‘Bion’s ideas are highly unique’, so that he ‘remained larger than life to almost all who encountered him’. He has been considered by Neville Symington as possibly “the greatest psychoanalytic thinker…after Freud“.

Bion’s work has left a strong impression on a number of contemporary psychoanalytic thinkers, including Antonino Ferro, Thomas Ogden, or Elias Mallet da Rocha Barros.

There is some historical evidence to suggest that the idea of containment may have been suggested to Bion in the mid-1930s, by an encounter with C.G. Jung: Bion attended Jung’s 1935 lectures at the Tavistock Clinic, in which Bion was an active participant (asking three questions of Jung about a range of aspects of Jung’s thinking). The experience was described by James Grotstein, Bion’s biographer and “one of Bion’s most influential pupils”, as having had a “dramatic impact” on Bion.

Group Experiments

Bion performed a lot of group experiments when he was put in charge of the training wing of a military hospital. Besides observing the basic assumptions recurring in these groups, he also has observed some very interesting phenomena to which he believed may well apply to society.

Among his interesting findings was that in a group, the standards of social intercourse lack intellectual content and critical judgement. This observation agrees with Gustave Le Bon’s findings about groups to which he mentioned in his book The Crowd.

Another interesting observation was that whatever a group member says or does in a group illuminates that member’s view of the group and is an illumination of that member’s personality. This phenomenon is what psychologists call Projection.

If the contributions of the group and its members can be made anonymously then the foundations for a system of denial and evasion is established. This phenomenon is better known as Deindividuation.

And perhaps one of the most important findings in his experiments was that whenever a group is formed, it always seeks a leader to follow. The group then searches for someone who has questionable attributes with his or her mental health. Initially, the group will search for someone who is paranoid schizophrenic or someone who is malignant hysteric. If the group is unable to find someone with those attributes, the group looks for someone with delinquent trends and a psychopathic personality. Otherwise, the group would just settle on the verbally facile high-grade defective.

Group Dynamics – The “Basic Assumptions”

Wilfred Bion’s observations about the role of group processes in group dynamics are set out in Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, written in the 1940s but compiled and published in 1961, where he refers to recurrent emotional states of groups as ‘basic assumptions’. Bion argues that in every group, two groups are actually present: the work group, and the basic assumption group. The work group is that aspect of group functioning which has to do with the primary task of the group—what the group has formed to accomplish; will “keep the group anchored to a sophisticated and rational level of behaviour”. The basic assumption group describes the tacit underlying assumptions on which the behaviour of the group is based. Bion specifically identified three basic assumptions: dependency, fight-flight, and pairing. When a group adopts any one of these basic assumptions, it interferes with the task the group is attempting to accomplish. Bion believed that interpretation by the therapist of this aspect of group dynamics would, whilst being resisted, also result in potential insight regarding effective, co-operative group work.

In dependency, the essential aim of the group is to attain security through, and have its members protected by, one individual. The basic assumption in this group culture seems to be that an external object exists whose function it is to provide security for the immature individual. The group members behave passively, and act as though the leader, by contrast, is omnipotent and omniscient. For example, the leader may pose a question only to be greeted with docile silence, as though he or she had not spoken at all. The leader may be idealised into a kind of god who can take care of his or her children, and some especially ambitious leaders may be susceptible to this role. Resentment at being dependent may eventually lead the group members to “take down” the leader, and then search for a new leader to repeat the process.

In the basic assumption of fight-flight, the group behaves as though it has met to preserve itself at all costs, and that this can only be done by running away from someone or fighting someone or something. In fight, the group may be characterized by aggressiveness and hostility; in flight, the group may chit-chat, tell stories, arrive late or any other activities that serve to avoid addressing the task at hand. The leader for this sort of group is one who can mobilize the group for attack, or lead it in flight.

The final basic assumption group, pairing, exists on the assumption that the group has met for the purpose of reproduction—the basic assumption that two people can be met together for only one purpose, and that a sexual one’. Two people, regardless the sex of either, carry out the work of the group through their continued interaction. The remaining group members listen eagerly and attentively with a sense of relief and hopeful anticipation.

Bion considered that “the three basic-assumption groups seem each in turn to be aggregates of individuals sharing out between them the characteristics of one character in the Oedipal situation”. Behind the Oedipal level, however, Bion postulated the existence of still more primitive, part-object phantasies; and “the more disturbed the group, the more easily discernible are these primitive phantasies and mechanisms”. Such phantasies would prove the main focus of Bion’s interest after his second analysis.

Bion on Thinking

“During the 1950s and 1960s, Bion transformed Melanie Klein’s theories of infantile phantasy…into an epistemological “theory of thinking” of his own.” Bion used as his starting point the phenomenology of the analytic hour, highlighting the two principles of “the emergence of truth and mental growth. The mind grows through exposure to truth.” The foundation for both mental development and truth are, for Bion, emotional experience.

The evolution of emotional experience into the capacity for thought, and the potential derailment of this process, are the primary phenomena described in Bion’s model. Through his hypothesized alpha and beta elements, Bion provides a language to help one think about what is occurring during the analytic hour. These tools are intended for use outside the hour in the clinician’s reflective process. To attempt to apply his models during the analytic session violates the basic principle whereby “Bion had advocated starting every session ‘without memory, desire or understanding’—his antidote to those intrusive influences that otherwise threaten to distort the analytic process.”

Alpha Elements, Beta Elements, and Alpha Function

Bion created a theory of thinking based on changing beta elements (unmetabolized psyche/soma/affective experience) into alpha elements (thoughts that can be thought by the thinker). Beta elements were seen as cognate to the underpinnings of the “basic assumptions” identified in his work with groups: “the fundamental anxieties that underlie the basic assumption group resistances were originally thought of as proto-mental phenomena…forerunners of Bion’s later concept of beta-elements.” They were equally conceptual developments from his work on projective identification—from the “minutely split ‘particles'” Bion saw as expelled in pathological projective identification by the psychotic, who would then go on to “lodge them in the angry, so-called bizarre objects by which he feels persecuted and controlled”. For “these raw bits of experience he called beta-elements…to be actively handled and made use of by the mind they must, through what Bion calls alpha-functions, become alpha-elements”.

β elements, α elements and α function are elements that Bion (1963) hypothesizes. He does not consider β-elements, α- elements, nor α function to actually exist. The terms are instead tools for thinking about what is being observed. They are elements whose qualities remain unsaturated, meaning we cannot know the full extent or scope of their meaning, so they are intended as tools for thought rather than real things to be accepted at face value (1962, p.3).

Bion took for granted that the infant requires a mind to help it tolerate and organize experience. For Bion, thoughts exist prior to the development of an apparatus for thinking. The apparatus for thinking, the capacity to have thoughts “has to be called into existence to cope with thoughts” (1967, p.111). Thoughts exist prior to their realization. Thinking, the capacity to think the thoughts which already exist, develops through another mind providing α-function (1962, p.83) – through the “container” role of maternal reverie.

To learn from experience alpha-function must operate on the awareness of the emotional experience; alpha–elements are produced from the impressions of the experience; these are thus made storable and available for dream thoughts and for unconscious waking thinking… If there are only beta-elements, which cannot be made unconscious, there can be no repression, suppression, or learning. (Bion, 1962, p.8).

α-function works upon undigested facts, impressions, and sensations, that cannot be mentalized—beta-elements. α-function digests β-elements, making them available for thought (1962, pp.6–7).

Beta-elements are not amenable to use in dream thoughts but are suited for use in projective identification. They are influential in producing acting out. These are objects that can be evacuated or used for a kind of thinking that depends on manipulation of what are felt to be things in themselves as if to substitute such manipulations for words or ideas… Alpha-function transforms sense impressions into alpha-elements which resemble, and may in fact be identical with, the visual images with which we are familiar in dreams, namely, the elements that Freud regards as yielding their latent content when the analyst has interpreted them. Failure of alpha-function means the patient cannot dream and therefore cannot sleep. As alpha-function makes the sense impressions of the emotional experience available for conscious and dream—thought the patient who cannot dream cannot go to sleep and cannot wake up. (1962, pp.6–7).

Bizarre Object

Bizarre objects, according to Bion, are impressions of external objects which, by way of projective identification, form a “screen” that’s imbued with characteristics of the subject’s own personality; they form part of his interpretation of object relations theory. Bion saw psychotic attacks on the normal linking between objects as producing a fractured world, where the patient felt themselves surrounded by hostile bizarre objects—the by-products of the broken linkages. Such objects, with their superego components, blur the boundary of internal and external, and impose a kind of externalised moralism on their victims. They can also contain ego-functions that have been evacuated from the self as part of the defence against thinking, sensing, and coming to terms with reality: thus a man may feel watched by his telephone, or that the music player being listened to is in fact listening to him in turn.

Later Developments

Hanna Segal considered bizarre objects more difficult to re-internalise than either good or bad objects due to their splintered state: grouped together in a mass or psychic gang, their threatening properties may contribute to agoraphobia.

Knowledge, Love and Hate

Successful application of alpha-function leads to “the capacity to tolerate the actual frustration involved in learning (“K”) that [Bion] calls ‘learning from experience'”. The opposite of knowledge “K” was what Bion termed “−K”: “the process that strips, denudes, and devalues persons, experiences, and ideas.”

Both K and −K interact for Bion with Love and Hate, as links within the analytic relationship. “The complexities of the emotional link, whether Love or Hate or Knowledge [L, H, and K – the Bionic relational triad]” produce ever-changing “atmospheric” effects in the analytic situation. The patient’s focus may wish to be “on Love and Hate (L and H) rather than the knowledge (K) that is properly at stake in psychoanalytic inquiry.”

For Bion, “knowledge is not a thing we have, but a link between ourselves and what we know … K is being willing to know but not insisting on knowledge.” By contrast, -K is “not just ignorance but the active avoidance of knowledge, or even the wish to destroy the capacity for it” – and “enacts what ‘Attacks on Linking’ identifies as hatred of emotion, hatred of reality, hatred of life itself.”

Looking for the source of such hate (H), Bion notes in Learning from Experience that, “Inevitably one wonders at various points in the investigation why such a phenomenon as that represented by −K should exist. … I shall consider one factor only – Envy. By this term I mean the phenomenon described by Melanie Klein in Envy and Gratitude” (1962, p.96).

Reversible Perspective and −K

“Reversible Perspective” was a term coined by Bion to illuminate “a peculiar and deadly form of analytic impasse which defends against psychic pain”. It represents the clash of “two independently experienced views or phenomena whose meanings are incompatible”. In Bion’s own words, “Reversible perspective is evidence of pain; the patient reverses perspective so as to make a dynamic situation static.”

As summarised by Etchegoyen, “Reversible perspective is an extreme case of rigidity of thought. … As Bion says, what is most characteristic in such cases is the manifest accord and the latent discord.” In clinical contexts, what may happen is that the analyst’s “interpretation is accepted, but the premises have been rejected … the actual specificity, the substance of the interpretation”. Reversible perspective is an aspect of “the potential destruction and deformation of knowledge” – one of the attacks on linking of −K.

O: The Ineffable

As his thought continued to develop, Bion came to use Negative Capability and the suspension of Memory and Desire in his work as an analyst, in order to investigate psychic reality – which he regarded as essentially ‘non-sensuous’ (1970). Following his 1965 book Transformations he had an increasing interest in what he termed the domain of “O” – the unknowable, or ultimate Truth. “In aesthetics, Bion has been described as a neo-Kantian for whom reality, or the thing-in-itself (O), cannot be known, only be “be-ed” (1965). What can be known is said by Bion to be in the realm of K, impinging through its sensory channels. If the observer can desist from “irritably reaching for fact and reason”, and suspend the normal operation of the faculties of memory and apperception, what Bion called transformations in knowledge can permit an ‘evolution’ where transformations in K touch on transformations in Being (O). Bion believed such moments to feel both ominous and turbulent, threatening a loss of anchorage in everyday ‘narrative’ security.

Bion would speak of “an intense catastrophic emotional explosion O,” which could only be known through its aftereffects. Where before he had privileged the domain of knowledge (K), now he would speak as well of “resistance to the shift from transformations involving K (knowledge) to transformations involving O … resistance to the unknowable”. Hence his injunctions to the analyst to eschew memory and desire, to “bring to bear a diminution of the ‘light’ – a penetrating beam of darkness; a reciprocal of the searchlight. If any object existed, however faint, it would show up very clearly”. In stating this he was making connections to Freud, who in a letter to Lou Andreas Salome had referred to a mental counterpart of scotopic, “mole like vision”, used to gain impressions of the Unconscious. He was also making links with the apophatic method used by contemplative thinkers such as St John of the Cross, a writer quoted many times by Bion. Bion was well aware that our perception and our attention often blind us to what genuinely and strikingly is new in every moment.

Reverie

Bion’s concept of maternal “reverie” as the capacity to sense (and make sense of) what is going on inside the infant has been an important element in post-Kleinian thought: “Reverie is an act of faith in unconscious process … essential to alpha-function'” It is considered the equivalent of Stern’s attunement, or Winnicott’s maternal preoccupation.

In therapy, the analyst’s use of “reverie” is an important tool in his/her response to the patient’s material: “It is this capacity for playing with a patient’s images that Bion encouraged”.

Late Bion

“For the later Bion, the psychoanalytic encounter was itself a site of turbulence, ‘a mental space for further ideas which may yet be developed’.” In his unorthodox quest to maintain such “mental space”, Bion “spent the final years of his long and distinguished professional life [writing] a futuristic trilogy in which he is answerable to no one but himself, A Memoir of the Future.”

If we accept that “Bion introduced a new form of pedagogy in his writings…[via] the density and non-linearity of his prose”, it comes perhaps to a peak here in what he himself termed “a fictitious account of psychoanalysis including an artificially constructed dream … science fiction”. We may conclude at least that he achieved his stated goal therein: “To prevent someone who KNOWS from filling the empty space”.

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Bion >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.

Who was Donald Winnicott?

Published on by Andrew Marshall3 Comments

Introduction

Donald Woods Winnicott (07 April 1896 to 25 January 1971) was an English paediatrician and psychoanalyst who was especially influential in the field of object relations theory and developmental psychology. He was a leading member of the British Independent Group of the British Psychoanalytical Society, President of the British Psychoanalytical Society twice (1956–1959 and 1965–1968), and a close associate of Marion Milner.

Winnicott is best known for his ideas on the true self and false self, the “good enough” parent, and borrowed from his second wife, Clare Winnicott, arguably his chief professional collaborator, the notion of the transitional object. He wrote several books, including Playing and Reality, and over 200 papers.

Early Life and Education

Winnicott was born on 07 April 1896 in Plymouth, Devon, to Sir John Frederick Winnicott and Elizabeth Martha, daughter of chemist and druggist William Woods, of Plymouth. Sir John Winnicott was a partner in the family firm, in business as hardware merchants and manufacturers, and was knighted in 1924 having served twice as mayor of Plymouth; he was also a magistrate and alderman. The Winnicott family were staunch, civic-minded Methodists.

The family was prosperous and ostensibly happy, but behind the veneer, Winnicott saw himself as oppressed by his mother, who tended toward depression, as well as by his two sisters and his nanny. He would eventually speak of ‘his own early childhood experience of trying to make “my living” by keeping his mother alive’. His father’s influence was that of an enterprising freethinker who encouraged his son’s creativity. Winnicott described himself as a disturbed adolescent, reacting against his own self-restraining “goodness” acquired from trying to assuage the dark moods of his mother. These seeds of self-awareness became the basis of his interest in working with troubled young people.

He first thought of studying medicine while at The Leys School, a boarding school in Cambridge, after fracturing his clavicle and recording in his diary that he wished he could treat himself. He began pre-clinical studies in biology, physiology and anatomy at Jesus College, Cambridge, in 1914 but, with the onset of World War I, his studies were interrupted when he was made a medical trainee at the temporary hospital in Cambridge. In 1917, he joined the Royal Navy as a medical officer on the destroyer HMS Lucifer.

Having graduated from Cambridge with a third-class degree, he began studies in clinical medicine at St Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College in London. During this time, he learned from his mentor the art of listening carefully when taking medical histories from patients, a skill that he would later identify as foundational to his practice as a psychoanalyst.

Career

Winnicott completed his medical studies in 1920, and in 1923, the same year as his marriage to the artist Alice Buxton Winnicott (born Taylor). She was a potter and they married on 7 July 1923 in St Mary’s Church, Frensham. Alice had “severe psychological difficulties” and Winnicott arranged for her, and his own therapy, to address the difficulties this condition created. He obtained a post as physician at the Paddington Green Children’s Hospital in London, where he was to work as a paediatrician and child psychoanalyst for 40 years. In 1923 he began a ten-year psychoanalysis with James Strachey, and in 1927 he began training as an analytic candidate. Strachey discussed Winnicott’s case with his wife Alix Strachey, apparently reporting that Winnicott’s sex life was affected by his anxieties. Winnicott’s second analysis, beginning in 1936, was with Joan Riviere.

Winnicott rose to prominence as a psychoanalyst just as the followers of Anna Freud were in conflict with those of Melanie Klein for the right to be called Sigmund Freud’s “true intellectual heirs”. Out of the Controversial discussions during World War II, a compromise was reached with three more-or-less amicable groups within the psychoanalytic movement: the “Freudians”, the “Kleinians”, and the “Middle Group” of the British Psychoanalytical Society (the latter being called the “Independent Group”), to which Winnicott belonged, along with Ronald Fairbairn, Michael Balint, Masud Khan, John Bowlby, Marion Milner, and Margaret Little.

During the Second World War, Winnicott served as consultant paediatrician to the children’s evacuation programme. During the war, he met and worked with Clare Britton, a psychiatric social worker who became his colleague in treating children displaced from their homes by wartime evacuation. Winnicott was lecturing after the war and Janet Quigley and Isa Benzie of the BBC asked him to give over sixty talks on the radio between 1943 and 1966. His first series of talks in 1943 was titled “Happy Children.” As a result of the success of these talks, Quigley offered him total control over the content of his talks but this soon became more consultative as Quigley advised him on the correct pitch.[13]

After the war, he also saw patients in his private practice. Among contemporaries influenced by Winnicott was R.D. Laing, who wrote to Winnicott in 1958 acknowledging his help.

Winnicott divorced his first wife in 1949 and married Clare Britton (1906–1984) in 1951. A keen observer of children as a social worker and a psychoanalyst in her own right, she had an important influence on the development of his theories and likely acted as midwife to his prolific publications after they met.

Except for one book published in 1931 (Clinical Notes on Disorders of Childhood), all of Winnicott’s books were published after 1944, including The Ordinary Devoted Mother and Her Baby (1949), The Child and the Family (1957), Playing and Reality (1971), and Holding and Interpretation: Fragment of an Analysis (1986).

Winnicott died on 25 January 1971, following the last of a series of heart attacks and was cremated in London. Clare Winnicott oversaw the posthumous publication of several of his works.

Concept of Holding

Winnicott’s paediatric work with children and their mothers led to the development of his influential concept concerning the “holding environment”. Winnicott claimed that “the foundations of health are laid down by the ordinary mother in her ordinary loving care of her own baby”, central to which was the mother’s attentive holding of her child.

Winnicott considered that the “mother’s technique of holding, of bathing, of feeding, everything she did for the baby, added up to the child’s first idea of the mother”, as well as fostering the ability to experience the body as the place wherein one securely lives. Extrapolating the concept of holding from mother to family and the outside world, Winnicott saw as key to healthy development “the continuation of reliable holding in terms of the ever-widening circle of family and school and social life”.

Winnicott was influential in viewing the work of the psychotherapist as offering a substitute holding environment based on the mother/infant bond. Winnicott wrote: “A correct and well-timed interpretation in an analytic treatment gives a sense of being held physically that is more real…than if a real holding or nursing had taken place. Understanding goes deeper”.

His theoretical writings emphasised empathy, imagination, and, in the words of philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who has been a proponent of his work, “the highly particular transactions that constitute love between two imperfect people.”

Anti-Social Tendency

Connected to the concept of holding is what Winnicott called the anti-social tendency, something which he argued “may be found in a normal individual, or in one that is neurotic or psychotic”. The delinquent child, Winnicott thought, was looking for a sense of secure holding lacking in their family of origin from society at large. He considered antisocial behaviour as a cry for help, fuelled by a sense of loss of integrity, when the familial holding environment was inadequate or ruptured.

Play and the Sense of Being Real

One of the elements that Winnicott considered could be lost in childhood was what he called the sense of being – for him, a primary element, of which a sense of doing is only a derivative. The capacity for being – the ability to feel genuinely alive inside, which Winnicott saw as essential to the maintenance of a true self – was fostered in his view by the practice of childhood play.

In contrast to the emphasis in orthodox psychoanalysis upon generating insight into unconscious processes, Winnicott considered that playing was the key to emotional and psychological well-being. It is likely that he first came upon this notion from his collaboration in wartime with the psychiatric social worker, Clare Britton, (later a psychoanalyst and his second wife) who in 1945 published an article on the importance of play for children. By “playing”, he meant not only the ways that children of all ages play, but also the way adults “play” through making art, or engaging in sports, hobbies, humour, meaningful conversation, et cetera. At any age, he saw play as crucial to the development of authentic selfhood, because when people play they feel real, spontaneous and alive, and keenly interested in what they’re doing. He thought that insight in psychoanalysis was helpful when it came to the patient as a playful experience of creative, genuine discovery; dangerous when patients were pressured to comply with their analyst’s authoritative interpretations, thus potentially merely reinforcing a patient’s false self. Winnicott believed that it was only in playing that people are entirely their true selves, so it followed that for psychoanalysis to be effective, it needed to serve as a mode of playing.

Two of the techniques whereby Winnicott used play in his work with children were the squiggle game and the spatula game. The first involved Winnicott drawing a shape for the child to play with and extend (or vice versa) – a practice extended by his followers into that of using partial interpretations as a ‘squiggle’ for a patient to make use of.

The second, more famous instance involved Winnicott placing a spatula (tongue depressor) within the child’s reach for him to play with. Winnicott considered that “if he is just an ordinary baby he will notice the attractive object…and he will reach for it….[then] in the course of a little while he will discover what he wants to do with it”. From the child’s initial hesitation in making use of the spatula, Winnicott derived his idea of the necessary ‘period of hesitation’ in childhood (or analysis), which makes possible a true connection to the toy, interpretation or object presented for transference.

Many of Winnicott’s writings show his efforts to understand what helps people to be able to play, and on the other hand what blocks some people from playing. Babies can be playful when they’re cared for by people who respond to them warmly and playfully, like a mother who smiles and says, “Peek-a-boo!” when she sees her baby playfully peeking out from behind his hands. If the mother never responded playfully, sooner or later the baby would stop trying to elicit play from her. Indeed, Winnicott came to consider that “Playing takes place in the potential space between the baby and the mother-figure….[T]he initiation of playing is associated with the life experience of the baby who has come to trust the mother figure”. “Potential space” was Winnicott’s term for a sense of an inviting and safe interpersonal field in which one can be spontaneously playful while at the same time connected to others (again a concept that has been extrapolated to the practice of analysis).

Playing can also be seen in the use of a transitional object, Winnicott’s term for an object, such as a teddy bear, that has a quality for a small child of being both real and made-up at the same time. Winnicott pointed out that no one demands that a toddler explain whether his Binky is a “real bear” or a creation of the child’s own imagination, and went on to argue that it’s very important that the child is allowed to experience the Binky as being in an undefined, “transitional” status between the child’s imagination and the real world outside the child. For Winnicott, one of the most important and precarious stages of development was in the first three years of life, when an infant grows into a child with an increasingly separate sense of self in relation to a larger world of other people. In health, the child learns to bring his or her spontaneous, real self into play with others; in a false self disorder, the child has found it unsafe or impossible to do so, and instead feels compelled to hide the true self from other people, and pretend to be whatever they want instead. Playing with a transitional object can be an important early bridge between self and other, which helps a child develop the capacity to be genuine in relationships, and creative.

Playing for Winnicott ultimately extended all the way up from earliest childhood experience to what he called “the abstractions of politics and economics and philosophy and culture…this ‘third area’, that of cultural experience which is a derivative of play”.

True self and False Self

Winnicott wrote that “a word like self…knows more than we do.”. He meant that, while philosophical and psychoanalytic ideas about the self could be very complex and arcane, with a great deal of specialised jargon, there was a pragmatic usefulness to the ordinary word “self” with its range of traditional meanings. For example, where other psychoanalysts used the Freudian terminology of ego and id to describe different functions of a person’s psychology, Winnicott at times used “self” to refer to both. For Winnicott, the self is a very important part of mental and emotional well-being which plays a vital role in creativity. He thought that people were born without a clearly developed self and had to “search” for an authentic sense of self as they grew. “For Winnicott, the sense of feeling real, feeling in touch with others and with one’s own body and its processes was essential for living a life.”

True Self

“Only the true self can be creative and only the true self can feel real.” For Winnicott, the True Self is a sense of being alive and real in one’s mind and body, having feelings that are spontaneous and unforced. This experience of aliveness is what allows people to be genuinely close to others, and to be creative.

Winnicott thought that the “True Self” begins to develop in infancy, in the relationship between the baby and its primary caregiver (Winnicott typically refers to this person as “the mother”). One of the ways the mother helps the baby develop an authentic self is by responding in a welcoming and reassuring way to the baby’s spontaneous feelings, expressions, and initiatives. In this way the baby develops a confidence that nothing bad happens when she expresses what she feels, so her feelings don’t seem dangerous or problematic to her, and she doesn’t have to put undue attention into controlling or avoiding them. She also gains a sense that she is real, that she exists and her feelings and actions have meaning.

Winnicott thought that one of the developmental hurdles for an infant to get past is the risk of being traumatised by having to be too aware too soon of how small and helpless she really is. A baby who is too aware of real-world dangers will be too anxious to learn optimally. A good-enough parent is well enough attuned and responsive to protect the baby with an illusion of omnipotence, or being all-powerful. For example, a well-cared-for baby usually doesn’t feel hungry for very long before being fed. Winnicott thought the parents’ quick response of feeding the baby gives the baby a sense that whenever she’s hungry, food appears as if by magic, as if the baby herself makes food appear just by being hungry. To feel this powerful, Winnicott thought, allowed a baby to feel confident, calm and curious, and able to learn without having to invest a lot of energy into defences.

False Self

In Winnicott’s writing, the “False Self” is a defence, a kind of mask of behaviour that complies with others’ expectations. Winnicott thought that in health, a False Self was what allowed one to present a “polite and mannered attitude” in public.

But he saw more serious emotional problems in patients who seemed unable to feel spontaneous, alive or real to themselves anywhere, in any part of their lives, yet managed to put on a successful “show of being real”. Such patients suffered inwardly from a sense of being empty, dead or “phoney”.

Winnicott thought that this more extreme kind of False Self began to develop in infancy, as a defence against an environment that felt unsafe or overwhelming because of a lack of reasonably attuned caregiving. He thought that parents did not need to be perfectly attuned, but just “ordinarily devoted” or “good enough” to protect the baby from often experiencing overwhelming extremes of discomfort and distress, emotional or physical. But babies who lack this kind of external protection, Winnicott thought, had to do their best with their own crude defences.

One of the main defences Winnicott thought a baby could resort to was what he called “compliance”, or behaviour motivated by a desire to please others rather than spontaneously express one’s own feelings and ideas. For example, if a baby’s caregiver was severely depressed, the baby would anxiously sense a lack of responsiveness, would not be able to enjoy an illusion of omnipotence, and might instead focus his energies and attentions on finding ways to get a positive response from the distracted and unhappy caregiver by being a “good baby”. The “False Self” is a defence of constantly seeking to anticipate others’ demands and complying with them, as a way of protecting the “True Self” from a world that is felt to be unsafe.

Winnicott thought that the “False Self” developed through a process of introjection (a concept developed early on by Freud) or internalising one’s experience of others. Instead of basing his personality on his own unforced feelings, thoughts, and initiatives, the person with a “False Self” disorder would essentially be imitating and internalising other people’s behaviour – a mode in which he could outwardly come to seem “just like” his mother, father, brother, nurse, or whoever had dominated his world, but inwardly he would feel bored, empty, dead, or “phoney”. Winnicott saw this as an unconscious process: not only others but also the person himself would mistake his False Self for his real personality. But even with the appearance of success, and of social gains, he would feel unreal and lack the sense of really being alive or happy.

The division of the True and False self roughly develops from Freud’s (1923) notion of the Superego which compels the Ego to modify and inhibit libidinal Id impulses, possibly leading to excessive repression but certainly altering the way the environment is perceived and responded to. However it is not a close equation as the Id, Ego and Superego are complex and dynamic inter-related systems that do not fit well into such a dichotomy. The theory more closely resembles Carl Rogers’ simplified notions of the Real and Ideal self. According to Winnicott, in every person the extent of division between True and False Self can be placed on a continuum between the healthy and the pathological. The True Self, which in health gives the person a sense of being alive, real, and creative, will always be in part or in whole hidden; the False Self is a compliant adaptation to the environment, but in health it does not dominate the person’s internal life or block him from feeling spontaneous feelings, even if he chooses not to express them. The healthy False Self feels that it is still being true to the True Self. It can be compliant to expectations but without feeling that it has betrayed its “True Self”.

Winnicott on Carl Jung

Winnicott’s assessment of the other great pioneer of psychoanalysis, Carl Jung, appeared when he published an extensive review of Jung’s partially autobiographical work, Memories, Dreams, Reflections. In it Winnicott focuses on the first three chapters of the work that:

every psychoanalyst must read’ and in particular the first chapter, ‘First Years’. (Winnicott).

He discusses Jung’s evident early experiences of psychotic illness from around the age of four, from within his own theoretical framework. He goes on to comment on the relationship between Freud and Jung. He also discusses the Jungian ‘unconscious’ and Jung’s concept of the ‘self’.

Criticism and Influence

Winnicott’s theoretical elusiveness has been linked to his efforts to modify Kleinian views. Yet whereas from a Kleinian standpoint, his repudiation of the concepts of envy and the death drive were a resistant retreat from the harsh realities she had found in infant life, he has also been accused of being too close to Klein, of sharing in her regressive shift of focus away from the Oedipus complex to the pre-oedipal.

The psychoanalyst, Jan Abram, a former director of the Squiggle Foundation, intended to promote Winnicott’s work, who therefore may be said to be partisan, has proposed a coherent interpretation for the omission of Winnicott’s theories from many mainstream psychoanalytic trainings. His view of the environment and use of accessible everyday language, addressing the parent community, as opposed to just the Kleinian psychoanalytic community, may account in part for the distancing and making him somewhat “niche”.

Winnicott has also been accused of identifying himself in his theoretical stance with an idealised mother, in the tradition of mother (Madonna) and child. Related is his downplaying of the importance of the erotic in his work, as well as the Wordsworthian Romanticism of his cult of childhood play (exaggerated still further in some of his followers).

His theories of the true/false self may have been over-influenced by his own childhood experience of caring for a depressed mother, which resulted in the development of a prematurely mature self which he was only subsequently able to undo.

Nevertheless, Winnicott remains one of the few twentieth-century analysts who, in stature, breadth, minuteness of observations, and theoretical fertility can legitimately be compared to Sigmund Freud.

He has been a major influence for the American psychoanalyst Thomas Ogden, and the Italian psychoanalysts Giuseppe Civitarese and Antonino Ferro, all of which have cited Winnicott’s interest in play as being central to their work. He has also strongly influenced the work of Adam Phillips.

Along with Jacques Derrida, Winnicott is a fundamental resource for philosopher Bernard Stiegler’s What Makes Life Worth Living: On Pharmacology (2010).

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Winnicott >; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA.