The Misuse of the Object- Honneth 'sAppropriation of Winnicott

The article focuses on the consequences of Winnicott's style for his work and for the psychoanalysis inspired by his work. Within this framework, the article discusses possibilities and deadlocks for an appropriation of Winnicott's work and the complex relation between his work and dogmatism, formation, innovation and filiation.

American Imago, 2024

While this article begins by noting the positive role that constructivism has played in the development of psychoanalytic theory over the past 50 years, it also points to the limitations of the approach and argues they must be corrected. For at the same time as constructivism’s criticisms of biologism and essentialism have provided powerful weapons for combating psychoanalytic conservatism, an exclusively constructivist approach has also made it difficult, if not impossible, to address an essential issue for psychoanalysts: namely, the normative basis of the enterprise and the goal(s) of development and treatment. The author claims that Winnicott’s theory provides a way out of this difficulty. For although Winnicott is often construed as a strict constructivist owing to his introduction of the notion of the environment, it is argued that his concept of “inherited potential” retains biological foundation for psychoanalysis while avoiding the dangers of essentialism.

Revista latinoamericana de psicopatologia fundamental, 2002

The main objective of this paper is to present a unified view of Winnicott’s contribution to psychoanalysis. Part I (Sections 1-4) starts off by recalling that, according to some important commentators, Winnicott introduced a change in paradigms in psychoanalysis. In order to show that this change can be viewed as an overall “switch in paradigms”, in the sense given by T. S. Kuhn, this paper presents an account of the Kuhn’s view of science and offers a reconstruction of Freud’s Oedipal, Triangular or “Toddler-in-the-Mother’s-Bed” Paradigm. Part II (Sections 5-13) shows that as early as the 1920’s Winnicott encountered insurmountable anomalies in the Oedipal paradigm and, for that reason, started what can be called revolutionary research for a new framework of psychoanalysis. This research led Winnicott, especially during the last period of his life, to produce an alternative dual or “Baby-on-the-Mother’s-Lap” Paradigm. This new paradigm is described in some detail, especially the paradigmatic dual mother-baby relation and Winnicott’s dominant theory of maturation. Final remarks are made regarding Winnicott’s heritage and the future of psychoanalysis.

2018

The purpose of this article is to develop the assumption that Winnicott’s work can correspond to a possible realization of the elaboration project of a non-naturalistic scientific psychology, as it is found in phenomenology and modern existentialism philosophical conceptions. After distinguishing the clinical aspects of these philosophical propositions, I try to show that Winnicott, on one hand, rejects the use of naturalistic metapsychological speculations, on the other hand, reformulates the ontological model of psychoanalysis, introducing the notion of being; additionally, he introduced a notion of health and redescribed the theory of socioemotional development of the human being, focusing on dependency relationships. Such changes would place psychoanalysis in a non-naturalistic epistemological framework, in accordance with the philosophical influences above mentioned, changing at the same time the psychoanalytical practice itself, both in its objectives and handling.

International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 2007

In this paper, the author attempts to show how Winnicott rejected the basic concepts of Freud's metapsychology, namely the concepts of Trieb (instinct/drive), psychical apparatus and libido. To that purpose, he fi rst elucidates what metapsychology is, according to Freud. Freud describes metapsychology as a speculative superstructure of psychoanalysis in which the aforementioned concepts correspond to the dynamic, topographical and economic viewpoints. The author then presents an explanation of what metapsychology means in Winnicott's view, and examines his criticism of this kind of speculative theorization in psychoanalysis, as well as his suggested substitute for each of those basic concepts. Subsequent analysis shows that Winnicott replaced the main concepts of the metapsychological theory, which have no correlation whatsoever in the phenomenal world, with a set of other, non-speculative concepts, thereby favouring a factual theorization.

The Routledge Companion to the Frankfurt School, 2020

This chapter presents a history of the relation between psychoanalysis and critical theory during the first three generations of the Frankfurt School. It uses Horkheimer and Adorno’s notion of the “subterranean” history of Europe, consisting in “the fate of the human instincts and passions repressed and distorted by civilization” to track the changing vicissitudes of that relation and to evaluate the contributions of the various theorists.

In this paper, the author attempts to show how Winnicott rejected the basic concepts of Freud's metapsychology, namely the concepts of Trieb (instinct/drive), psychical apparatus and libido. To that purpose, he fi rst elucidates what metapsychology is, according to Freud. Freud describes metapsychology as a speculative superstructure of psychoanalysis in which the aforementioned concepts correspond to the dynamic, topographical and economic viewpoints. The author then presents an explanation of what metapsychology means in Winnicott's view, and examines his criticism of this kind of speculative theorization in psychoanalysis, as well as his suggested substitute for each of those basic concepts. Subsequent analysis shows that Winnicott replaced the main concepts of the metapsychological theory, which have no correlation whatsoever in the phenomenal world, with a set of other, non-speculative concepts, thereby favouring a factual theorization.

British Journal of Psychotherapy, 2009

£19.99.

We invite authors to submit papers that deal with different dimensions of Honneth’s recent works, that critically engage with his ‘diagnosis’ of contemporary social pathologies, his reliance on object-relations psychoanalysis, as well as his controversial reconstructions of both the conceptual (The Idea of Socialism) and social history of modernity (Freedom’s Right). We are especially interested in contributions that, in one way or another, focus on the above mentioned tension between the two logics of grounding social critique in Honneth’s recent works. We welcome papers in English and German. All selected articles are subject to double-blind selection by at least two reviewers. Only previously unpublished works are considered. Papers must have fewer than 60.000 characters, accompanied by a 100-250 word abstract with up to 10 key words, and prepared for blind review. For further inquiry please consult the instructions for authors: http://instifdt.bg.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/26-SUBMISSIONINSTRUCTIONS.pdf Articles should be sent to: [email protected]