Anderson on Donald W. Winnicott (meeting report)

Intellectually I knew that Winnicott was the most read theorist at the moment, but the full force of this interest came out on December 2, 2017 when the overflow Psychohistory Forum attendance forced us to find a larger room at Fordham’s Lincoln Center and to then bring chairs into the room to keep people from standing. The ideal of the Psychohistory Forum is to have a meeting of 12 to 15 colleagues who have read the paper ahead of time and can maintain a discussion that is helpful to the presenter and enlightening to all in the room.

Despite a record number (31) of attendees, we were surpris-

Page 240

ingly able to maintain our usual sense of a small intimate group focused on a single subject, which the presenter found to be most beneficial. It worked out at this meeting even with the large numbers because of three factors. One, the warmth and humanity of Donald Winnicott showed through. Two, our presenter, James William Anderson, had a valuable paper and slides from his research trips to England, enthusiasm for his subject, and rapport with our group. Three, the basic structure of our meetings encourages a focus on intellectual giving rather than of combativeness, which is so common when different theoreticians are being discussed.

Anderson had flown out from Chicago, where he practices as a psychoanalyst, is president of the Chicago Psychoanalytic Society, and is editor of the Annual of Psychoanalysis, to share not only his thoughts on Winnicott, which were put together in not only a fine paper, but also a PowerPoint showing the people he interviewed in London in 1981 while gathering materials on the colleague who had introduced the ideas of “the good enough mother,” “the holding environment,” “the transitional object,” and “the true and false self.” The slides and fascinating commentary accompanying them focused on Anna Freud, Masud Khan, Margaret Little, John Bowby, Clare Winnicott (second wife), Violet Winnicott (sister), Rosemary Dinnage, and Linda Hopkins.

Donald Winnicott’s struggle to find his true self after creating a false self as a consequence of being burdened with enlivening his depressed mother during his early years was a lifelong process and the roots of many of his theoretical innovations. According to Masud Khan, his second analyst Joan Riviere offensively declared after a Winnicott lecture that “he just makes theory out of his own sickness.” As objectionable as this statement is coming from his analyst, it reflects the reality that our theories are likely to reflect our own issues. A poem Winnicott wrote at age 67 reflects an identification with Jesus on the cross caring for others rather than himself thus being trapped in the false self. I sometimes wonder if part of the current appeal of Winnicott is the sense that in our busy, fragmented society, many of us feel we are trapped in a false self.

There was a great deal of interest in Winnicott’s close relationship with Khan because their personalities were so different. Winnicott, who shied away from disputes and criticism, had regular Sunday morning meetings with the rich Indian (from an area that is now Pakistan) who helped him with his writings. Khan was then a young extrovert who loved to display his wealth, in sharp contrast

Page 241

to the modest Winnicott. The flamboyant analyst told Anderson that they really did not like each other as people, although Anderson believes that underneath their criticisms of each other there was a deep attachment. What the English analyst got from his young colleague was not just help with his writing, but also an example of assertiveness that was quite alien to him.

Although Winnicott is known for writing “Hate in the Counter-transference” (International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 1949, Vol. 30: 69-74), his own ability to express his anger and even hatred was limited. Susan Kavaler-Adler related the few suicides among his patients to his own difficulty with helping them express their anger to others instead of turning it against themselves. According to her, Khan in contrast had no suicides among his patients. Margaret Little was an analyst who credited Winnicott with saving her life from suicide or being a mental patient and was quite willing to freely give her time and energy in relating her experience of being in analysis with Winnicott. Indeed, her discussion with Anderson led to her writing the Free Association journal article, “Winnicott Working in Areas Where Psychotic Anxieties Predomi-nate: A Personal Record” (Free Associations, 1985, Vol. 1, 3: 9-42).

One of Winnicott’s greatest talents was his sense of playfulness, which made him an especially good analyst with children. In his “My Search for Winnicott” presentation, Anderson glowed as he showed his slides and focused on Winnicott’s personality. He distinguished between his young self who had done the extensive interviewing mostly in the early 1980s and his current self who has come back to materials he had previously put aside due to other obligations. After the meeting, 13 participants went to a nearby restaurant for a leisurely lunch and lots of conversation.

Page 242