Winnicott’s foundation for the basic concepts of Freud’s metapsychology?

Abstract

In a recent paper, Fulgencio shows how Winnicott rejected the basic speculative concepts of Freud's metapsychology - Trieb, psychical apparatus and libido - and replaced them with non-speculative concepts that promoted a factual theorization. In this paper, the author examines some of Winnicott's concepts and attempts to demonstrate how, rather than replacing Freud's concepts, he provides a factual foundation for the metapsychology in the double dependence of the infant in care. Freud never actually disregards the necessity of early mothering but he takes it for granted. By differentiating between ego needs and id needs, ego-relatedness and id-relatedness, object-mother and environment-mother, Winnicott attempts to theorize what Freud takes for granted: the function of the holding environment as a framework for id-experiences and the function of object-presenting as a condition of reality-testing. Furthermore, by differentiating between pure male and pure female elements, he is also able to construct a highly speculative theorization in order to distinguish two basic principles: doing and being. Although the death drive is clearly rejected, this rejection follows from his theorization of double dependence. Consequently, the author suggests that Winnicott did not discard metapsychological concepts but theorized the conditions for using both these and the intrapsychic topography.

Early and deep: Two independent paradigms?

“…It is probably no coincidence that this fictional status of the theory is highlighted from the outset. He reminds us of the point of departure chosen by Winnicott and of the Freudian fiction of an organism entirely under the dominance of the pleasure principle, subject to the mother's care (Girard, , pp. 306–7).…”

“…In 2007, Fulgencio argued that Winnicott had rejected Freud's metapsychology, replacing it with a factual metapsychology. I have previously considered this, on the contrary, not as an attack but as the examination of the borders and conditions of the applicability of metapsychology (Girard, ), starting from a very local point of view: Winnicott himself discussing Freud (Winnicott, , p. 39). By pulling on the thread of this detail, it seemed to me to throw light on a whole aspect of his project of elaborating “this ‘minor’ condition neglected by Freud () in ‘Formulations on the Two Principles of Mental Functioning’ (p. 219, n. 4): ‘provided one includes with it [the infant] the care it receives from the mother’” (Girard, , p. 314).…”

“…I have previously considered this, on the contrary, not as an attack but as the examination of the borders and conditions of the applicability of metapsychology (Girard, ), starting from a very local point of view: Winnicott himself discussing Freud (Winnicott, , p. 39). By pulling on the thread of this detail, it seemed to me to throw light on a whole aspect of his project of elaborating “this ‘minor’ condition neglected by Freud () in ‘Formulations on the Two Principles of Mental Functioning’ (p. 219, n. 4): ‘provided one includes with it [the infant] the care it receives from the mother’” (Girard, , p. 314). This is also Patrick Mérot's position: “Freud's words, ‘provided one includes with it the care it receives from the mother’ could appear as the anchor point of Winnicott's thought, since for him the mother and the child are indissociable … In fact, Winnicott's theory has its place essentially in the space that Freud opened up with this note” (Mérot, , pp.…”

Response to Jacques André’s ‘Laura – or the sexual borders of need’

“…Since I had previously translated a paper of Jacques André’s in the Psychoanalytic Quarterly , I was familiar with his style of interlacing clinical material with theory. André’s text adds to the work of other French analysts (Green, 2010; Girard, 2010) recently in re‐evaluating Winnicott’s theories of early childhood. In particular, Winnicott’s views about the drives early in life have come under scrutiny.…”

Readings of Winnicott III

“…He observes how the developing infant and child encounter phenomena that require that a wide range of questions be addressed and answered. Those questions are, for the most part, immediate, narrow, local, and particular, and the answers promote survival and adaptation, the going-onbeing of the self, for example, BWhat is happening?^In the midst of these activities, the infant 1 For other commentary on Winnicott's corpus, the reader may turn to any of the following: Abram 1996Abram , 2008Caldwell 2007;Caldwell and Joyce 2011a, b;Clancier and Kalmanovitch 1987;Davis and Wallbridge 1981;Flanagan 2011;Fulgencio 2007;Gargiulo 1998;Girard 2010;Goldman 1993a, b;Greenberg and Mitchell 1983;Grolnick 1990;Grolnick and Barkin 1978;Hernandez 1998;Hughes 1989;Khan 1958Khan /1975Khan , 1972Khan /1986Ogden 1986Ogden , 1989Ogden , 1994Ogden , 1997Ogden , 2001aOgden , b, 2002Ogden , 2004Ogden /2007Phillips 1989a, b;Rodman 1987a, b;Rudnytsky 1991;Sutherland 1980. There may be some benefit to considering this and the other articles in the series in conjunction with commentary on Winnicott in the general area of psychology and religion, for example : Black 2006;Gay 1983;Jones 1991aJones , b, 1996Jones , 1997Jones , 2002LaMothe 2014;McDargh 1983…”