Winnicott's invitation to ‘further games of Jung‐analysis’

Abstract

Winnicott signs off his celebrated review of Jung's (1963) autobiography Memories, Dreams, Reflections with the warning that translation of 'erreichten' as 'attained' (implying assimilation) rather than as 'reached to', could 'queer the pitch for further games of Jung-analysis'. This subtly underscores his view that Jung--who he described earlier as 'mentally split' and lacking 'a self with which to know'--remained essentially dissociated. However, Winnicott, whilst immersed in this work on Jung, wrote a letter to Michael Fordham describing himself as suffering 'a lifelong malady' of 'dissociation'. But this he now reported repaired through a 'splitting headache' dream of destruction, dreamt 'for Jung, and for some of my patients, as well as for myself' (Winnicott 1989, p. 228). Winnicott's recurrent concern during his last decade was with 'reaching to'--that quintessential Winnicottian term--some reparative experience that could address such difficulties in constellating a 'unit self'. This is correlated with his engagement with Jung and tracked through his contemporaneous clinical work, particularly 'Fear of Breakdown' (1963). Themes first introduced by Sedgwick (2008) and developed by the author's earlier 'Winnicott on Jung; destruction, creativity and the unrepressed unconscious' (2011) are given further consideration.

Jung, Winnicott and the divided psyche

“…In the wake of the review's completion he had, he reported to Michael Fordham, a dream, the content of which he explicitly associated to Jung: ‘I was also aware as the dream flowed over me before I quite became awake that I was dreaming a dream for Jung and for some of my patients, as well as for myself’ (Winnicott , p. 229). This dream has, in recent years, become in turn the subject of extensive commentary in the JAP – first by Morey (), then by Sedgwick () and more recently by Meredith‐Owen (, , ). I do not have the space here to review these fascinating commentaries.…”

“…In fact, as we have seen, Winnicott failed even to acknowledge Jung's claim that they represented an un‐pathological form of dissociation, in which the dynamic play and counterplay between two ‘personalities’ ultimately enabled the process of individuation – the movement toward the Self. Winnicott's doctrinaire theoretical commitment to the ‘unit‐self’ and the repression model, combined with an incapacity for a ‘fuller appreciation’ of Jung's psychology (Meredith‐Owen , p. 17), left no room for such dissociationist dynamics. His theoretical assumptions rendered them invisible to him.…”

“…It is striking how many writers in the Jungian tradition, particularly in the last 30 years, seem to have been convinced by this pathologizing critique of Winnicott. Perhaps the best examples of this tendency are the recent articles of William Meredith‐Owen (2015, 2014, 2011a, 2011b). Although his papers undoubtedly contain a wealth of insight, when it comes to Meredith‐Owen's analysis of Jung and of MDR it is sometimes hard to differentiate Meredith‐Owen from Winnicott.…”

“…This implies that there has been a shift, among Jungians, from an initial knee‐jerk rejection of Winnicott's apparent reductiveness to a more nuanced appreciation of the validity of his insights. This despite the fact that, as Meredith‐Owen points out, Winnicott focused his comments on ‘Jung's shadow’ and was unable to manage ‘a fuller appreciation’ of Jung's psychology since it ‘was simply not of as much “use” to him’ (Meredith‐Owen , p. 17).…”

Winnicott redux: a reply to Saban

“…But let us stay with Winnicott's contention that Jung's splitting off his unassimilated aggression and projecting it into enacted earthquakes or attributing it to God was at the cost of leaving him ‘dissociated’. I have previously discussed (Meredith‐Owen , , après Sedgwick ) the extent to which we might consider this version of Jung to be one coloured by Winnicott's need of a vehicle for addressing analogous issues in himself. But Saban would no doubt go much further and argue that this very same material could just as well be cited as an excellent example of psyche drawing on its inherent dissociability to constellate and manifest – through personification or enactment – a complex, so that growth might be facilitated through such an encounter.…”