On Overcoming Ancestor Worship and on Flawed, Yet Generative Dyads: Commentary on Paper by Joyce Slochower

Abstract

My response to Joyce Slochower's paper emphasizes the value of de-idealization of psychoanalytic parental figures, as part of developing an autonomous analytic identity, and sharply differentiates de-idealization from devaluation. Slochower's view of Winnicott is seen as moving in this direction, and therefore as substantially different from hostile attempts at Winnicott bashing. I view her specific interpretation as a thought-provoking and enriching speculation, and a valuable contribution to understanding nuances of the transference–countertransference cycle. I warn against over--confidence in interpretations based on hindsight. I also suggest that Winnicott's work with Khan and with Guntrip, with all its shortcomings, clearly contributed to their productivity and creativity.

Notes

¹The most memorable moment of that interview was after I left. My companion, a sound technician, realized he had forgotten part of his equipment behind. We rang the bell. Old Paula Fichtl, once Sigmund Freud's own household manager, opened the door. “The professor would have said that you wanted to come back,” she interpreted, while letting us in.

²An ironic connection between these two dyads should be noted. The first collaboration between Winnicott and Khan (1953), 2 years after the beginning of the analysis as Slochower points out, was a rather negative review of Fairbairn's work, which was a major source of inspiration for Guntrip. Winnicott and Khan chose at that point to represent psychoanalytic orthodoxy while negating Fairbairn's radical innovations. The editor of the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, when introducing Guntrip's paper about his two analyses, suggests that Fairbairn's (1952) book “might well have become (after Freud) a prime theory-book of the middle group in the 1950s, if Winnicott and Khan had not reviewed it unfavorably” (in Guntrip). He also mentions that after Fairbairn's death, in a memorial meeting held in 1965 (i.e., when Guntrip was Winnicott's patient), “Winnicott, who chaired the meeting, and Khan each openly acknowledged the lack of understanding that had underlain their joint critical review” (p. 740). Later on Winnicott (1969/1989, p. 256) expressed his identification with Fairbairn's notion that drive is object seeking.