![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
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 first 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.
1. This paper takes up the views expounded in Fulgencio (2005a), and includes results obtained in my post‐doctoral thesis, funded by FAPESP. The interpretation of the history and development of psychoanalysis put forward here follows the lines of research of: a) the Research Group in Philosophy and Psychotherapeutic Practices (GFPP, http:www.cle.unicamp.brgrupofpp) of the Clinical Psychology postgraduate studies programme, Pontifi cal Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC‐SP), based on Zeliko Loparic's work; and b) the Winnicott Centre, São Paulo (http:www.centrowinnicott.com.br), which provides basic research information on and bibliographical references by Winnicott. I thank Zeliko Loparic and the translator, Sara Fevereiro, for their great help in the establishment of the English version of this paper.
1. This paper takes up the views expounded in Fulgencio (2005a), and includes results obtained in my post‐doctoral thesis, funded by FAPESP. The interpretation of the history and development of psychoanalysis put forward here follows the lines of research of: a) the Research Group in Philosophy and Psychotherapeutic Practices (GFPP, http:www.cle.unicamp.brgrupofpp) of the Clinical Psychology postgraduate studies programme, Pontifi cal Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC‐SP), based on Zeliko Loparic's work; and b) the Winnicott Centre, São Paulo (http:www.centrowinnicott.com.br), which provides basic research information on and bibliographical references by Winnicott. I thank Zeliko Loparic and the translator, Sara Fevereiro, for their great help in the establishment of the English version of this paper.
Notes
1. This paper takes up the views expounded in Fulgencio (2005a), and includes results obtained in my post‐doctoral thesis, funded by FAPESP. The interpretation of the history and development of psychoanalysis put forward here follows the lines of research of: a) the Research Group in Philosophy and Psychotherapeutic Practices (GFPP, http:www.cle.unicamp.brgrupofpp) of the Clinical Psychology postgraduate studies programme, Pontifi cal Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC‐SP), based on Zeliko Loparic's work; and b) the Winnicott Centre, São Paulo (http:www.centrowinnicott.com.br), which provides basic research information on and bibliographical references by Winnicott. I thank Zeliko Loparic and the translator, Sara Fevereiro, for their great help in the establishment of the English version of this paper.