“Reappraising John O. Wisdom’s Critique of W.R. Bion’s Learning from Experience at a meeting of the British Psychoanalytical Society—17 October 1964.”

ABSTRACT

The paper takes up Wisdom's (1964) little known but significant critique of Bion's book, Learning From Experience. While Wisdom appreciates Bion's clinical and theoretical innovations, he criticised the at times confusing structure of themes that were not sufficiently segregated, the extraneous use of mathematical notation, and the scientific/deductive part of Bion's monograph. In deploying a crucial distinction from Wisdom's critique, one that separates the scientific/deductive aspect of Bion's work from its clinical/inductive trajectory, the author offers an approach to reading Bion's complex text.

Une réévaluation de la critique de John O. Wisdom de Aux sources de l'expérience de W.R. Bion lors d'une réunion de la Société britannique de psychanalyse, le 17 octobre 1964

L'auteur de cet article reprend la critique de Wisdom du livre de Bion, Aux sources de l'expérience, qui est restée peu connue en dépit de son importance. Bien que Wisdom ait apprécié les innovations cliniques et théoriques de Bion, il s'est montré critique à l'égard de certains thèmes qui n'étaient pas suffisamment distincts et dont la structure prêtait parfois à confusion, de même qu'envers l'usage superflu de notations mathématiques et de la partie scientifique/déductive de la monographie de Bion. En se démarquant fondamentalement de la critique de Wisdom, qui sépare l'aspect scientifique/déductif de l'œuvre de Bion de sa trajectoire clinique/inductive, l'auteur propose une autre approche de la lecture de ce texte complexe de Bion.

Eine Neubewertung von John O. Wisdoms Besprechung von Wilfred R. Bions Lernen durch Erfahrung bei einer Sitzung der British Psychoanalytical Society am 17. Oktober 1964

Dieser Beitrag greift Wisdoms wenig bekannte, aber maßgeblichen Besprechung von Bions Buch Lernen durch Erfahrung auf. Wisdom würdigt zwar Bions klinische und theoretische Innovationen, kritisiert jedoch die stellenweise irreführende Gliederung nicht hinreichend voneinander getrennter Themen, die irrelevant erscheinende Verwendung mathematischer Notation sowie den wissenschaftlichen/deduktiven Teil von Bions Monografie. Indem sich der Beitrag in einem wesentlichen Punkt von Wisdoms Besprechung unterscheidet und den wissenschaftlichen/deduktiven Aspekt von Bions Werk von dessen klinischem/induktivem Entwicklungsverlauf trennt, zeigt der Autor einen Ansatz für die Lektüre von Bions komplexem Text auf.

Nuove considerazioni sulla critica di John O. Wisdom ad Apprendere dall'esperienza di W.R. Bion alla riunione della British Psychoanalytical Society del 17 ottobre 1964

L'articolo si rifà alla critica, poco conosciuta ma significativa, che Wisdom fece nel 1964 al libro Apprendere dall'esperienza di Bion. Sebbene Wisdom apprezzasse le innovazioni cliniche e teoriche di Bion, egli criticò invece la struttura del volume - che a suo parere rischiava talvolta di confondere il lettore, presentando i vari temi senza separarli sufficientemente tra loro - l'uso della notazione matematica, estranea alla disciplina della psicoanalisi, e la parte scientifico-deduttiva della monografia di Bion. Riprendendo una fondamentale distinzione presente nella critica di Wisdom, quella cioè tra l'aspetto scientifico-deduttivo del lavoro di Bion e la traiettoria clinico-induttiva, l'Autore propone qui una prospettiva di lettura del complesso testo bioniano.

Reevaluación de la poco conocida crítica de John O. Wisdom a Aprendiendo de la experiencia de W. R. Bion, en la reunión de la Sociedad Psicoanalítica Británica del 17 de octubre de 1964

Este artículo recoge la poco conocida pero importante crítica de Wisdom (1964) a Aprendiendo de la experiencia de Bion. Si bien Wisdom aprecia las innovaciones clínicas y teóricas de Bion, critica la a veces confusa estructura de temas poco discriminados, el uso innecesario de notaciones matemáticas y la parte científica/deductiva de dicha obra. El autor, al establecer una distinción crucial respecto de la crítica de Wisdom, que separa los aspectos científicos/deductivos de la obra de Bion de su trayectoria clínica/inductiva, ofrece una aproximación a la lectura del complejo texto de Bion.

KEYWORDS:

• History of psychoanalysis
• W.R. Bion theories
• J.O. Wisdom
• archival research

Acknowledgments

Bob Hinshelwood was kind enough a few years ago to point out the existence of the Wisdom/Bion exchange in 1964. I in turn received a copy of both the paper and the audio recording from Joann Halford, then Archivist of the British Psychoanalytical Society.

Notes

1 In his Festschrift for Bion, James Grotstein (1981, 601–624) published a slightly revised and retitled version of Wisdom’s (1964) paper “Metapsychology after Forty Years”. However, very little (e.g. Steiner 1982, 492) or no mention has been made of Wisdom’s contribution by subsequent commentators.

2 In the acknowledgments to Learning, Bion (1962a, i) made specific reference to Kleinian colleagues who had read and critiqued his manuscript prior to publication. Specifically, he mentioned his indebtedness to Elliot Jacques, Roger Money-Kyrle and Hanna Segal as analysts who had taken time from their practices to make suggestions and comments.

3 It is of interest to note that the Wisdom–Bion meeting in 1964 attracted adherents of all three schools of thought in the British Society. So, along with Independents like Marion Milner and D. W. Winnicott, other analysts like Harold Stewart and Roger Money-Kyrle were also in attendance (as indicated by an archival tape-recording of the question and comment period where the various speakers were identified by name).

4 Wisdom also likened Learning to Bion’s (1961) Experiences in Groups, mentioning that it too “is likely to become a classic”. While he realized that the reader would have to make “a considerable intellectual effort” in grappling with Learning, it did not, however, dissuade him from a critique of its weaknesses (Wisdom 1964, 1).

5 Bion continued this practice of merely numbering his chapters in both Elements of Psycho-Analysis, (1963) and Transformations (1965). It was only with the publication of Attention and Interpretation (1970) that he finally entitled his various chapters. While this practice of not titling his chapters was reminiscent of James Joyce’s similar practice in Ulysses (Gabler edition), the only references Bion (1980, 106; 2005, 37–38) made to Joyce were some comments on Finnegan’s Wake in the clinical seminars in São Paolo and Rome in 1978. Whether deliberately intended or not, the lack of chapter titles only served to further disorient the reader.

6 It seems that Bion’s association with Wisdom also continued – and may attest to Wisdom’s impact as another possible philosophical influence on Bion’s thinking that led him to abandon the scientific/deductive project. In the “Acknowledgements” to Transformations, Bion (1965, i) specifically cited John O. Wisdom’s influence: “I am also indebted to Dr. J. O. Wisdom for many helpful criticisms of my previous work, and in particular of Learning from Experience, which have made me more aware of the pitfalls in this one.” It is also important to bear in mind that Wisdom’s critique came after Bion (1963) had already published Elements of Psychoanalysis, in which he continued grappling with Braithwaite and “scientific deductive systems”. There also was an opportunity for both men to continue their dialogue as Wisdom was also in attendance at Bion’s Los Angeles Seminars in April, 1967 (Bion 2013, 76). Wisdom had been appointed as a distinguished visiting philosopher at the University of Southern California from 1965 to 1967 (Sayers unpublished chronology of J. O. Wisdom, p. 5). Wisdom continued his interest in writing about Bion’s work, putting it just below equal footing with that of Freud and Klein (Wisdom 1981, 1987a).

7 Bion (2013, 77) reprised this idea in another clinical distillation at his 1967 Los Angeles Seminars: from the patient’s point of view, “if I can’t get love, affection, appreciation, wisdom, all that I can do is [ask for] ‘more milk’ … . Never mind what the analysis is like—never mind about that, but just ‘more analysis,’ because it is the only thing between the patient and despair. It’s the only way of feeling that the problem can be dealt with … . In other words, that what they can do is to demand more in terms of quantity because the importance of quality is not appreciated.” It is also of interest that Bion’s comment here was in direct response to a query most likely put to him by J. O. Wisdom, the only attendee with a British accent, who later relayed that he had attended this conference (Wisdom 1987a, 542): that psychotic patients (since they cannot dream) put the analyst in a classic wish-fulfilment position by enacting conflicts (rather than nocturnally represent them). In effect, the psychotic enacts a need to have the analyst dream on his behalf (Bion 2013, 76).