Abstract
This paper addresses the radical departure of late Bion’s and Winnicott’s clinical ideas and practices from traditional psychoanalytic work, introducing a revolutionary change in clinical psychoanalysis. The profound significance and implications of their thinking are explored, and in particular Bion’s conception of transformation in O and Winnicott’s clinical-technical revision of analytic work, with its emphasis on regression in the treatment of more disturbed patients. The author specifically connects the unknown and unknowable emotional reality-O with unthinkable breakdown (Winnicott) and catastrophe (Bion). The author suggests that the revolutionary approach introduced by the clinical thinking of late Bion and Winnicott be termed quantum psychoanalysis. She thinks that this approach can coexist with classical psychoanalysis in the same way that classical physics coexists with quantum physics.
Notes
According to Symington (Citation), it is called “O” by Bion for Ontology.
The term subjective object is used in Winnicott’s writing “in describing the first object, the object not yet repudiated as a not-me phenomenon” (Citation, p. 93, italics in original).
Sandler refers to fantasy, whereas Kleinians refer to phantasy.
Ontology is the study of the nature of being.
I think of Stevie Smith’s poignant poem, “Not Waving but Drowning” (Citation).
Actualize is intended here in its two meanings: “In the present and in the process of actualization, that is, trying to bring into existence what didn’t happen” (Pontalis Citation, p. 45).
From my clinical experience, I would add patients with severe sexual perversions to this list of those in the most regressed group (Eshel Citation).
In my opinion, Winnicott has introduced the most extreme theoretical and clinical-technical psychoanalytic thinking evolving out of earliest human infancy. However, the shift toward primal forms in clinical psychoanalysis does not have to be limited solely to mother–infant natural processes and states, as can be seen in the writings of Searles (Citation, Citation) and Botella and Botella (Citation).
I recently learned that in the 1970s, Bion frequently talked about the uncertainty principle (Reiner Citation).
For an explanation of what I view as the quantum-like psychoanalytic counterpart, see Eshel (Citation, Citation).
Britton, R. (1998). Belief and Imagination: Explorations in Psychoanalysis. London/New York: Routledge. Govrin, A. (2016). Conservative and Radical Perspectives on Psychoanalytic Knowledge: The Fascinated and the Disenchanted. London/New York: Routledge. Hughes, J. M. (1989). Reshaping the Psychoanalytic Domain: The Work of Melanie Klein, W. R. D. Fairbairn, and D. W. Winnicott. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press. Levenson, E. (1972). The Fallacy of Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, 2005. Lifton, R. J. (1976). From analysis to formation: towards a shift in psychological paradigm. J. Amer. Acad. Psychoanal., 4:63–94. McDougall, J. (1995). The Many Faces of Eros. London: Free Association Books. Modell, A. H. (1986). Psychoanalysis in a New Context. New York: Int. Univ. Press. Modell, A. H. (1993). The Private Self. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard Univ. Press. Abram, J. (2008). Donald Woods Winnicott (1896–1971): a brief introduction. Int. J. Psychoanal., 89:1189–1217. Abram, J. (2013). DWW’s notes for the Vienna Congress, 1971. In Donald Winnicott Today. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 1–25; 302–330. Eshel, O. (2013b). Reading Winnicott into nano-psychoanalysis: “there’s plenty of room at the bottom.” Psychoanal. Inquiry, 33:36–49. Loparic, Z. (2002). Winnicott’s paradigm outlined. http://www.centrowinnicott.com.br. Loparic, Z. (2010). From Freud to Winnicott: aspects of a paradigm change. In Donald Winnicott Today, ed. J. Abram. London/New York: Routledge, 2013, pp. 113–156. Brown, L. J. (2013). Bion at a threshold: discussion of papers by Britton, Cassorla, Ferro and Foresti, and Zimmer. Psychoanal. Q., 82:413–433. Symington, N. (2016). Personal communication. Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and Reality. London/New York: Routledge, 1982. Smith, S. (1957). Not waving but drowning. In Not Waving But Drowning. London: André Deutsch, 1958. Abram, J. (2013). DWW’s notes for the Vienna Congress, 1971. In Donald Winnicott Today. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 1–25; 302–330. Pontalis, J. B. (2003). Windows, trans. A. Quinney. Lincoln, NB: Univ. of Nebraska Press. Eshel, O. (2005). Pentheus rather than Oedipus: on perversion, survival and analytic “presencing.” Int. J. Psychoanal., 86:1071–1097. Searles, H. F. (1961). Phases of patient–therapist interaction in the psychotherapy of chronic schizophrenia. In Collected Papers on Schizophrenia and Related Subjects. New York: Int. Univ. Press, 1986, pp. 521–559. Searles, H. F. (1986). Introduction. In Collected Papers on Schizophrenia and Related Subjects. New York: Int. Univ. Press, 1986, pp. 19–38. Botella, C. & Botella, S. (2005). The Work of Psychic Figurability: Mental States without Representation. Hove, UK/New York: Brunner-Routledge. Reiner, A. (2015). Personal communication. Eshel, O. (2002). My use of concepts from modern physics in psychoanalysis. In Between Sessions and beyond the Couch, ed. J. Raphael-Left. Colchester, UK: CPS Psychoanal. Publications, pp. 173–176. Eshel, O. (2010). Patient–analyst interconnectedness: personal notes on close encounters of a new dimension. Psychoanal. Inquiry, 30:146–154.