Introduction - Jan Abram
“The principal aim of this volume is to demonstrate that Winnicott's contribution constitutes a major revolution in psychoanalysis.”
“The word 'revolution' references the work of Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientíjic Revolutions (1970 2nd edition). In Chapter 4 Loparic sets out to examine the evolution of Winnicott's discoveries and applies Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions. Loparic demonstrates the extent to which Freud's psychoanalytic symbolic matrix was changed by Winnicott.
“The claim that Winnicott's work constitutes a scientific revolution is substantiated by Zeljko Loparic in Chapter 4. Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's theory of the 'structure of scientific revolutions' this perspec tive offers a clear and convincing argument that shows how Winnicott adds to Freud's oedipal paradigm with the 'baby-on-the-mother's lap paradigm'. Loparic suggests that this was a solution to Winni cott's scientific 'crisis' when he realized that babies really could be ill (see Chapter 1: 34, Chapter 3: 80). Loparic demonstrates that Win nicott's different theoretical outcome from Freud's is related to their different starting points. While Freud's oedipal paradigm emerged from his work with the hysteric, Winnicott the paediatrician and child analyst was faced with the problem of the ill baby on the mother's lap:
This is, in essence, the paradigm change which accounts for the difference between the Freudian Oedipal, triangular or three-body psychoanalysis and Winnicott's mother-baby, dual or two-body psychoanalysis.
(Chapter 4: 146)
To amplify the different basic assumptions between Freud and Win nicott, Loparic argues that Freud's philosophical underpinning was essentially Kantian, which meant that he allowed himself'... a number of speculative auxiliary suppositions to formulate his metapsychol ogy . .. '(ibid.). Winnicott built on Freud's clinical methodology, and focused on the subjective experience ofhis countertransference as will be developed in sorne of the chapters in Part Two (see Chapters 8 and 1O especially) o This emphasis on clinical experience concurs especially with Winnicott's later arguments as seen in Chapter 13 (and explored in Chapter 14), and highlights the reasons for his particular disagreement with Freud's 'speculative' notion ofthe 'death instinct'.oLoparic comprehensively addresses the distinctiveness of Winni cott's revolutionary investigations and completes his critical survey with an address to the critics of Winnicott (as well as those who romanticize his work) o He stresses that, following both Darwin and Freud, Winnicott was foremost a scientist who was loyal to the sci entific method. To illustrate this point Loparic cites the invaluable methodology of Winnicott's therapeutic consultations which exem plify his dedication to scientific investigation.” Jan Abram
