sexta-feira, 28 de setembro de 2012


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

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário