In These Pages…

Three important papers and a most complete bibliography of Balint's writings conclude this series of three special issues of the American Journal of Psychoanalysis devoted to Michael Balint, his life and work (, ).

Harold Stewart compares the theories of Michael Balint and Donald W. Winnicott. Both of these very original authors belong to the Independent group of the British Psychoanalytic Society, and they worked along the same lines as the Hungarian Sándor Ferenczi, with one important difference: Balint recognized explicitly this psychoanalytical filiation, while Winnicott never did. Balint was an analysand, pupil, later colleague, and friend of Ferenczi. After Ferenczi's tragic early death, Balint became the literary executor who carried on Ferenczi's research. On the basis of his master's ideas, Balint developed his own original theory. He proposed solutions to some problems that Ferenczi did not succeed in solving. He created a terminology almost generally adopted by today's analytic community working in the field of object relationship: “basic fault,” “benign” or “malignant regression,” “new beginning.” He divided the mind in three areas: the oedipal area, the area of the basic fault, and the area of creation, well-known notions by now. Somewhat more difficult Balintian ideas, such as philobatism or ocnophilia, have not quite penetrated into the wider consciousness of psychoanalysis.

Winnicott was certainly inspired by Ferenczi's ideas, but he rarely quoted him. As Winnicott explained in one of his autobiographical writings, he used ideas coming from everyone, transformed them, and did not always remember their origin. Winnicott, too, developed his original theory, his personal terminology. The notions he created, such, as “holding,” “good enough mother,” and “transitional object,” are widely known and used today. No child analyst can ignore them, no more than they can ignore the “squiggle game” and other ways invented by Winnicott to establish a the