You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
GUNTRIP'S (1975) ACCOUNT OF HIS PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC journey is one of the deeply moving portrayals in analytic literature. By all usual standards he was not a clinically ill person. He functioned creatively in his work and personal life. His major presenting symptom—a background sense of unreality—was apparently marginal, one most people would put up with or try to ignore. However, he was one of those individuals who could not let any sense of "offness" rest. There was a sense in which he was not able to compromise or settle for anything less than becoming a whole person—even if this goal is necessarily elusive.
What gives Guntrip's case an added dimension is that his two analysts, Fairbairn and Winnicott, were among the most creative in the profession—and that he sensitively and creatively charted his pilgrimage. We look over his shoulder and try to catch a glimpse of who these men were and how they interacted with one another. By studying their work we must inevitably increase ourselves, even if our view is speculative and fragmentary.
Glatzer and Evans (1977) recently have raised the question "what went wrong?" in Guntrip's therapies. They feel his paper contains a veiled reproach for the shortcomings of his therapists and unconsciously portrays the lineaments of "therapeutic misalliances". (Langs 1975). Glatzer and Evans find that Guntrip's therapeutic work missed his baby hostile omnipotence and sibling rivalry. They believe that his therapists provided gratifications which masked these critical psychodynamics.
In the present paper I hope to qualify and amplify Glatzer and Evans's findings. My main interest centers on problems in Guntrip's relationship with Winnicott—Guntrip felt the stakes highest there. After some introductory comments I will try to extend the