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.
Dr Robert Hinshelwood has set himself an interesting task: to examine Kleinian concepts by studying only the published clinical material, the canon of Kleinian clinical work.
Clinical Klein is written as a complement to Hinshelwood’s first, theoretical volume, Dictionary of Kleinian Thought (London, Free Association Books, 1991). Its purpose is to illustrate how Kleinian concepts have emerged from clinical psychoanalytic practice. What Hinshelwood wants to do is to show how Kleinian theory has developed from the clinical experience of its practitioners. He hopes to demystify what may appear to be complicated theoretical constructs and to show their importance in describing profound and fundamental psychological experiences. To this end he eschews, for the most part, purely theoretical explanations. He notes that Kleinian writers in particular have written from and about clinical experience and are noted for their willingness to publish detailed process notes from their clinical practice. He therefore makes use solely of published clinical material from Kleinian analysts to elucidate and clarify Kleinian ideas.
Hinshelwood’s tone, as he sets about this task, is that of a knowledgeable guide, explaining strange and wonderful sights to as-yet-uninitiated newcomers. He seems kindly, even avuncular, and, as this might suggest, his style is often personal and can seem patronising. His introduction, for instance, is full of ‘warnings-off’: he warns us that writing about psychoanalysis is like ‘describing an elephant to a blind man’, and that we will have to bear with the experience of not understanding for quite some time, to allow the concepts to sink in and coalesce with our own personal experiences. He encourages us to remember our own personal experiences: having children, being involved in difficult relationships; ‘the vagaries and perplexities of ordinary social interaction; your own introspection and subjectivity’. What he is pleading for at this point is an openness