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.
Eigen concentrates on the notions of destruction and survival and conveys his understanding of the dynamic between object and subject (Eigen, 2012).
His emphasis is on the object's survival. When he writes that we can do without a death instinct in psychoanalytic theory because the life instinct ‘wreaks enough havoc!’ I understand him to mean that the life drive is enormously powerful, like fire. It can either be channelled constructively or destructively. Its fate will entirely depend on the capacities of the object at the beginning.
‘Destruction of the object’ and the subject's need for the object to survive is Eigen's focus, while Bonaminio highlights the subject's need for the reality of the object (Bonaminio, 2012). Both authors refer to important specific elements in Winnicott's conceptualisations presented in ‘The use of an object’. I would like to add to their different emphases with my interpretation of Winnicott's insights.
I have previously proposed, in much more detail than can be shown here, that Winnicott's concept ‘survival of the object’ was built on his previous notions of the ‘theoretical first feed’ and ‘creating the object.’ I have suggested that his proposed dynamic sequence between object and subject constitutes one of his final advances concerning the initiation of symbolic processes and early object relations:
Subject relates to object.
Object is in process of being found instead of placed by the subject in the world.
Subject destroys object.
Object survives destruction.
Subject can use object.