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.
This book sets out the main theoretical ideas of Klein and Winnicott, and then compares and contrasts them. It brings out how Klein and then Winnicott became a major theorist of psychoanalysis, how each had their own separate interests and approach, so what they evolved were distinctively different clinical paradigms. The book contains 10 papers in five main sections, one in each section by each author followed by a dialogue, and then a final summary interchange plus a glossary of certain central terms, which after the earlier discussions can now be seen in a fuller light. Each theoretical outline is itself a position statement on a central theme, with the value of being succinct and at times challenging – for these are real dialogues that are both alive and lively.
The authors’ chosen method of study in the book is an academic dialogue, in debate about the meaning and value of central concepts with a few short clinical examples, which is a significantly different way of doing psychoanalytic research from the usual examination of longer case studies. Within the dialogues, clarity of exposition of the central ideas of both Klein and Winnicott is sought, and certain sections from each author are particularly clear and helpful. Some misperceptions and mythologies about the other’s perspective are tackled within the dialogues, and in some places tensions of misunderstanding remain, but the debate shows that when the underlying meaning of each approach is looked at closely, further understanding can follow.
Each author is both psychoanalyst and a theoretician and has written extensively in their own area, Abram on Winnicott and Hinshelwood on Klein, so they each start from a solid base of knowledge of their subject (Abram 1996; Abram 2013; Hinshelwood 1989; Hinsehlwood 1994). They each write lucidly on particular themes, but at times misunderstandings or confusions about the other’s approach also comes through. Then active debate brings further understanding in some places