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 paper is a review of Winnicott's Collected Papers. The author places Winnicott's relatively unconventional work in its relationship with Anna Freud, Hartmann, Glover, and others. James points out that Winnicott's preoccupation with psychosis and psychotic defenses (in connection with their presumed origin in the narcissistic phase) complemented the concurrent mainstream of analytic concern with ego-analytic theory and the neuroses; similarly, he feels Winnicott's emphasis on the psychological aspects of the infant's first six months of life complemented the interest of Spitz, Mahler, and others in slightly older children.
The author believes one reason for the relative neglect of Winnicott's work is the fact that he is regarded as a Kleinian. James feels this is not the case, although he admits that Winnicott's papers occasionally lapse into a sort of overcondensed shorthand which lends credence to that classification. Two other sources of prejudice against Winnicott's work, according to James, are his emphasis on regression within the therapeutic setup and his major emphasis on the therapeutic tool of management rather than interpretation. James cites passages, however, in which Winnicott expressly distinguishes such therapy from psychoanalysis proper. It is clear that the author admires Winnicott's work, but one gains the perhaps unfortunate impression that his review is in considerable measure an apologia for Winnicott's unorthodoxy.