Tilting Back Toward Development: Response to Steven Cooper’s “Donald Winnicott and Stephen Mitchell’s Developmental Tilt Hypothesis Reconsidered”

In this commentary on Steven Cooper’s paper (this issue), the author agrees with his exposition and discussion of the issues attendant on Stephen Mitchell’s theory of the developmental tilt, in particular with his proposal that relational analysis needs to pay more attention to Winnicott’s contributions. In reviewing Mitchell’s thesis we find a problematic either/or regarding the clinical value of developmental focus on infancy and early childhood, which becomes apparent in his own case illustrations. Taking up Cooper’s critique of Mitchell’s notion that the maternal figure “simply” provides, the question of the analyst’s non-cognitive contributions arises. Supporting Cooper’s effort to revalue those innovative moves this author adds an illustration from Winnicott’s Piggle and contrasts Winnicott’s playful stance with the rationalism of Mitchell’s early work. The category “for or against” drive theory seems to have too narrowly shaped Mitchell’s approach to older theories, and to have bypassed Winnicott’s radical innovations. But she also notes Mitchell’s course correction in his later work, his reconsideration of play under the influence of Loewald’s integration of new object relations perspective with old Freudian concepts, which led him to change his stance toward development.