Commentary on Winnicott Roundtable

The Winnicott roundtable, upon which I've been asked to comment, reveals the complexity and originality of Winnicott's ideas. His plain language and the absence of psychoanalytic jargon in his writing express complex and well articulated ideas that are capable of seducing the reader and leading him unawares to paradoxical and revolutionary ways of thinking. Winnicott's writing so captures our attention that Ogden compared him to William Faulkner and Henry James (Ogden, 2001, p. 308).

Winnicott sets himself apart not only by the originality of his ideas, but also by the manner in which his syntax, his rhythm and his choice of words create a reading experience of a very distinctive kind. As Ogden has noted, Winnicott's writing is difficult to paraphrase. His style subtly engages the reader in creative thought. He is never assertive; he seems to stage his thought process. His style is casual, colloquial, playful, relaxed and, at the same time, compact. He writes easily, his concepts appear to be simple and intuitive. But a close reading reveals the complexity of his thinking, which is easily misunderstood, because of his ambiguous and idiosyncratic language.

Winnicott never provokes debate with strong statements. Unlike Fairbairn, he avoids theoretical controversies about Freudian metapsychology. As Judith Kuspit notes, Winnicott sometimes takes the role of defender of Freudian orthodoxy in his critique of Fairbairn. However, without ever openly saying it, Winnicott himself departs from Freudian and Kleinian formulations on several important points: the role of instinctual drives, the primacy of the father in psychological development, and the status of and relationship between illusion and reality.