117. Letter from Donald Winnicott to Adam Limentani, 27th September 1968

27th September 1968.

Dear Limentani,

I guess you found it rather a waste of time at the 1952 Club the other evening.1 From my point of view I did learn something in the second half, after the interval. I seem to be unable to pull it off when I visit the '52 Club which is a pity because it provides a good opportunity for an easy discussion.

Incidentally, I would like to say that I know that my three talks

every year to the students are likely to produce a certain amount of upheaval. I would like to make a comment. Firstly, as I believe you understand, I am not trying to cause an upheaval; but I do find the students remarkably frightened into conformity. This year this was less true than usual. There is hardly any reaction during the discussion when I talk to students that is comparable at all to the reactions that the analysts of these students get during the next week. I suppose all this is inevitable. I do worry, however, on the score that students seem to be taught that psycho-analysis of what is called orthodox variety is something that can be counted on to be successful in the end if you plod on. On the whole the students do not seem to have been told that all analysts fail and that they all have difficult cases and that they all want new developments in theory which will widen the scope and make possible the treatment of less carefully chosen cases.

The other thing I want to say is this. It is not really a good idea for someone with my experience to talk three times to a group of students. What can I do? I can hide all my discontent and I can add a little bit more to the complacency which I find around me, or alternatively I can let the students know some of the difficulties which will arise in their practices quite soon inevitably. There is nothing in between these two extremes because in three times one cannot develop gradually the exposition of a point of view. I do realise very well