ABSTRACT

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.

摘要

在对Steven Cooper论文的评论（本期）中，作者同意他对Stephen Mitchell的发展倾斜理论所伴随的问题的阐述和讨论，特别是他提出的关系分析需要更多关注Winnicott的贡献。在回顾 Mitchell 的论文时，我们发现在关注婴儿和幼儿期发展的临床价值方面存在问题，这在他自己的案例插图中变得显而易见。考虑到库珀对米切尔关于母性形象“简单地”提供的概念的批评，分析师的非认知贡献的问题出现了。为了支持 Cooper 重新评估这些创新举措的努力，作者添加了 Winnicott 的 Piggle 的插图，并将 Winnicott 俏皮的立场与 Mitchell 早期作品的理性主义进行了对比。“赞成或反对”驱动理论的范畴似乎过于狭隘地塑造了米切尔对旧理论的方法，并绕过了温尼科特的激进创新。但她也注意到米切尔在后期作品中的路线修正，他在洛瓦尔德将新客体关系视角与旧弗洛伊德概念相结合的影响下对游戏的重新思考，这导致他改变了对发展的立场。