CRITICA

My reflections on the topic of Aliveness and Deadness began a few months ago when I was invited by Monica Bomba from the Milan Psychoanalytic Institute to participate along with Luisa Marino in a Congress on the work of Winnicott and Bion. After many discussions Luisa and I decided to have a dialogue about the work of Klein, Winnicott and Bion, rather than write a paper. We were very excited about the project, but also realized the complexity of the topics we would need to cover. How would we present Winnicott and Bion as part of the British Psychoanalytic Society? The literature on British psychoanalysis is immense, especially its history around the “Controversial Discussions” that took place in London from 1941-1945 and the experiences of analysts who emigrated from Vienna, Germany and Hungary to England.

Our dialogue started with Melanie Klein and gradually shifted to Winnicott and Bion. In this editorial I will not transcribe or summarize our dialogue but try to capture some of our ideas relative to the concepts of aliveness and deadness that are part of Klein’s, Winnicott‘s and Bion’s work. The bibliography at the end only references the books most relevant to our dialogue. 

The most important analyst in England during the period of 1926 to 1960 was Melanie Klein. Who was she and why was she so controversial? Klein was analyzed by Ferenczi and K. Abraham and was invited by Ernest Jones to London in 1926 to teach child analysis, employing a method that differed from Anna Freud. Klein believed that a child could be analyzed at an early age. She used transference to understand the child’s conflicts. Sigmund Freud and Anna Freud did not accept her ideas. For them her ideas were wild and too abstract.

Klein was a strong woman who was divorced with three children. Her life was complicated and she endured many losses –– a sister, a brother and a son, as well as her analyst K. Abraham. Her ideas were original and innovative and attracted many analysts in London to work with her. Most of her work was an articulation of the destructive impulses in the early internal life of the child. We think the controversy around her started in Berlin in the 1920s. The Berlin institute was adopting a view that was different from Freud’s Libidinal Theory. The difference related to sadistic aspects in the early stage of development that is similar to Klein’s ideas. 

In London around 1936 there was much controversy about the teaching and transmission of psychoanalysis. During those times many analysts from Europe moved to London to escape the Nazi Regime. Freud and his family also left, relocating to London in 1938.

The major controversy was whether to stay close to Freud’s model or move to a new theoretical model proposed by Klein. 

Another complication was that the analysts that immigrated to England had to adapt to a new language and a different way of life. They worked hard to stay alive and practice analysis. In London the tension was so great about different theoretical ideas that an exchange was proposed where theoretical and clinical papers from 1941 to 1945 would be discussed. It was called the “Controversial Discussions.” The conflicts were not resolved, but instead, the Society was divided into three groups: Freudians, Kleinians and Independents. To learn more about this topic, see “The Freud – Klein Controversies 1941-1945” by Pearl and Steiner (1991). It is an important book not only to understand the theories, but to learn about the politics, immigrations and lives of the many analysts who were part of the British Psychoanalytic Society.

Returning to Klein, her ideas were fueled by the death instinct, aggression, destruction and envy. Luisa’s and my impression was that her work was an extension of Freud’s death instinct that he proposed in 1920 in a paper titled, “Beyond the Pleasure Principle.” Freud’s paper was very complex and was rejected by most analysts because it was too abstract, philosophical and biological. In contrast, Klein’s work was more clinical than theoretical. It was subsequently left to her students to present Klein’s ideas within a theoretical framework.

Klein’s work, with its focus on destructive forces, reveals a certain deadness, a dark side, in a person. For Klein it began very early on in childhood. The child’s sadistic tendencies appeared in depression, especially in melancholia and psychosis. Klein’s ideas were too abstract and dogmatic, however, which is one of the reasons that the international psychoanalytic community, especially in the United States, rejected her ideas. At the same time many talented analysts followed her work, including Bion, Hannah Segal and Rosenfeld. For a short time Winnicott was close to Klein. The question for us is: Is Klein a dangerous analyst? We discovered that she herself was rather aggressive. She humiliated her daughter Melitta during psychoanalytic meetings in London. Melitta moved to New York and, interestingly, did not go to her mother’s funeral. 

To bolster our argument that Klein was dangerous, we found a 1981 paper that Jean Laplanche, a leading French psychoanalytic scholar, presented in Mexico called, “Should We Burn Melanie Klein?” We are fortunate that The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association published Laplanche’s paper with a discussion by many analysts from the Bay Area. We will not discuss the Laplanche paper, but we will include here a lucid summary by Mitch Wilson, the editor of JAPA. 

“Laplanche’s mischievously titled paper, ‘Should We Burn Melanie Klein?’, was given originally as a presentation in Mexico in 1981. Its title, though certainly jarring to some, in fact signals Laplanche’s deep respect for Klein’s intrepid push into the nether reaches of the psyche, as well as her willingness to populate this territory with a variety of figures (objects partial and whole), positions (paranoid-schizoid and depressive), and passions no less absolute than the instincts of Life and Death. But it is Klein’s very fearlessness—or perhaps a presumptuousness that underwrites it—with which the admiring Laplanche struggles. As will become clear upon reading, Laplanche’s critique engages fundamental questions regarding psychoanalytic theory and practice.” (JAPA Vol. 67, p. 815.)

The question regarding psychoanalytic theory and practice is taken to new dimensions by students of Klein, especially Bion, Hannah Segal and Rosenfeld. This trio, with the support and help of Klein, extended her work about psychotic thinking and functioning.

Bion was the leading figure of Klein’s group. His 1967 book, ”Second Thoughts,” was a collection of his papers on psychosis. The papers were and still are exceptional. Bion had a clear view of the psychotic state, which he saw as fueled by aggression, sadism, rage and an intolerance of reality. Bion stressed the destructive aspect of the patient’s mind, which he called “attacks on linking.” The patient attacks both his own thinking and the analyst’s mind. Clearly, Bion saw this as a type of destruction. The papers described bizarre objects, psychotic parts of the personality, arrogance, catastrophic fears, and more.

Why so much rage and destruction? Luisa and I wonder whether the theoretical models of Klein and Bion were based, too, on their direct experiences. During that period, war with Germany was a reality, not a theoretical possibility. The Controversial Discussions seemed to foreclose external reality.

Was Klein’s theory an attempt to show the aggressive aspect of humans and also the traumatic aspect of personal and cultural losses? As we stated before, the British Institute attracted many refugees from Europe that emigrated from Germany, Austria, and Hungary to escape the Nazi Regime. The British Institute was likely a creative refuge for those immigrants who lost their families and friends during the war. I think their work on psychosis was not only meant to understand the internal psychotic process, but also the insane and dangerous world around them. It was about the absurdity of humanity, as reflected in Kafka, Joyce and Beckett.

Like Klein, Bion was also an immigrant. He moved to England from India when he was eight and never returned. He had many traumatic experiences during World War I and suffered the loss of his first wife. During World War II, his work with traumatized soldiers influenced his views of group work, which he wrote about in “Experiences with Groups.”   His analysis with Klein helped him to free his mind. 

Bion’s ideas were original. His work is based on scientific theories, mathematical ideas, and such concepts like Alpha, Beta, K, -K and, in particular, O. For years I struggled with this concept of O. Finally, it has been explained beautifully by Annie Reiner, a Los Angeles analyst, in her book, “W. R. Bion’s Theories of the Mind: A Contemporary Introduction.” (2023) The book is a short 88 pages. Thomas Ogden highly praised it for its clear explanation of the concept of O. For us, the concept O could be distilled as a certain feeling that illuminates a person’s emotions and the world around him.  

Bion moved from London to Los Angeles in 1968 to start a new life. It was not easy for him. He was somewhat isolated, reading poetry and travelling around the world to give seminars. For a long time, he was not well understood in England or Los Angeles.

In contrast, the work of Winnicott is completely different. He was critical of Klein’s and Bion’s theories and many other thinkers’. His many letters make clear that he was a brilliant thinker, but also a complex man. His letters to Klein and Bion are important to understand Winnicott both as a person and theoretician.

Winnicott came from an upper-class British family and had a stable and very good early life. He became a pediatrician, a superb theorist and clinician, and was involved with his psychoanalytic society for many years. He also was deeply engaged with American psychoanalysis. Winnicott had two analyses, the first with Strachey and the second with Riviere, a student of Klein. 

The foundation of his theory is the role of the mother, the maturational process, and the power of the environment. He believed that psychosis was caused by a failure of the environment, traumatic experiences and difficulties with the mother. 

His clinical work is that of a very seasoned analyst. He delved into both the setting and his own attitude toward the patient. He believed  the aim of analysis was to allow the patient to become a real person. The analysis should help the patient experience vitality and  pleasure to be able to play and create. His focus centered on creating internal aliveness.

Winnicott, in creating a new theory, made changes to Freud’s, Klein’s and Bion’s models. His theory is ontological, which could be encompassed in the Italian word Divenire — “to become a subject.”  The theory moves away from Freud’s metapsychology of forces and impulses. This shift, according to some analysts, is revolutionary and creates a new metapsychology in psychoanalysis.

To conclude, Luisa and I think that Klein, Bion and Winnicott are very significant thinkers. Do they have something in common? It is difficult to ascertain.  There are both similarities and differences among them.  We could say that Klein and Bion stressed more the deadness in the patient. Winnicott was more positive, focusing on the liveliness.  Regardless, their work is original and compelling. It is possible to infer that we are afraid to mourn and move away from them. This is a challenging question in psychoanalysis. 

Luisa and I firmly believe that psychoanalysis is still alive and growing theoretically and clinically, and that it is an endlessly creative and fertile process.

We have tried in this paper to show the conceptual psychoanalytic ideas of deadness and aliveness in the work of Klein, Bion and Winnicott, as reflected in a dialogue between me and my friend and colleague Luisa Marino. We were enlightened in reading and studying these authors and would like to thank Monica Bomba for her invitation.

I would like to thank Drs. Sharon Neuwald and Sally Jorgensen for their editing and insightful comments.

References (a selective bibliography):

King, P. and Steiner R (eds.) “The Freud – Klein Controversies 1941-1945.” London: Routledge. (1991)

Reiner, A. “W. R. Bion’s Theories of the Mind: A Contemporary Introduction.” London:  Routledge (2023) 

Wilson, M. Editor’s Note. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 67:815 On Laplanche ‘s paper: “Should We Burn Melanie Klein?” (2019)