British Object Relations

FROM THE REQUESTS TO GIVE TALKS on the work of these analysts, I assume that the growing interest in it is not simply historical. On the contrary, I believe that the issues that they struggled with have become questions of widespread concern today for the advancement of psychoanalytic theory and practice. The reasons for taking this quartet as a group do not stem from any joint work they did. They did not constitute a group in that sense at all. Guntrip’s work is closely derived from, and related to, Fairbairn’s; but Balint and Winnicott pursued their paths independently of each other and of the others, and both were rather superficial in their comments on Fairbairn’s writings, as were most analysts for many years. What gives point to their being bracketed together is the extent to which their contributions eventually embodied a common development. Even in this respect, however, they preserved their individuality, for while Fairbairn stated clearly that his clinical findings required a recasting of some of Freud’s central formulations, Balint and Winnicott did not take this step. Indeed, Winnicott shared with Masud Khan the view of Fairbairn’s book (1954) “that if one could escape from Fairbairn’s claim that his theory supplants that of Freud we could enjoy the writings of an analyst who challenges everything, and who puts clinical evidence before accepted theory.” As Guntrip (1961, p. 297) tersely observes, this is no way to advance any science!