Reading Winnicott into Nano-Psychoanalysis: “There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom”

From Extension to Revolutionary Change in Clinical Psychoanalysis: The Radical Influence of Bion and Winnicott

“…In a previous paper (Eshel ), I related in detail Winnicott's unique clinical thinking as constituting a paradigm shift, drawing primarily on his revision of the foundations of clinical psychoanalysis, and I entitled it “Reading Winnicott into Nano‐Psychoanalysis .” The title refers to concepts and terminology borrowed from nanoscience and nanotechnology, and in particular to physicist Richard Feynman's () visionary presentation hailing nanotechnology and its radical potential: “There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom—An Invitation to Enter a New Field in Physics.” I paraphrased this title and applied it to Winnicott and to psychoanalysis, as an invitation to enter and develop a new field of psychoanalysis. Indeed, Winnicott's psychoanalytic thinking, and particularly his clinical‐technical theory with its emphasis on regression in the treatment of more disturbed patients, shares the fundamental principle proposed by Feynman and nanotechnology—that of going back to the “bottom,” to the elemental early states and processes and to early mothering techniques, thereby enabling the initiation of formative developmental processes.…”

“…Winnicott was very much aware of the great difficulties met in the course of psychoanalytic work with long, deep, or “total” regressions to dependence, which around the same time bothered two of his contemporaries—Balint in London and Nacht in Paris. Balint (, with regard to the basic fault psychopathology), Nacht (), and Nacht and Viderman () also dealt with the place of therapeutic regression in the psychoanalytic situation, but with rather restrained and cautious clinical‐theoretical conclusions (Eshel ). The last twenty years have given rise to several critical reflections on this way of working with more disturbed patients, and its utility and necessity have been questioned (Spurling ; Tyson and Tyson ) and criticized (Segal ).…”

“…In modern physics, different paradigms—classical physics and quantum mechanics—do coexist (Kuhn ). Whereas classical physics is based on assumptions of linear causality, determinism, and a sharp separation between observer and observed, quantum mechanics introduced into scientific thinking enigmatic principles of uncertainty and inseparability of observer and observed, the crucial formative effect of the process of observation, and the fundamental organization of unbroken wholeness that underlies our perceived world of separateness at the particle level (Bohm ; Botella and Botella ; Eshel , , , , , ; Field ; Godwin ; Kulka ; Mayer ; Sucharov ; Suchet ).…”

“…Thus, I would propose that the profound change introduced by late Bion's and Winnicott's revolutionary theoretical and clinical‐technical thinking, and especially their revision of the foundations of clinical psychoanalysis, is to classical psychoanalysis what quantum physics is to classical physics . Hence, I would term their thinking quantum psychoanalysis (and more specifically, Winnicott's theoretical and clinical thinking— nano‐psychoanalysis —with its quantum effects [Eshel ]), and it may coexist with classical psychoanalysis in the same way that classical physics coexists with quantum physics.…”

“…Over the years, several authors have used Kuhn's terminology to relate to the history of psychoanalytic thinking (Britton ; Govrin ; Hughes ; Levenson ; Lifton ; McDougall ; Modell , ) or to study Winnicott's paradigm change (Abram , ; Eshel ; Loparic , ) and that of Bion (Brown ).…”