The Psychoanalytic Languages: On the Intimate Rivalry of Michael Balint and D.W. Winnicott

The article presents and discusses a two-decades correspondence between Michael Balint and D.W. Winnicott. Alongside closeness and friendship, the letters reveal tensions, disagreement and even rivalry between Balint and Winnicott on three main levels: personal, cultural and theoretical. The debate can be framed around the question of whether or not the British School of Psychoanalysis that emerged in the 1950s – and in which Winnicott and Balint were arguably the most senior figures – was a continuation of the psychoanalytic tradition that developed before the Second World War by Sandor Ferenczi and the Budapest School. The article argues, however, that there is another meta-theoretical level to the debate between the two: they passionately try to define what is the psychoanalytic language, and disagree about its real nature

Whose suffering? – Carers and curers

I propose to discuss the role that psychodynamic understanding might have in a balanced psychiatric service. Too often psychiatry emphasises the medical model of curing the patients’ symptoms and pain – and there is a reason for that approach. It allows us to keep some distance from the suffering which carers may be confronted with if they attempt an understanding. My argument is that we cannot do without either – curing or caring. However, the role of understanding may need to be applied not just to patient experience but also at a different place. In particular, we need to understand the interaction of patient and mental health worker (user and carer) and the impact of that on carers and care institutions