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

Michael Balint's word trail: The ‘Ocnophil’, the ‘Philobat’ and creative dyads

In this paper, I discuss how Michael Balint arrived at the concepts of ‘ocnophil’ and ‘philobat’, which refer to two kinds of object relations. I look at the correspondence between Balint and the classical scholar David Eichholz. The two crafted these words together in a passionate exchange of letters. By recognizing the importance of creative dyads in psychoanalysis, we gain more insight into the creation of psychoanalytic knowledge beyond the frame of individual authorship. I read the collaboration between Balint and Eichholz in its historical and theoretical context, particularly in relation to the Budapest School of psychoanalysis, where intellectual collaborations had an important place. The Budapest School was Michael Balint's first home, and it shaped his epistemic and psychoanalytic style. Balint constructed his psychoanalytic theories in a spirit of openness, maintaining a commitment to conversations between psychoanalysis and other disciplines