What do you think?
Rate this book
Playing and Reality
What are the origins of creativity and how can we develop it - whether within ourselves or in others? Not only does Playing and Reality address these questions, it also tackles many more that surround the fundamental issue of the individual self and its relationship with the outside world. In this landmark book of twentieth-century psychology, Winnicott shows the reader how, through the attentive nurturing of creativity from the earliest years, every individual has the opportunity to enjoy a rich and rewarding cultural life. Today, as the 'hothousing' and testing of children begins at an ever-younger age, Winnicott's classic text is a more urgent and topical read than ever before.
240 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1971
268 people are currently reading
6951 people want to read
About the author
D.W. Winnicott
123 books407 followersDonald Woods Winnicott was an English pediatrician, psychiatrist, sociologist and psychoanalyst.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews
May 5, 2022
İnsan, doğumundan itibaren nesnel olarak algılananla öznel olarak kurulan arasındaki ilişki sorunuyla uğraşmaktadır. (ve anne tarafından yeterince iyi hazırlanmamış birinin bu sorunu sağlıklı biçimde çözmesi mümkün değil)
İç ve dış gerçekliğin yanı sıra bir üçüncü bölgede, ara deneyim bölgesinde, sanat, din, yaratıcı çalışma ve düşsel yaşam gibi yoğun deneyimler içinde varlığımızı sürdürüyoruz. Bu alan aynı zamanda oyun alanı... Bu bölge, insanın kendisiyle ve ötekiyle ilişki kurma deneyiminin meydana geldiği, heyecan verici ama aynı zamanda istikrarsız bir yerdir. Örneğin, bölgelerin travmatik bir darbeyle iç içe geçtiği bir sallantı sırasında geçmişe duyulan özlem ya da yoğun bir nostalji duygusu, kişinin kaybedilmiş bir nesnenin içsel temsiline kararsız biçimde tutunmasıyla ilgilidir.
Esasen çocukluk tamamlanmayan bir süreç; özellikle bir orta doğu toplumunda yaşıyorsanız bu hiç bir şekilde mümkün değil; hiç ölmeyen ve sizi kendi otoritesinden asla azat etmeyen bir baba figürü var tepemizde... Bu anlamda, kendi toplumumdan baktığımda aşağıdaki cümleleri ayrıca not etmek istiyorum:
Bireyler, ya yaratıcı biçimde yaşayıp hayatın yaşamaya değer olduğunu hissediyorlar ya da yaratıcı biçimde yaşayamayıp yaşamanın değerinden şüpheye düşüyorlar. (sayfa 103)
Her türlü kültürel alanda geleneği temel almadan özgün olmak imkansızdır. Öte yandan kültüre katkıda bulunan hiç kimse eskiyi tekrarlamaz. Kültür alanının en affedilmez günahıdır intihal! (sayfa 137)
"Mahrum bırakılmış çocuğun" huzursuzluğu, onu oyun oynamaktan aciz ve kültürel deneyim yaşama kapasitesinden yoksun kılar. "İmge oluşturma ve bunları yeni kalıplar içerisinde bir araya getirerek yapıcı biçimde kullanma kapasitesi bireyin güvenme yeteneğine bağlıdır." (sayfa 140-141)
İç ve dış gerçekliğin yanı sıra bir üçüncü bölgede, ara deneyim bölgesinde, sanat, din, yaratıcı çalışma ve düşsel yaşam gibi yoğun deneyimler içinde varlığımızı sürdürüyoruz. Bu alan aynı zamanda oyun alanı... Bu bölge, insanın kendisiyle ve ötekiyle ilişki kurma deneyiminin meydana geldiği, heyecan verici ama aynı zamanda istikrarsız bir yerdir. Örneğin, bölgelerin travmatik bir darbeyle iç içe geçtiği bir sallantı sırasında geçmişe duyulan özlem ya da yoğun bir nostalji duygusu, kişinin kaybedilmiş bir nesnenin içsel temsiline kararsız biçimde tutunmasıyla ilgilidir.
Esasen çocukluk tamamlanmayan bir süreç; özellikle bir orta doğu toplumunda yaşıyorsanız bu hiç bir şekilde mümkün değil; hiç ölmeyen ve sizi kendi otoritesinden asla azat etmeyen bir baba figürü var tepemizde... Bu anlamda, kendi toplumumdan baktığımda aşağıdaki cümleleri ayrıca not etmek istiyorum:
Bireyler, ya yaratıcı biçimde yaşayıp hayatın yaşamaya değer olduğunu hissediyorlar ya da yaratıcı biçimde yaşayamayıp yaşamanın değerinden şüpheye düşüyorlar. (sayfa 103)
Her türlü kültürel alanda geleneği temel almadan özgün olmak imkansızdır. Öte yandan kültüre katkıda bulunan hiç kimse eskiyi tekrarlamaz. Kültür alanının en affedilmez günahıdır intihal! (sayfa 137)
"Mahrum bırakılmış çocuğun" huzursuzluğu, onu oyun oynamaktan aciz ve kültürel deneyim yaşama kapasitesinden yoksun kılar. "İmge oluşturma ve bunları yeni kalıplar içerisinde bir araya getirerek yapıcı biçimde kullanma kapasitesi bireyin güvenme yeteneğine bağlıdır." (sayfa 140-141)
November 17, 2024
"The writing is clear and unfussy, blessedly free of psychobabble", said no one ever about this book.
Winnicott is a big name in psychoanalysis-oriented child psychology, together with Melanie Klein and John Bowlby. What they all have in common is the taking for granted that the relationship between the mother and the infant is what accounts for everything that goes wrong with the child, psychologically speaking. As far as I can tell, their works are marked by a near total disregard for genetics and outside-the-home social factors, or how the way a parent treats their child is also a reflection of how the child (even when a baby) “treats” the parent. No. In their books, it all boils down to the shortcomings of a not good-enough mother. If you want to read a great critique of this way of reasoning, I recommend The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do.
(Edit: some years after writing this review I have come to also place a decisive influence in the person’s relationship to their families (especially mothers) as the most decisive. I had to stumble on the work of Murray Bowen and systems theory to see the truth of it. I still think psychoanalysis is confused and confusing on the topic.)
Another point of divergence I have with the Freudians is their notion that you have to let your patient hate you, that simply talking about it won’t do. You have to survive their hatred, the theory goes, so that the patients see firsthand that they can express their ugly feelings and the world isn’t destroyed by it, nor is your relationship with them. As infants they repressed their bad feelings toward their parents lest they be abandoned or, worse, lest their bad feelings kill their parents. Here’s the rationale, on page 126:
(Just a note on style: this is Winnicott when he is writing at his clearest. End of note.)
I think the notion that living a difficult experience with a therapist - who is hopefully more mature than the people the patient grew up with - is healing is nearly a given in this day and age. I just believe it’s more likely to work if I explain to him what we’re doing, i.e., talking about difficult feelings to bring them to light. Just by being there acceptingly and not freaking out I think the message that it is ok to feel that way is readily transmitted.
In my view, attempting to conceal my strategies hoping that the patient will continue to see me while they hate my guts would surely guarantee only people with strong attachment issues would continue as patients, and I do intend to keep as patients also those more functional individuals.
Winnicott, on the other hand, laments the one situation when he had to let the cat out of the bag and explain to a patient what he was attempting to do, because he wouldn’t be seeing this teenager again. But don’t be alarmed, he tells us, for she was mature beyond her years and managed to improve from the cognitive understanding of it alone.
One would think this situation would make him consider changing strategies, at least in some cases, that is, consider explaining what he was doing to the patient. But no, he’s a Freudian all right. At a certain point he actually non-ironically recommends you make sure your patient ISN’T CARRYING A GUN while you provoke him to his limit. I had to laugh.
Another common reaction I have when reading transcripts of psychoanalysis sessions is that of, well, cringe. I feel as if I’m watching teenagers play D&D or cosplaying. They seem not to mind blatantly role playing. There’s even the reciting of classical poems sometimes, whose reference and symbolism our scholarly therapist never misses. I really don’t have the stomach for that, but I’m sure many people do.
On page 119 Winnicott writes:
I also have reservations when I read analysts saying they treated a patient for 3, 5 or 10 years and the treatment was a success. Add to that that in this case we are often talking about 3 to 12-year-olds. Are you sure they didn’t simply grow up?
The main theme of the book (and the most famous of Winnicott’s contribution to psychotherapy as far as I’m aware) is his theory of transitional objects. He postulated that children don’t go from momma to other people. They go from momma to objects (a toy or whatever) and then from toy to other people, and the process of being able to move to the representation of momma in objects is an accomplishment in itself and many children have difficulty with.
I think I needn't say reading this was a chore. It had its pages of relief (15%?) but the rest was a jargon-fest. On the bright side, I’m happy I won't be lost from now on when people mention Winnicott to me.
Winnicott is a big name in psychoanalysis-oriented child psychology, together with Melanie Klein and John Bowlby. What they all have in common is the taking for granted that the relationship between the mother and the infant is what accounts for everything that goes wrong with the child, psychologically speaking. As far as I can tell, their works are marked by a near total disregard for genetics and outside-the-home social factors, or how the way a parent treats their child is also a reflection of how the child (even when a baby) “treats” the parent. No. In their books, it all boils down to the shortcomings of a not good-enough mother. If you want to read a great critique of this way of reasoning, I recommend The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do.
(Edit: some years after writing this review I have come to also place a decisive influence in the person’s relationship to their families (especially mothers) as the most decisive. I had to stumble on the work of Murray Bowen and systems theory to see the truth of it. I still think psychoanalysis is confused and confusing on the topic.)
Another point of divergence I have with the Freudians is their notion that you have to let your patient hate you, that simply talking about it won’t do. You have to survive their hatred, the theory goes, so that the patients see firsthand that they can express their ugly feelings and the world isn’t destroyed by it, nor is your relationship with them. As infants they repressed their bad feelings toward their parents lest they be abandoned or, worse, lest their bad feelings kill their parents. Here’s the rationale, on page 126:
“This sequence can be observed: (1) Subject relates to object. (2) Object is in process of being found instead of placed by the subject in the world. (3) Subject destroys object. (4) Object survives destruction. (5) Subject can use object. The object is always being destroyed. This destruction becomes the unconscious backcloth for love of a real object; that is, an object outside the area of the subject’s omnipotent control. Study of this problem involves a statement of the positive value of destructiveness. The destructiveness, plus the object’s survival of the destruction, places the object outside the area of objects set up by the subject’s projective mental mechanisms. In this way a world of shared reality is created which the subject can use and which can feed back other-than-me substance into the object.”
(Just a note on style: this is Winnicott when he is writing at his clearest. End of note.)
I think the notion that living a difficult experience with a therapist - who is hopefully more mature than the people the patient grew up with - is healing is nearly a given in this day and age. I just believe it’s more likely to work if I explain to him what we’re doing, i.e., talking about difficult feelings to bring them to light. Just by being there acceptingly and not freaking out I think the message that it is ok to feel that way is readily transmitted.
In my view, attempting to conceal my strategies hoping that the patient will continue to see me while they hate my guts would surely guarantee only people with strong attachment issues would continue as patients, and I do intend to keep as patients also those more functional individuals.
Winnicott, on the other hand, laments the one situation when he had to let the cat out of the bag and explain to a patient what he was attempting to do, because he wouldn’t be seeing this teenager again. But don’t be alarmed, he tells us, for she was mature beyond her years and managed to improve from the cognitive understanding of it alone.
One would think this situation would make him consider changing strategies, at least in some cases, that is, consider explaining what he was doing to the patient. But no, he’s a Freudian all right. At a certain point he actually non-ironically recommends you make sure your patient ISN’T CARRYING A GUN while you provoke him to his limit. I had to laugh.
Another common reaction I have when reading transcripts of psychoanalysis sessions is that of, well, cringe. I feel as if I’m watching teenagers play D&D or cosplaying. They seem not to mind blatantly role playing. There’s even the reciting of classical poems sometimes, whose reference and symbolism our scholarly therapist never misses. I really don’t have the stomach for that, but I’m sure many people do.
On page 119 Winnicott writes:
“I am now ready to go straight to the statement of my thesis. It seems I am afraid to get there, as if I fear that once the thesis is stated the purpose of my communication is at an end, because it is so very simple”.I’m really the opposite I think. I like talking to my patients the way normal people talk. I’m with Irvin Yalom when he says in The Gift of Therapy: An Open Letter to a New Generation of Therapists and Their Patients: “Blank slate? Forget it! Be real.”
I also have reservations when I read analysts saying they treated a patient for 3, 5 or 10 years and the treatment was a success. Add to that that in this case we are often talking about 3 to 12-year-olds. Are you sure they didn’t simply grow up?
The main theme of the book (and the most famous of Winnicott’s contribution to psychotherapy as far as I’m aware) is his theory of transitional objects. He postulated that children don’t go from momma to other people. They go from momma to objects (a toy or whatever) and then from toy to other people, and the process of being able to move to the representation of momma in objects is an accomplishment in itself and many children have difficulty with.
I think I needn't say reading this was a chore. It had its pages of relief (15%?) but the rest was a jargon-fest. On the bright side, I’m happy I won't be lost from now on when people mention Winnicott to me.
September 20, 2018
"It is only in being creative that the individual discovers the self."
November 9, 2023
Playing and Reality is British psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott's seminal 1971 text on play and creativity in child development, and in human growth and well-being more broadly.
TRANSITIONAL OBJECTS/PHENOMENA
Playing and Reality introduces one of Winnicott’s most enduring contributions “transitional phenomena” defined as transitional objects (e.g., security blankets or stuffed animals etc.) or transitional activities (e.g. imaginative play and creativity) that help children emotionally regulate during their transition from dependence on caregivers, to independence and autonomy.
ADAPTIVE ADDICTIONS
According to Winnicott, the child becomes increasingly able to tolerate progressively longer separation from caregivers via becoming “addicted” to a transitional objects/phenomena.
Interestingly, this my first exposure to the notion of addiction as emotionally adaptive on some level. It brings to mind times in my youth when I would spend hours and hours trying the same skateboard trick until FINALLY getting it.
These were some of my first and most POWERFUL experiences of flow and mastery, and they were without question, adaptive. If we conceptualize this as an “addictive” transitional behavior, whereby I was learning how to be fulfilled and “auto regulate”, onto my self, and outside of adult caregiver supervision. Than by this standard, addiction could be considered the basis for A LOT of seriously adaptive developmental and cultural achievements.
NOT SO ADAPTIVE ADDICTIONS ☹️
Although Winnicott does not explicitly apply the theory of transitinnal phenomena to adult drug addiction and behavioral addictions such as gambling and sex/love addition. At least not in detail in this text. The notion of transitional phenomena certainly applies, and with striking implications.
If we think of childhood imaginative play and transitional objects/activities as instruments of adaptive emotional regulation and esteem building. Then we can also see how interruptions to that healthy developmental process could easily lead to difficulties self regulating in adulthood.
Combine that with exposure to super addictive “super-stimuli” like smart phones, video games, internet porn and weed etc., particularly in the context of childhood adversity and the “storm and strife” of adolescence and we’re accumulating high risk for mental heath problems, relationship difficulties and drug/behavioral addiction in adulthood.
Addiction in this OBVIOUSLY maladaptive sense may assist in achieving temporary emotional regulation and a false sense of antonymy in the short term. But in the long term it is HIGHLY destructive to those same functions. And equally as HIGHLY interruptive of the development of those same innate functions.
TRUE/FALSE SELF
Winnicott also explores what he terms the "true self" and "false self." Winnicott posits that the true self is the individual's authentic spontaneous self-expression, whereas the false self develops as a protective (emotionally defensive) adaptation to shame and external pressures. Winnicott emphasizes the importance of allowing the true self to flourish for healthy psychological development.
CREATIVITY/PLAY
Winnicott emphasized the importance of creativity and play as a form of true self-expression (for both children and adults) and asserted that all culture has its origins in spontaneous creative play.
SAFE HOLDING ENVIRONMENT
Winnicott also introduces the concept of the "holding environment" referring to the emotionally and physically nurturing and supportive emotional environment provided by caregivers that allows a child to feel safe and secure.
Winnicott defines a “safe holding environment” as one where the child feels seen, felt, understood and intrinsically valued.
Winnicott asserted that the safe holding environment enables the child to explore, play, differentiate and develop a sense of trust in them selves, in others and in the world.
And the unsafe holding environment.
Well?
Not so much….
GOOD ENOUGH PARENTING
Winnicott is probably most famous for his notion of the "good-enough mother," suggesting that caregivers don't need to be perfect, but rather only need be "good enough" to meet a child's needs.
If caregivers are good enough.
Than we’re good.
INTEGRATION OF GOOD/BAD EXPERIENCES
Winnicott observes that integration of good and bad experiences is vital for healthy development and further suggests that the “good enough” caregiver is sufficiently attuned to a child's needs and provides a safe holding environment that enables the child to experience, explore and process both positive and negative emotions.
NOT QUITE GOOD ENOUGH PARENTING
According to Winnicott problems arise if/when children consistently feel as if they need to comfort their parents, wherein they function as their parent’s transitional object.
FEELING LIKE YOU’RE TOO MUCH OR NOT ENOUGH
Winnicott observes that children that are constantly in a emotional comfort role to their parents often suppress their own feelings and needs, and frequently feel immense shame, e.g.’ like they are “too much” or “not enough” in adulthood.
As such, they will find it difficult to be their authentic spontaneous, creative, playful selves at work (particularly creative work) and in relationships.
THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 🙂
If all of this sounds EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and REALLY GOOD. You’d be right. It is. Winnicott was EXTREMELY innovative and is still MASSIVELY important to developmental psychology and psychotherapy.
AND IT’S EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE (AT TIMES) 🫠
Despite the fact that this text is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and REALLY GOOD. I’m deducting a point to bring attention to the fact that this text contains a LOT of ideas that are EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE (as fuck) by today’s standards.
Specifically: psychiatry, psychoanalysis and psychology patholgized LGBTQ identity at the time of this publication.
Homosexuality was still an official diagnosis in the American Psychiatric Association (APA) diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM) of psychiatric disorders until 1973.
As such, many (if not all) gay psychoanalysts remained closeted until the 2000’s due to said pathologization of LBBTQ identity and due to general prohibitions against self disclosure in the field.
Unfortunately this text is a product of that time, inthat Winnicott refers to LGBTQ identity as a developmental disorder in numerous passages and in multiple ways.
There’s also some (not nearly as much but still some) racist and sexist ideas/language/concepts etc. throughout the text.
I personally feel that there are SO MANY useful and life affirming things in this text, that it is still worth reading. But given the above. Get ready for some zingers. And also be ready to separate some wheat/chaff if you read this thing.
Also.
Winnicott is INTENTIONALLY vague at times.
This was an important part of the way he worked.
And I think it’s brilliant.
But it can make the text feel a little less on the nose than more contemporary writing in psychology.
Also.
The text is laden with psychodynamic jargon.
So it may be EXTREMELY opaque to many readers.
This certainly was the case for me.
And I’m fairly well read in psychoanalysis.
Getting there anyway.
So taking all THAT into account.
THIS IS STILL WORTH READING!
Winnicott is still an important figure in the history and contemporary practice of psychotherapy.
This is a very worthwhile and important text.
4/5 stars ⭐️
TRANSITIONAL OBJECTS/PHENOMENA
Playing and Reality introduces one of Winnicott’s most enduring contributions “transitional phenomena” defined as transitional objects (e.g., security blankets or stuffed animals etc.) or transitional activities (e.g. imaginative play and creativity) that help children emotionally regulate during their transition from dependence on caregivers, to independence and autonomy.
ADAPTIVE ADDICTIONS
According to Winnicott, the child becomes increasingly able to tolerate progressively longer separation from caregivers via becoming “addicted” to a transitional objects/phenomena.
Interestingly, this my first exposure to the notion of addiction as emotionally adaptive on some level. It brings to mind times in my youth when I would spend hours and hours trying the same skateboard trick until FINALLY getting it.
These were some of my first and most POWERFUL experiences of flow and mastery, and they were without question, adaptive. If we conceptualize this as an “addictive” transitional behavior, whereby I was learning how to be fulfilled and “auto regulate”, onto my self, and outside of adult caregiver supervision. Than by this standard, addiction could be considered the basis for A LOT of seriously adaptive developmental and cultural achievements.
NOT SO ADAPTIVE ADDICTIONS ☹️
Although Winnicott does not explicitly apply the theory of transitinnal phenomena to adult drug addiction and behavioral addictions such as gambling and sex/love addition. At least not in detail in this text. The notion of transitional phenomena certainly applies, and with striking implications.
If we think of childhood imaginative play and transitional objects/activities as instruments of adaptive emotional regulation and esteem building. Then we can also see how interruptions to that healthy developmental process could easily lead to difficulties self regulating in adulthood.
Combine that with exposure to super addictive “super-stimuli” like smart phones, video games, internet porn and weed etc., particularly in the context of childhood adversity and the “storm and strife” of adolescence and we’re accumulating high risk for mental heath problems, relationship difficulties and drug/behavioral addiction in adulthood.
Addiction in this OBVIOUSLY maladaptive sense may assist in achieving temporary emotional regulation and a false sense of antonymy in the short term. But in the long term it is HIGHLY destructive to those same functions. And equally as HIGHLY interruptive of the development of those same innate functions.
TRUE/FALSE SELF
Winnicott also explores what he terms the "true self" and "false self." Winnicott posits that the true self is the individual's authentic spontaneous self-expression, whereas the false self develops as a protective (emotionally defensive) adaptation to shame and external pressures. Winnicott emphasizes the importance of allowing the true self to flourish for healthy psychological development.
CREATIVITY/PLAY
Winnicott emphasized the importance of creativity and play as a form of true self-expression (for both children and adults) and asserted that all culture has its origins in spontaneous creative play.
SAFE HOLDING ENVIRONMENT
Winnicott also introduces the concept of the "holding environment" referring to the emotionally and physically nurturing and supportive emotional environment provided by caregivers that allows a child to feel safe and secure.
Winnicott defines a “safe holding environment” as one where the child feels seen, felt, understood and intrinsically valued.
Winnicott asserted that the safe holding environment enables the child to explore, play, differentiate and develop a sense of trust in them selves, in others and in the world.
And the unsafe holding environment.
Well?
Not so much….
GOOD ENOUGH PARENTING
Winnicott is probably most famous for his notion of the "good-enough mother," suggesting that caregivers don't need to be perfect, but rather only need be "good enough" to meet a child's needs.
If caregivers are good enough.
Than we’re good.
INTEGRATION OF GOOD/BAD EXPERIENCES
Winnicott observes that integration of good and bad experiences is vital for healthy development and further suggests that the “good enough” caregiver is sufficiently attuned to a child's needs and provides a safe holding environment that enables the child to experience, explore and process both positive and negative emotions.
NOT QUITE GOOD ENOUGH PARENTING
According to Winnicott problems arise if/when children consistently feel as if they need to comfort their parents, wherein they function as their parent’s transitional object.
FEELING LIKE YOU’RE TOO MUCH OR NOT ENOUGH
Winnicott observes that children that are constantly in a emotional comfort role to their parents often suppress their own feelings and needs, and frequently feel immense shame, e.g.’ like they are “too much” or “not enough” in adulthood.
As such, they will find it difficult to be their authentic spontaneous, creative, playful selves at work (particularly creative work) and in relationships.
THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT 🙂
If all of this sounds EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and REALLY GOOD. You’d be right. It is. Winnicott was EXTREMELY innovative and is still MASSIVELY important to developmental psychology and psychotherapy.
AND IT’S EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE (AT TIMES) 🫠
Despite the fact that this text is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and REALLY GOOD. I’m deducting a point to bring attention to the fact that this text contains a LOT of ideas that are EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE (as fuck) by today’s standards.
Specifically: psychiatry, psychoanalysis and psychology patholgized LGBTQ identity at the time of this publication.
Homosexuality was still an official diagnosis in the American Psychiatric Association (APA) diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM) of psychiatric disorders until 1973.
As such, many (if not all) gay psychoanalysts remained closeted until the 2000’s due to said pathologization of LBBTQ identity and due to general prohibitions against self disclosure in the field.
Unfortunately this text is a product of that time, inthat Winnicott refers to LGBTQ identity as a developmental disorder in numerous passages and in multiple ways.
There’s also some (not nearly as much but still some) racist and sexist ideas/language/concepts etc. throughout the text.
I personally feel that there are SO MANY useful and life affirming things in this text, that it is still worth reading. But given the above. Get ready for some zingers. And also be ready to separate some wheat/chaff if you read this thing.
Also.
Winnicott is INTENTIONALLY vague at times.
This was an important part of the way he worked.
And I think it’s brilliant.
But it can make the text feel a little less on the nose than more contemporary writing in psychology.
Also.
The text is laden with psychodynamic jargon.
So it may be EXTREMELY opaque to many readers.
This certainly was the case for me.
And I’m fairly well read in psychoanalysis.
Getting there anyway.
So taking all THAT into account.
THIS IS STILL WORTH READING!
Winnicott is still an important figure in the history and contemporary practice of psychotherapy.
This is a very worthwhile and important text.
4/5 stars ⭐️
August 11, 2020
Να διαβαστεί οπωσδήποτε !!
Currently reading
September 3, 2007Fantastic. You really only need to read the first third of this book to get it, but for me, the basic ideas he is putting forward here are really life changing. He is proposing a fundamental addition to the nature of our perception of reality (inside, outside, and playspace between), that I think is particularly fascintating for the artist, the compulsive, and the romantic.
February 21, 2022
I'm not sure if this book was foundational and inspired much contemporary work on the subject of play and make-believe; if it was, my disappointment should perhaps be tempered. But even if that is the case, this isn't a worthwhile read; sometimes, when we visit the original text that founds a debate or topic of study, reading the original helps illuminate all the contemporary work on the matter. Winnicott's work does not illuminate at all; it is very simplistic, in the bad ways of being potentially misleading and of being able to fake profundity given the blurriness of thought.
Winnicott's main idea is that playing and making-believe is fundamental to psychological maturation of the infant. Infants, he assumes, start off as believing that their ego is identical to the world; they don't distinguish between subject and object. It is an anxiety-ridden process to realize that the world involves objects and people who function independently of one's own will. When infants play or make-believe, they are in an in-between state regarding recognizing the object of play as mind-independent and still holding onto that it depends upon one's will or is an extension of the self. In play, infants manipulate an actual object or person that is outside of the self; but the meaning of the object or person is a projection of the infant's fantasy. For example, toddlers can pretend that a banana is a telephone. Over time, infants can come to get acclimated to the fact that they are tiny subjects finding themselves in a vast world, and then play no longer is as crucial to later stages of psychological development.
I think there's a grain of truth here; it is insightful that in playing and make-believe, we take something that is real and pretend it is something else, which isn't a case. We are creative here; we determine for ourselves the make-believe identity of the found thing. We also get to express our fantasies. But I'm skeptical that this is the ultimate or foundational function of make-believe; why not think, for example, that make-believe is closely related to our capacity for symbolic thought, or it is tied to our need to be courageous and discover new functions and roles of objects?
Moreover, Winnicott's starting assumption, that infants fail to distinguish themselves from the world, is highly suspect. There's good contemporary developmental psychological evidence for the contrary. For example, Allison Gopnik has studied how infants experiment with objects in ways that are best explained by their recognition of the objects as independent of their own fantasies. Colwyn Trevarthen (and others in her tradition like Vasudevi Reddy) have studied how infants, fresh from the womb even, respond to other people's expressions in ways that are best explained by their recognizing the other as independent of themselves and as a potential dialectical partner.
This core theory is articulated in the first chapter. All the following chapters include case studies (whose psychoanalytic interpretations are highly suspicious), fake profundity, and unhelpful repetition of trite ideas. For example, there's a chapter on creativity, where Winnicott repeats the old idea that being creative is essential to meaningful living, since being creative is antithetical to being victimized before the world; it is taking an active stance. Or, as another example, Winnicott spends a chapter asking where culture comes from and says, unhelpfully, that it comes from the fact that we are not identical to the world and need to negotiate with its unpredictability.
I don't know why this book is so highly rated. For readers interested in the topics of play and make-believe, especially in infants, I'd highly recommend them to instead go to the work of Paul Harris, Colwyn Trevarthen, or Vasudevi Reddy. For a philosophical perspective definitely read Kenneth Walton's Mimesis as Make-believe. There, Walton illuminates the role of make-believe in explaining how we engage with fiction and art, in developing a pragmatics-based alternative to problems of reference that arise from a semantics-first approach, and in pointing towards ways of resolving long standing debates about social constructivism v. metaphysical realism.
Winnicott's main idea is that playing and making-believe is fundamental to psychological maturation of the infant. Infants, he assumes, start off as believing that their ego is identical to the world; they don't distinguish between subject and object. It is an anxiety-ridden process to realize that the world involves objects and people who function independently of one's own will. When infants play or make-believe, they are in an in-between state regarding recognizing the object of play as mind-independent and still holding onto that it depends upon one's will or is an extension of the self. In play, infants manipulate an actual object or person that is outside of the self; but the meaning of the object or person is a projection of the infant's fantasy. For example, toddlers can pretend that a banana is a telephone. Over time, infants can come to get acclimated to the fact that they are tiny subjects finding themselves in a vast world, and then play no longer is as crucial to later stages of psychological development.
I think there's a grain of truth here; it is insightful that in playing and make-believe, we take something that is real and pretend it is something else, which isn't a case. We are creative here; we determine for ourselves the make-believe identity of the found thing. We also get to express our fantasies. But I'm skeptical that this is the ultimate or foundational function of make-believe; why not think, for example, that make-believe is closely related to our capacity for symbolic thought, or it is tied to our need to be courageous and discover new functions and roles of objects?
Moreover, Winnicott's starting assumption, that infants fail to distinguish themselves from the world, is highly suspect. There's good contemporary developmental psychological evidence for the contrary. For example, Allison Gopnik has studied how infants experiment with objects in ways that are best explained by their recognition of the objects as independent of their own fantasies. Colwyn Trevarthen (and others in her tradition like Vasudevi Reddy) have studied how infants, fresh from the womb even, respond to other people's expressions in ways that are best explained by their recognizing the other as independent of themselves and as a potential dialectical partner.
This core theory is articulated in the first chapter. All the following chapters include case studies (whose psychoanalytic interpretations are highly suspicious), fake profundity, and unhelpful repetition of trite ideas. For example, there's a chapter on creativity, where Winnicott repeats the old idea that being creative is essential to meaningful living, since being creative is antithetical to being victimized before the world; it is taking an active stance. Or, as another example, Winnicott spends a chapter asking where culture comes from and says, unhelpfully, that it comes from the fact that we are not identical to the world and need to negotiate with its unpredictability.
I don't know why this book is so highly rated. For readers interested in the topics of play and make-believe, especially in infants, I'd highly recommend them to instead go to the work of Paul Harris, Colwyn Trevarthen, or Vasudevi Reddy. For a philosophical perspective definitely read Kenneth Walton's Mimesis as Make-believe. There, Walton illuminates the role of make-believe in explaining how we engage with fiction and art, in developing a pragmatics-based alternative to problems of reference that arise from a semantics-first approach, and in pointing towards ways of resolving long standing debates about social constructivism v. metaphysical realism.
September 7, 2019
GoodReads reviewers, I am disappointed in you. Are none of you going to question this book?
-Who even believes this?
-racial hatred in the USA is more based on mothering than skin colour? How does he know more black mothers breastfeed?
-maybe, but not obviously
-maybe, but many others have suggested otherwise.
-Did he read Lacan? Being before doing as inspired by Lacan's mirror applied to the mother, and yet, Lacan would argue doing and being done to make being...
-He sometimes doesn't seem to respect his patients that well
-Matriarchal extreme claim dubious, subject seemed off-topic anyhow.
-tries to summarize the motivation for all suicides in a parentheses, even the founders of sociology do better here.
-repeatedly praises himself and his treatment. Some of his patients that he uses as case studies of effective treatment failed therapy and died early, and in the afterword he says they could not be helped?
- Did he read Foucault? He uses an indivdual's 'unit status' to support a claim by Foucault's view on society? Damn.
I don't mean to be rude, but I am flabbergasted at the uncritical acceptance of this book by GoodReads reviewers.
The theory on play is theoretically appealing, but his evidence and precision are lacking. Yes, it seems interesting that a baby might learn that it can act in the world by making a breast for feeding appear as if by its imagination, so that it exists in a space between me and not-me.
But suggesting that psychiatric illness arises from mothers being good-enough or not-good-enough, or whether a woman breastfeeds or not, should not just be accepted just 'on a whim'. That is a dangerous thing to say, as it places a lot of potentially undue blame on mothers with psychologically abnormal children, and to affirm so strongly without strong evidence is negligent. It makes me wonder why feminists reject Freud instead of this guy who was defining the good and bad ways of the breast, bisexuality and mothering?
"There is nothing new either inside or outside psychoanalysis in the idea that men and women have a 'predisposition towards bisexuality'." (p.72)
-Who even believes this?
"Incalculable is the envy of the white bottle-fed population of the black people who are mostly, I believe, breast-fed" (p.142)
-racial hatred in the USA is more based on mothering than skin colour? How does he know more black mothers breastfeed?
"The structure of society is built up and maintained by its members who are psychiatrically healthy" (p.139)
-maybe, but not obviously
"...when a child is playing the masturbatory element is essentially lacking" (p.39)
-maybe, but many others have suggested otherwise.
"After being - doing and being done to. But first, being." (p.85)
-Did he read Lacan? Being before doing as inspired by Lacan's mirror applied to the mother, and yet, Lacan would argue doing and being done to make being...
"but she found she needed a session of indefinite length... We soon settled down to a session of three hours, later reduced to two hours. (p.57)"
-He sometimes doesn't seem to respect his patients that well
"...at the patriarchal extreme of society sexual intercourse is rape, and at the matriarchal extreme the man with a split-off female element who must satisfy many women is at a premium even if in doing so he annihilates himself." (p.78)
-Matriarchal extreme claim dubious, subject seemed off-topic anyhow.
"suicide (a pathological acceptance of responsibility for all the evil that is, or that can be thought of.)" (p.148)"
-tries to summarize the motivation for all suicides in a parentheses, even the founders of sociology do better here.
"This patient thought that she was quite simply acquiring the portrait of this man who had done so much for her (and I have)." (p.116)
-repeatedly praises himself and his treatment. Some of his patients that he uses as case studies of effective treatment failed therapy and died early, and in the afterword he says they could not be helped?
"say a thousand years ago, only a very few people lived creatively (cf. Foucaulty, 1966)... there was only very exceptionally a man or woman who achieved unit status in personal development" (p.116)
- Did he read Foucault? He uses an indivdual's 'unit status' to support a claim by Foucault's view on society? Damn.
I don't mean to be rude, but I am flabbergasted at the uncritical acceptance of this book by GoodReads reviewers.
The theory on play is theoretically appealing, but his evidence and precision are lacking. Yes, it seems interesting that a baby might learn that it can act in the world by making a breast for feeding appear as if by its imagination, so that it exists in a space between me and not-me.
But suggesting that psychiatric illness arises from mothers being good-enough or not-good-enough, or whether a woman breastfeeds or not, should not just be accepted just 'on a whim'. That is a dangerous thing to say, as it places a lot of potentially undue blame on mothers with psychologically abnormal children, and to affirm so strongly without strong evidence is negligent. It makes me wonder why feminists reject Freud instead of this guy who was defining the good and bad ways of the breast, bisexuality and mothering?
April 15, 2021
muito bom quando a gente encontra autores com quem nos identificamos <3! amo a forma como o winnicott é inventivo no seu manejo clínico e traz noções tão sensíveis sobre os primórdios do desenvolvimento humano. adorei a experiência
September 13, 2025
Eigentlich ein echter Banger, hab aber die deutsche Übersetzung gelesen und die fand ich echt Kacke...dementsprechend lieber beim englischen Original bleiben.
Inhaltlich geht es viel um das frühe Kleinkindalter...also um alles von 0-4; um Übergangsphänomene, Übergangsobjekte, die Subjekt-Objekt-Beziehung, Mutter-Kind-Beziehung und die Mutterbrust, Kuscheltiere sowie Kinderspielzeuge und die Bedeutung des Spielens für die Entwicklung des Kindes und wie das alles zusammehängt.
Inhaltlich geht es viel um das frühe Kleinkindalter...also um alles von 0-4; um Übergangsphänomene, Übergangsobjekte, die Subjekt-Objekt-Beziehung, Mutter-Kind-Beziehung und die Mutterbrust, Kuscheltiere sowie Kinderspielzeuge und die Bedeutung des Spielens für die Entwicklung des Kindes und wie das alles zusammehängt.
July 8, 2017
There were parts of this that resonated with me. There were parts that felt a bit false, or strange. But that's alright. Psychology isn't, and shouldn't be, clockwork. It's nebulous; it's imaginative. Winnicott understood that.
Because the ideas were presented in all their malleability, they weren't ever threatening to me. I remain free to form my own ideas, so I can fully appreciate his.
Some favorite quotes:
"The thing about playing is always the precariousness of the interplay of personal psychic reality and the experience of the control of actual objects."
"Here was the picture of a child and the child had transitional objects [teddy, blanky], and there were transitional phenomena [playing] that were evident, and all of these were symbolical of something and were real for the child; but gradually, or perhaps frequently for a little while, she had to doubt the reality of the thing they were symbolizing. That is to say, if they were symbolical of her mother's devotion and reliability, they remained real in themselves but what they stood for was not real. The mother's devotion and reliability were unreal.
"This seemed to be near the sort of thing that had haunted her all her life, losing animals, losing her own children, so that she formulated the sentence: 'All I've got is what I have not got.' "
"Her childhood environment seemed unable to allow her to be formless but must, as she felt it, pattern her and cut her out into shapes conceived by other people. . .
"At the time of her next visit .. the patient reported to me that since her last visit she had [accomplished] a very great deal.. All the time, however, she was showing great fear of loss of identity as if it might turn out that she had been so patterned. . .
"I needed to be extremely careful .. lest I appeared to be pleased with all that she had done and the great change that had occurred in her; so easily she would have the feeling that she had fitted in and been patterned by me, and this would be followed by maximal protest and a return to the fixity of [fantasy]."
"The teacher aims at enrichment. By contrast, the therapist is concerned specifically with the child's own growth processes."
"It is assumed here that the task of reality acceptance is never fully completed, that no human being is free from the strain of relating inner and outer reality, and that relief from this strain is provided by an intermediate area of experience which is not challenged . . .
"Should an adult make claims on us for our acceptance of the objectivity of his subjective phenomena we discern or diagnose madness. If, however, the adult can manage to enjoy the personal intermediate area without making claims, then we acknowledge our own corresponding intermediate areas, and are pleased to find a degree of overlapping, that is to say common experience between members of a group in art or religion or philosophy."
"The place where cultural experience is located is in the potential space between the individual and the environment (originally the object). The same can be said of playing. Cultural experience begins with the creative living first manifested in play."
"Immaturity is a precious part of the adolescent scene. In this is contained the most exciting features of creative thought, a new and fresh feeling, ideas for new living. Society needs to be shaken by the aspirations of those who are not responsible. If the adults abdicate, the adolescent becomes prematurely, and by false process, an adult. Advice to society could be: for the sake of adolescents, and all their immaturity, do not allow them to step up and attain false maturity by handing over to them responsibility that is not yet theirs, even though they may fight for it.
"With the priviso that the adult does not abdicate, we may surely think of the strivings of adolescents to find themselves and to determine their own destiny as the most exciting thing that we can see in life around us."
"In the unconscious fantasy these are matters of life and death."
Because the ideas were presented in all their malleability, they weren't ever threatening to me. I remain free to form my own ideas, so I can fully appreciate his.
Some favorite quotes:
"The thing about playing is always the precariousness of the interplay of personal psychic reality and the experience of the control of actual objects."
"Here was the picture of a child and the child had transitional objects [teddy, blanky], and there were transitional phenomena [playing] that were evident, and all of these were symbolical of something and were real for the child; but gradually, or perhaps frequently for a little while, she had to doubt the reality of the thing they were symbolizing. That is to say, if they were symbolical of her mother's devotion and reliability, they remained real in themselves but what they stood for was not real. The mother's devotion and reliability were unreal.
"This seemed to be near the sort of thing that had haunted her all her life, losing animals, losing her own children, so that she formulated the sentence: 'All I've got is what I have not got.' "
"Her childhood environment seemed unable to allow her to be formless but must, as she felt it, pattern her and cut her out into shapes conceived by other people. . .
"At the time of her next visit .. the patient reported to me that since her last visit she had [accomplished] a very great deal.. All the time, however, she was showing great fear of loss of identity as if it might turn out that she had been so patterned. . .
"I needed to be extremely careful .. lest I appeared to be pleased with all that she had done and the great change that had occurred in her; so easily she would have the feeling that she had fitted in and been patterned by me, and this would be followed by maximal protest and a return to the fixity of [fantasy]."
"The teacher aims at enrichment. By contrast, the therapist is concerned specifically with the child's own growth processes."
"It is assumed here that the task of reality acceptance is never fully completed, that no human being is free from the strain of relating inner and outer reality, and that relief from this strain is provided by an intermediate area of experience which is not challenged . . .
"Should an adult make claims on us for our acceptance of the objectivity of his subjective phenomena we discern or diagnose madness. If, however, the adult can manage to enjoy the personal intermediate area without making claims, then we acknowledge our own corresponding intermediate areas, and are pleased to find a degree of overlapping, that is to say common experience between members of a group in art or religion or philosophy."
"The place where cultural experience is located is in the potential space between the individual and the environment (originally the object). The same can be said of playing. Cultural experience begins with the creative living first manifested in play."
"Immaturity is a precious part of the adolescent scene. In this is contained the most exciting features of creative thought, a new and fresh feeling, ideas for new living. Society needs to be shaken by the aspirations of those who are not responsible. If the adults abdicate, the adolescent becomes prematurely, and by false process, an adult. Advice to society could be: for the sake of adolescents, and all their immaturity, do not allow them to step up and attain false maturity by handing over to them responsibility that is not yet theirs, even though they may fight for it.
"With the priviso that the adult does not abdicate, we may surely think of the strivings of adolescents to find themselves and to determine their own destiny as the most exciting thing that we can see in life around us."
"In the unconscious fantasy these are matters of life and death."
July 13, 2025
Probably the best read of the year! I highly recommend reading this book for those who are into the origins of motivation, parenting, and education.
Winnicott is an English pediatrician and psychoanalyst who is extremely insightful and very easy to read. The main thesis of the book is that the mother [figure] of the baby is the one who introduces him/her to the world in a way that is going to play a major role in his/her creative development. So the baby is born without understanding that he has an identity, and s/he cries whenever s/he needs something and here comes the mother with her 'magic/[temporary] illusion' to kind of fulfill the baby's sense of 'omnipotence'. Winnicott proposes that we only need a good enough mother, a mother who is capable of planting an illusion in order for the baby to be able to destroy it later. On the one hand, a mother that never answers the baby's needs will create an adult who is disenchanted and who thinks that the world is a cold and indifferent place in which s/he is unable to change an iota. On the other hand, a mother who answers every call will not allow the baby to realize his actual powers in the world through disenchantment and separation from the mother. But the separation has to be temporary to allow identity formation. Otherwise, John Bowlby's insecure attachments begin to form.
The fascinating part of the book is how he relates the imagination of the baby and the kind of subjective/objective world that s/he inhabits with the place where playing, fantasying, and creative living happens.
Winnicott is an English pediatrician and psychoanalyst who is extremely insightful and very easy to read. The main thesis of the book is that the mother [figure] of the baby is the one who introduces him/her to the world in a way that is going to play a major role in his/her creative development. So the baby is born without understanding that he has an identity, and s/he cries whenever s/he needs something and here comes the mother with her 'magic/[temporary] illusion' to kind of fulfill the baby's sense of 'omnipotence'. Winnicott proposes that we only need a good enough mother, a mother who is capable of planting an illusion in order for the baby to be able to destroy it later. On the one hand, a mother that never answers the baby's needs will create an adult who is disenchanted and who thinks that the world is a cold and indifferent place in which s/he is unable to change an iota. On the other hand, a mother who answers every call will not allow the baby to realize his actual powers in the world through disenchantment and separation from the mother. But the separation has to be temporary to allow identity formation. Otherwise, John Bowlby's insecure attachments begin to form.
The fascinating part of the book is how he relates the imagination of the baby and the kind of subjective/objective world that s/he inhabits with the place where playing, fantasying, and creative living happens.
March 29, 2014
This is one of the most important books on the subject of psychotherapy I've read. Winnicott is a poet. He writes in images and often with a lot of jargon that is thick and hard-going. However, when he makes a discovery, and he makes quite a few, it's like he's journeyed to the center of the Earth and come back to reveal what the foundation beneath the foundation of reality is all about. As a therapist who has been practicing over twenty-five years, he is probably my greatest inspiration. His perspective turns on appreciation of the creativity and imagination that is part and parcel of psychological development. He gives therapist a way to think about authenticity and spontaneity that pushes away from preconceived notions about what is 'normal' or 'abnormal' and towards what is inventive and creative in our lives as opposed to what is deadening or deadened. Known, before making his reputation as a psychoanalyst, as an outgoing pediatrician who spoke regularly on radio and published essays to explicate childhood development. In a time when theories that blamed mothers for problems their children were experiencing, Winnicott set out to reassure and support mothers. this is a classic work. Probably not of great interest to too many who are not in the therapy profession but, nonetheless, a groundbreaking work.
Read
May 5, 2010Psychotherapist Dr Judith Edwards has chosen to discuss Playing and Reality by Donald Winnicott on FiveBooks as one of the top five on her subject - Child Psychotherapy, saying that:
"...Winnicott was the people’s psychoanalyst, seeing mother and child as developing together within their relationship. Winnicott’s Playing and Reality, not published till after his death, is a fine and illuminating collection of his major thinking, important not only because of the work with children (just pick any page and there is something to ponder, such as the therapeutic use of string, for instance, or why a teddy bear may be alternately loved and abused by its child owner) but because of the way he shows how the ‘transitional space’ which develops as the baby separates from the primary caretaker will later become ‘the location for cultural experience’...."
The full interview is available here: http://fivebooks.com/interviews/judit...
"...Winnicott was the people’s psychoanalyst, seeing mother and child as developing together within their relationship. Winnicott’s Playing and Reality, not published till after his death, is a fine and illuminating collection of his major thinking, important not only because of the work with children (just pick any page and there is something to ponder, such as the therapeutic use of string, for instance, or why a teddy bear may be alternately loved and abused by its child owner) but because of the way he shows how the ‘transitional space’ which develops as the baby separates from the primary caretaker will later become ‘the location for cultural experience’...."
The full interview is available here: http://fivebooks.com/interviews/judit...
September 8, 2018
Alison Bechdel'in Annem Sen Misin? grafik romanını okuduktan sonra listeye aldığım, başka şeyleri araya sıkıştırmaktan bir türlü fırsat bulamadığım kitabı nihayetinde okudum. Çabuk okunan bir ritmi yok, fakat bu anlama zorluğundan ileri gelmiyor. Satır satır hazmetme işlemi var. Yavaş ama çok keyifli gitti. Hem kendi anılarım, hem başkalarının anlattıkları birer birer hafızama geri geldi. Ayrıca bir çok davranış biçiminin gerisindeki mantığı anlamakta çok faydalı oldu. Bir çok kere okunabilir.
July 11, 2008
This is another fave of mine. I could never give a good description of what this book is about cause my understanding it is always changing (and lacking at times).
February 23, 2009
Wonderful way of answering Freudian theories of creativity...engaging essays on their own and also great for the lit. classroom...
January 19, 2025
Adquiri este livro de Donald W. Winnicott para me ajudar a teorizar sobre cosplays e cosplayers como um aspecto lúdico da realidade. Achei que o famoso psicanalista de crianças e maternidade (que inclusive é muito citado em "Você é minha mãe?", de Alison Bechdel) poderia ajudar a preencher uma lacuna que estava faltando nas minhas teorizações. Realmente ajudou. É neste livro também que Winnicott traz a teoria do "objeto de transição", algo que o bebê se apega para transitar de maneira segura entre o mundo familiar e o mundo social. As teorias que Winnicott traz nesse livro sobre como lidamos com a brincadeira para encarar a realidade e passar a utilizar nela coisas que mantemos numa dimensão lúdica são muito interessantes. O que não gostei no livro é o excesso de relatos de pacientes no livro para poder corroborar as suas ideias. Isso deixou a leitura truncada e faz com que o leitor aprecie menos as interrelações feitas pelo autor entre um assunto e outro. Talvez o ideal fosse colocar notas que levassem aos relatos no final do livro, isso, porém, em minha humilde opinião.
Read
September 10, 2025Incredibly lucid, delightful to read, and at times deeply profound.
There’s a level of sensitivity and sensibility; like a good psychoanalyst, Winnicott avoids walking you straight to the truth of a matter, giving you room to float around a concept rather than didactically explore its layers in turn. But the prose is good. Not even in a “good for psychoanalysts” way but in a “actually genuinely good” way. “Lacan and Freud are obscurantists” is a boring opinion but something beautiful about Winnicott’s style is that in evoking for you the feelings that he’s writing about, you can confirm at times the truthfulness about which he writes.
Winnicott is also repeatedly and routinely attuned to the relationship between people and objects, and people and environments, in a way that I think a lot of designers and architects could learn from. We’ve long lived in a world that valorizes the neutral and the clean; Winnicott brings in a frame key to understanding the necessary level of coproduction and movement in a space.
There’s a level of sensitivity and sensibility; like a good psychoanalyst, Winnicott avoids walking you straight to the truth of a matter, giving you room to float around a concept rather than didactically explore its layers in turn. But the prose is good. Not even in a “good for psychoanalysts” way but in a “actually genuinely good” way. “Lacan and Freud are obscurantists” is a boring opinion but something beautiful about Winnicott’s style is that in evoking for you the feelings that he’s writing about, you can confirm at times the truthfulness about which he writes.
Winnicott is also repeatedly and routinely attuned to the relationship between people and objects, and people and environments, in a way that I think a lot of designers and architects could learn from. We’ve long lived in a world that valorizes the neutral and the clean; Winnicott brings in a frame key to understanding the necessary level of coproduction and movement in a space.
June 2, 2025
basado como pocos
August 5, 2019
I didn’t get much out of this read, mostly because the book is more focused on therapy than I initially assumed it'd be when I decided to read it. Because it’s been referenced by several creative thinkers, I wanted to read the book, thinking it’d have a thorough philosophical discussion of Winnicott’s fascinating ideas around this liminal space that he argues humans need to occasionally inhabit to maintain their mental health – a space that is somewhere between being utterly self-centred and the social interaction/integration, a space akin to child’s play. For me writing, and sometimes love, is such a liminal space. I also really like the author's suggestion that we need to develop creative perception, which is the opposite of compliance, in order to feel that life is worth living. All these are fascinating ideas, but the book mostly discusses their implications for psychoanalytical practitioners.
January 4, 2014
This was assigned reading at Union Theological Seminary, but I don't recall if I read it for Dr. Bell's course in Development Psychology or for a course I took with Robert Neale, a professor who had published in the field of the psychology of play. In any case, it didn't make very much of an impression on me, my interest in children having been something which only came into play much later in life.
January 8, 2008
One of the best books of ALL TIME. This mean is an endearing genius about humans. Wish i could hug him!
Read
December 31, 2021"...cultural experiences are in direct continuity with play, the play of those who have not yet heard of games."
March 18, 2017
Skimmed and picked around more than read (...read more heavily in some parts than others, is the fairest to say).
But considered a milestone work in children's (...and really people in general) psychology by one of my favorite psychologists: Mr. D.W. Winnicott.
He - along with Carl Rogers, Aaron Beck, and Carl Jung - have had as much of an influence on my own psychological predilections, philosophy, and musings as anyone.
While this book is about many aspects of development (primarily on the importance of 'play' and 'creativity': the definitions, origins, and outworkings of 'play' and 'creativity' that is to say), my favorite quote from this book comes from a comment about being an individual in society:
"The axiom is that since there is no society except as a structure brought about and maintained and constantly reconstructed by individuals, there is NO personal fulfillment without society, and NO society apart from the COLLECTIVE growth processes of the individuals that compose it." [D.W. Winnicott - PLAYING AND REALITY]
Thank you!
PB&J's (Peace, Blessings, and Joyous Love) to whoever reads this,
-MJK-
But considered a milestone work in children's (...and really people in general) psychology by one of my favorite psychologists: Mr. D.W. Winnicott.
He - along with Carl Rogers, Aaron Beck, and Carl Jung - have had as much of an influence on my own psychological predilections, philosophy, and musings as anyone.
While this book is about many aspects of development (primarily on the importance of 'play' and 'creativity': the definitions, origins, and outworkings of 'play' and 'creativity' that is to say), my favorite quote from this book comes from a comment about being an individual in society:
"The axiom is that since there is no society except as a structure brought about and maintained and constantly reconstructed by individuals, there is NO personal fulfillment without society, and NO society apart from the COLLECTIVE growth processes of the individuals that compose it." [D.W. Winnicott - PLAYING AND REALITY]
Thank you!
PB&J's (Peace, Blessings, and Joyous Love) to whoever reads this,
-MJK-
January 9, 2025
This work probably deserves much less than 4 stars for writing, structure, and clarity of argument. And yet, the ideas are so fun!! DWW pioneered ideas around transition, creativity, and culture that have a magnetism about them. Unfortunately, in this work, that magnetism is rarely backed by any actual logic, experience, or empirical findings. Instead, we get frustratingly vague and frequently impenetrable arguments that scatter ideas without any rigorous justifications. DWW will throw in a dazzling thought and promptly leave it orphaned to die. Sentences, paragraphs, chapters find themselves wound up in each other. Add in period typical (though not entirely field typical) sexism, and the regular sparks of brilliance tend to fall a bit flat. Even so, I will return to Winnicott, grudgingly. Here’s to holding out hope for round 2.
April 3, 2021
Winnicott sier at enhver psykolog/terapeut må gå sin egen sti. Det vil si å å ikke følge og nikke passivt til all psykologisk kunnskap. Det skal jeg ta med meg videre på studie. Hans ideer om overgangsobjektet, leken, fantasi er verdt å ta en dykk inn i. Boka er en fin start inn i Winnicotts forfatterskap
September 6, 2021
I’d recommend this book, only for researchers in the field.
Besides them, I can’t seem to see how this relates to other audience.
Most of this work is focused on Hypothesis, Thesis, Interviews of Winnocott.
I came here looking to see, if I can apply or use any of it in practice or real world.
Most of the readers might say, "Okay, So What?", "Knowing Origin of Creativity?" Fine, but where do I apply?
Mostly, Professors, Researchers, Practitioners would like this work.
Deus Vult,
Gottfried.
Besides them, I can’t seem to see how this relates to other audience.
Most of this work is focused on Hypothesis, Thesis, Interviews of Winnocott.
I came here looking to see, if I can apply or use any of it in practice or real world.
Most of the readers might say, "Okay, So What?", "Knowing Origin of Creativity?" Fine, but where do I apply?
Mostly, Professors, Researchers, Practitioners would like this work.
Deus Vult,
Gottfried.
July 10, 2021
This might be groundbreaking but it's very hard to tell. Dense and unsympathetic writing made this kinda tricky to understand, but if you're in the know with this stuff definitely read it and then come and explain it to me
June 13, 2024
The play of those who have not yet heard of play
...
...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews