Thursday, November 20, 2008

Winnicott and potential space

"The potential space between baby and mother, between child and family, between individual and society or the world, depends on experience which leads to trust. It can be looked upon as sacred to the individual in that it is here that the individual experiences creative living." -D.W. Winnicott from "The Location of Cultural Experience," 1967

I've been reading a lot D.W. Winnicott lately, who is widely considered the greatest British psychotherapist ever to live, and I am fascinated by his theories. Unlike most philosophy, which tries to explain the world from the rational point of view of a philosopher, or most psychology, which focus on the illness of mental health, Winnicott focuses on the everyday, the interaction between the inner and outer worlds and the space in between in which we all live.

For Winnicott, the focus of most academic theory is either the internal or the external from the theories of Freud to the external behavior models of B.F. Skinner, but the world, in his view, is more complicated. Most of what takes place in the world is the interaction between a person and another person, his environment and his culture. It is here where creativity lies.

I happen to agree with most of what he says and it reminds me quite of Buddhism. For Buddhism, the "I," otherwise known as our egos, real does not exist the way we think it does. There is no concrete self, just a complex interaction between mind, body and environment. We are always changing, always adapting to the needs and wants of ourselves and the world around us. And to be truly mindful of this interaction is a path to some peace.

Winnicott is saying something very similar. The world most of us inhabit is not all outward and sensory or all inward and thought. The world most of us inhabit is the potential space where the inner and outer meet. It is only here where the "true self," as he liked to call, it lies. It is only here when we understand ourselves not as an "I," which is immovable and unchangeable, but an "I" that is more ethereal and is in constant interaction with the world around it.

(I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, but if you read it all the way through, I thank you. And if you're interested, I highly recommend "Playing and Reality" below)

No comments: