Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 23:33:24 +0100
From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>
Subject: M-PSY: The contradiction: Winnicott on love and hate


Ilan, thanks for the argument. I certainly agree that "We are basically
affiliated
and caring creature, biased for solidarity."

But your formula that love and hate are polar opposites even though we may
vacillate between the two very rapidly and painfully, I am not sure really
is consistent with a marxist contradiction in which there is unity as well
as struggle.

I have no idea why Winnicott used the term contradiction. I do not know
with what ideas in mind. But it does seem to me to be arguably a true
marxist contradiction. I recognise the painful vacillation (or perhaps
oscillation?) between love and hate, but at times it seems closer than
that. I assume there is a truth in the old saying that you always hate the
one you love - not continuously, but with a high probability, and to be in
a loving relationship is also to accept the probability of being hurt. 

Perhaps the problem lies in how we think about the terms "love" and "hate".
I have now returned the book so a cannot check wider but in the final
chapter, what I liked was that Winnicott was describing a very (dare we
say) materialist emergence of such feelings, from the very process of
bumping into chairs and other objects, so I did not hear them in his mind
to be anything like pure counterposed platonic ideals but a differentiation
that emerges from concrete reality of millions of interactions.

Perhaps other know more about Winnicott's approach, or is he honoured only
in England?

Chris Burford

London.







At 02:24 PM 8/11/97 +0300, you wrote:
>Hi comrades. Chris Burford wrote:
>
>> The child comes to love and hate simultaneously, and to accept the
>> contradiction.
>>
>> D.W. Winnicott: The Child, the Family, and the Outside World. 1964
>
>So, we had in the past the alchemists who searched for a stone which
>will change iron to gold.. and we had allot of wise and reasonable
>persons who tried to explain the world based on their observations
>and on meager knowledge... and we have many branches of science
>who started/to apply a more modern way to arrive at a better
>understanding of the word (and even to use it to introduce change).
>However, many people are still adhering to pre scientific theories,
>and refusing to accept sound findings that contradict older
>preconceptions and obsolete pseudo scientific theories and
>claims.
>If people are not up to date about it, love and hate are two
>contradicting poles of an emotional process, active in our
>brains. One can NEVER be one and the same time on both
>poles. It is impossible because of the limitation of the biological
>structure.
>One can vacillate between the two so quickly that it will SEEM
>that he is having them simultaneously.
>Another flaw in the citation is the claim that the child "hates". It is
>usually claimed about the relations of the months old newborn in
>relation to the good and bad breast.
>Many people do not discern between "hot" rage - a very intense
>anger, which recruit resources to get out of the way a disturbing
>phenomenon or the colder version of chronic anger that just
>wait for the opportunity to stop the offending process, and
>the hatred - hot and cold. Hatred is entirely different basic
>emotion. It is meant to extinct what is intentionally endangering
>our existence. To have it activated, the young child needs the
>ability to perceive the other as a constant and an
>individual. Individuation is a first precondition to the ability to
>hate. A clear orientation on the future is needed to. To feel
>vengefulness and to be vindictive one have to mature and
>socialize for it. Usually, to reach the idea that harming the
>other will bring us huge returns that justify the emotional
>price, needs specific socialization, and do not come
>spontaneously by itself. (We are basically affiliated
>and caring creature, biased for solidarity.
>>
>> and to accept the contradiction.
>>
>There is quite a difference between contradicted
>emotions that vacillate so fast till they seem to be
>simultaneously - a very costly process and usually
>very unpleasant and contradicting opinions. We
>have plethora of different opinion on relatively the
>same thing or even contradicting opinions about it.
>Part of them are pairs of contradicting ones, and
>the dominant one is the usual or only one activated.
>In part of them different circumstance activate
>different one of the pair. Only seldom both are
>activated and place us in trouble. As opinions create
>when activated significant levels of emotions,
>contradicted opinion can try to create the impossible
>- contradicting emotions.
>The vacillating emotions that result from this is very
>taxing and to this we can never get used.
>The child develops two contradicting opinions (or
>more) about the significant people around, and
>"learns" to activate only one opinion at a time.
>
>Ilan Shalif (Alternative Psychologist)
>
>
>
>                http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/3150/Anarchy.html
>                http://www.geocities.com/~drilanshalif/content1.htm
>
>download site - http://www.etext.org/Psychology/Shalif
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-psych-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>



     --- from list marxism-psych-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---