Playing and Reality (Routledge Classics)

"First of all, this book is written for psychoanalysts. One of the other reviewers clearly hated it and summarily dismissed it as "not even worth thinking about." For someone not used to reading dense psychological text, this book would be tough to follow. Honestly, Winnicott is hard to follow even if you are used to reading dense psychological text. He's not particularly concise and often uses certain terms without explaining them. For example, he speaks about the infant's need to "destroy" the transitional object, but also to see the object survive the destruction. I interpret that to mean something about learning object permanence, but he's never clear.

Having said that, I really like this book. It's a collection of essays and speeches and so isn't meant to be a completely coherent argument from start to finish. The chapters I like the best are where he develops his theory of play and creativity. In short, infants learn to distinguish themselves from their environment by having a "potential space" where it is safe to explore and play. Being able to be creative is how human beings discover their true, authentic self. And this is especially important for a developing infant.

Winnicott contributed a significant amount to the field of object-relations therapy. I really dig his work, and his theory of the significance of play in the work of analysis not only makes sense to me, but also adds a level of fun and creativity. His written work is dense, and most of it was published in journals, so it can be hard to sift through. But I like this book the best ("Human Nature" is second). The concept of discovering your true, authentic self through play and exploration is a pretty liberating idea even as an adult, and Winnicott provides some solid developmental theory here to back that up. If you're studying Winnicott or object-relations, this is a great book to read."
~ Written on 2008-01-17

"I am sorry to be so blunt about this, but previous reviewers Sierra and whomi do not appear to have really grasped Winnicott's work in this book (Sierra really has no clue at all). I have to respond at some length. But better to just read the book.

Winnicott (henceforward DWW) creates--in an enormous leap away from Freud--a vision of the complex and beautiful relationship of the infant and primary caregiver. In fact he speaks of the "mother infant dyad," rather than two separate persons during the first few months of life. From this union, if all goes well, the child gradual emerges and develops a sense of self through a process of disillusionment by the mother, in doses the infant can withstand.

As this occurs, the child symbolizes the lost union with the mother in what DWW calls "transitional objects" and begins, with the comfort of these objects, to begin to play in what DWW calls the "potential space." We might call it the realm of culture, of love, and of religion. Only with successful caregiving does the child have a chance to fully develop as a person, and DWW shows, in loving detail and case histories, how this happens through the devotion of the mother.

This is why DWW's work is vital not merely to psychoanalysts, but to every person on this planet. His work has influenced two generations of therapists, theorists, and educators and, indirectly, every one of us. Further, his work has increasingly been supported by developmental insights gained from attachment theory and other experimental and verifiable studies.

I don't normally write reviews on amazon.com, but I could not let foolish misreadings by other reviewers stand unchallenged. Sierra's attitude is not only condescending, it is lazy. Enough said. As for whomi, I appreciate the thought there, but DWW *does* allow for gradual disillusionment through experience of the external world. If whomi missed it that does not mean it is not there. As for using Derrida to read DWW, I imagine that is useful. Go to it, if you like. But let's not forget that the work of Lacan is inconceivable without DWW, and the work of Derrida inconceivable without Lacan.

DWW indisputably and deservedly stands as one of the most influential psychological thinkers of the 20th century. Further, his use of language is simple and yet always provocative, finding new depth and meaning in the simplest of words.

Please consider reading DWW and judge for yourself.

Franz Metcalf"
~ Written on 2003-10-14

"Winnicott's book was difficult for me to get through. With the exception of his case studies, which were somewhat entertaining, it's nothing but monotonous intellectual babble. The title sounds interesting, but the content was not useful to me in the least. There is nothing in this book that would help a typical person to raise an emotionally healthy child. Winnicott is writing for a very select group of people: other psychoanalysts.
Nowadays, the majority of people in our society consider Freud to be a joke. While Winnicott does not agree with Freud about everything, he's Freudian enough for me to have trouble taking him seriously. His work seems old and outdated.
Winnicott writes his theory in a way which makes it sound complex and important. In actuality, it is extremely simple and could be summed up in a few sentences. I'm not going to say anything else about this book because it is not even worth thinking about or remembering."
~ Written on 2002-07-03