Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Donald Winnicott on the Mirroring Function

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
1
CLINICAL NOTES SERIES (September 2016)
DONALD WINNICOTT ON THE MIRRORING FUNCTION
Donald W. Winnicott (1967). ‘Mirror-Ro...
2
concerns of both biology and a theory of development. The main difference though
is that at every stage of the developme...
3
reflection in the mirror or seeing another member of the species. Such is the case for
the migratory locust as well whic...
Advertisement
Upcoming SlideShare
Review of Winnicott
Review of Winnicott
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 5 Ad
Advertisement

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Donald Winnicott on the Mirroring Function (20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Donald Winnicott on the Mirroring Function

  1. 1. 1 CLINICAL NOTES SERIES (September 2016) DONALD WINNICOTT ON THE MIRRORING FUNCTION Donald W. Winnicott (1967). ‘Mirror-Role of Mother and Family in Child Development,’ Playing and Reality (London: Routledge Classics, 2005), pp. 149-159. INTRODUCTION These clinical notes will attempt to explain why Donald Winnicott found the mirroring role played by the mother and the family important in the lives of infants. Even those who are not too familiar with Winnicott will know that he is not the only psychoanalyst interested in mirrors and the mirroring function. Winnicott points out that his interest in this topic is related to the influence of Jacques Lacan. I will therefore begin with a brief summary of what Lacan meant by the ‘stade du mirroir.’1 Since Lacan’s paper not only predates Winnicott’s but is also his main source of influence, it is important to know what was at stake for Lacan in invoking the image of the infant in front of a mirror.2 Lacan’s paper on the mirror stage was delivered at the 16th International Congress of Psychoanalysis at Zürich on July 17, 1949. This paper eventually became the meta-psychological platform on which he would build his order of the Imaginary and imaginary relations. This term is usually contrasted with the Real and the Symbolic in the Lacanian model of cognition. While these terms are used synchronically, they can also be used to represent a diachronic unfolding in the child’s developmental trajectory. While the Lacanian model of development is not reducible to developmental biology, it intersects with the 1 See Jacques Lacan (1949). ‘The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience,’ Écrits: A Selection, translated by Alan Sheridan (London: Tavistock/Routledge), pp. 1-7. See also Dylan Evans (1997). ‘Mirror Stage,’ An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis (London: Routledge), pp. 114-116. 2 For essays on the theoretical intersections in the work of Donald W. Winnicott and Jacques Lacan, see Lewis A. Kirshner (2011). Between Winnicott and Lacan: A Clinical Engagement (New York: Routledge).
  2. 2. 2 concerns of both biology and a theory of development. The main difference though is that at every stage of the developmental process, there is an underlying fear of symbolic castration.3 The Real, the Imaginary, and the Symbolic can be mapped approximately to the developmental trajectory of the subject albeit without falling prey to reductive forms of essentialism.4 That is why Lacan invoked the Schéma L to situate how these terms relate to each other making it possible to interpret this schéma from both a synchronic and a diachronic point of view. 5 THE LACANIAN IMAGINARY In this paper, Lacan is mainly preoccupied with how the Imaginary order is instituted in the infant when he reflects upon his image in the mirror. The mirror stage is identified with the period between six to eighteen months when the infant has not completely learnt to stand up and walk around. It is important to note that the infant is held up in front of the mirror since he may not always be able to summon the motor co-ordination required to do this on his own. This kind of infant is referred to as a trotte-bébé in French. The main ontological consequence of the mirror stage is the ‘transformation’ that happens to the infant upon assuming his reflection as his own. This identification is however accompanied by a sense of alienation since there will always be an endemic gap between the fullness of the image in the mirror and the infant’s experiential lack of adequate motor co- ordination in his body. The institution of the Imaginary means that the infant will always look forward to assuming his being in the future rather than in the present. The development of motor co-ordination as a consequence of biological maturation does not make this structural gap between the Real of his body and the Imaginary of its representation go away. The existence of this endemic gap is proof that the Imaginary has been instituted as an order of cognition. Another important reason for invoking the mirror is that even the biological process of maturation depends in some cases of encountering mirror-like phenomena. So, for instance, in the case of the pigeon, the maturation of its gonad depends on being exposed to its own 3 For an exposition of the Lacanian theory of symbolic castration, see Serge Leclaire (1998). ‘Psychoanalyzing: A Note on Transference and Castration,’ Psychoanalyzing: On the Order of the Unconscious and the Practice of the Letter, translated by Peggy Kamuf (Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp. 128-139. 4 For essays on the Real, the Imaginary, and the Symbolic, see Richard Feldstein et al (1996). Reading Seminars I and II: Lacan’s Return to Freud (Albany: SUNY Press). See also Joseph H. Smith and William Kerrigan (1983). Interpreting Lacan (New Haven and London: Yale University Press), Forum of Psychiatry and the Humanities, The Washington School of Psychiatry. 5 See Dylan Evans (1997). ‘Schéma L,’ An Introductory Dictionary of Psychoanalysis (London: Routledge), pp. 168-171.
  3. 3. 3 reflection in the mirror or seeing another member of the species. Such is the case for the migratory locust as well which can make the transition from the solitary to the migratory form only if it encounters an adequate reflection of itself in the environment. While Lacan does not list all the species that are dependent on such forms of mirroring phenomena to demonstrate the function of the Imaginary in their quest for maturation, these examples from ethology constitute an attempt on his part to make a case for the mirroring function as a theoretical category in Lacanian psychoanalysis. The process of maturation, to summarize, is not biologically self- contained; it necessarily involves a contingent encounter with the mirror function. This then is the crucial insight in Jacques Lacan and Roger Calliois that Winnicott takes up in his own paper on the mirroring function. In addition to ethology, Lacan points out that what is at stake is ‘the imago of the fragmented body.’ The closest approximation or representation of this fragmented body, he argues, is to be found in the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch. That is why Jacques Lacan is suspicious of the Imaginary order. So, unlike ego-psychologists, Lacanians do not locate the ego as the locus of reason – if by ‘reason’ we mean the ability to comprehend internal or external reality without it being subject to Imaginary distortions. That is also why paranoia, according to Lacan, is a consequence of the forms of endemic misrecognition that constitutes the ego function. The main methodological preoccupation in Lacanian psychoanalysis then is to identify and minimize the role played by these Imaginary distortions in analysis.6 THE WINNICOTTIAN MIRROR This brief account of the Lacanian Imaginary can serve as the necessary background to Winnicott’s paper on the mirroring function.7 The first thing to note is that Winnicott (unlike Lacan) is not really interested in a physical mirror; he is more interested in the mirroring function. That is why, at the very outset, he invokes the mother’s face as the main object of his analysis. As Winnicott puts it in the first line of his paper, ‘the precursor of the mirror is the mother’s face.’ This innovative twist to the 6 See Jean Laplanche and Jean-Bertrand Pontalis (1973). ‘Imaginary,’ The Language of Psychoanalysis, translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith, with an introduction by Daniel Lagache (London: Karnac Books, 1988), p. 210. 7 For a brief introduction to Winnicott’s theories, see Adam Phillips (1988). Winnicott (London: Fontana Press). A more comprehensive biographical study is available in F. Robert Rodman (2003). Winnicott: Life and Work (Cambridge, MS: Perseus Books). The history of child psychoanalysis in the British Society for Psychoanalysis is available in Joseph Schwartz (1999). ‘Child Psychoanalysis: The Beginnings of a New Paradigm’ and ‘Breakthrough in Britain,’ Cassandra’s Daughter: A History of Psychoanalysis (New York: Penguin Books), pp. 193-244. The French approach to child psychoanalysis is explained in Serge Leclaire (1998). A Child is Being Killed: Primary Narcissism and the Death Drive, translated by Marie-Claude Hays (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
  4. 4. 4 definition of a mirror turned out to be so influential that it is often read back into the Lacanian Imaginary by readers who are not aware of its source. This is also an idea that is constantly re-discovered by readers of Lacan who are under the impression that they are differentiating between the literal and metaphorical invocations of the mirror without realizing that Winnicott wrote a paper on the mirroring function. That is why I have incorporated a section on the Lacanian Imaginary into these clinical notes on Winnicott. It will give readers an opportunity to differentiate between the mirror and the mother’s face. What these objects have or should have in common is the mirroring function. Like Lacan, we will find that Winnicott emphasizes the importance of ‘holding’ the infant. In addition to holding (which was the function that he went on to elaborate in his term ‘holding environment’), Winnicott also uses terms like ‘handling and object-presenting.’ What is at stake for both Lacan and Winnicott then is a theory of ‘maturation.’ It is not enough to hold the infant, he should also feel cherished by his mother; that is why Winnicott uses the term ‘handling’ as well. If the infant is well-handled, he will find it ‘satisfying.’ Only after that will he be able to play with the transitional objects that present themselves in the space in-between him and his mother and develop ‘the capacity to be alone’ with her.8 Winnicott incorporates an important insight from the analytic literature at this point. If the holding and handling is done well then the infant looks up from the breast and straight into the mother’s face. An important question for Winnicott is what exactly he sees in the mother’s face. If the infant is able to see himself in the mother’s face then the mirroring function is at play. If however the mother is depressed or is experiencing affects that she cannot contain; then, the infant is able to feel what she is going through, but is not able to see himself reflected in her face. ON MATERNAL RAPPORT This difference or the gap between what the infant ‘feels’ and what the infant ‘sees’ on the mother’s face is important for Winnicott’s account of the mirroring function. For Winnicott, the focus is on seeing rather than feeling. The failure of the mirroring function can affect the infant’s creativity since it makes it difficult for him to situate himself in the maternal environment. If these failures are repeated, the infant becomes wary of the affects suffered by the mother. The infant is then forced to track his mother closely to avoid situations in which he might be disappointed by the failure of the mirroring function. If the mother’s face cannot reflect him, the infant does not look ‘into’ the mirror anymore; instead he winds up looking ‘at’ the mirror. Winnicott illustrates this phenomenon with a few illustrations. So, for instance, young girls expect to find ‘rapport’ with the mother when they look into the mirror; 8 Winnicott’s theory of the transitional object is available in Donald W. Winnicott (1953). ‘Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena,’ Playing and Reality (London: Routledge), pp. 1-34.
  5. 5. 5 if they don’t, then, they begin to doubt the mother’s ability to love. Winnicott also shares an instance of a depressed woman who would suffer from a sense of despair on waking up; she could function only after she had ‘put on her face’ after her morning ablutions in the bathroom. The Winnicottian mirror then is that which proves to the subject that he or she exists. It is directly related to the function of the maternal gaze. Winnicott also mentions a patient who was fond of the paintings of Francis Bacon. The patient went on to relate the fact that Bacon liked to use glass to cover his pictures so that the viewer could see his own image in its reflection. She then went on to relate it to Lacan’s mirror stage. CONCLUSION In all these instances, Winnicott points out that his task is not to come up with ‘clever interpretations,’ but to mirror the patient. Interpretation then is a function of holding; it is ‘a derivative of the face.’ While this approach to psychotherapy cannot guarantee that the patient will be cured; it at least ensures, Winnicott points out, that ‘they are grateful to us for seeing them as they are, and this gives us a satisfaction of a deep kind.’ When infants grow up however they become less dependent on parental forms of mirroring. They have by then incorporated a number of identifications and can find other mirrors in the family. This comparative reading of Lacan and Winnicott on the mirroring function should make it possible, if required, to study their theories of identification and cross-identification as well. Since that will be beyond the scope of these clinical notes, I will take it up on another occasion in this series. SHIVA KUMAR SRINIVASAN

×