On Guntrip's analysis with Fairbairn and Winnicott

Guntrip's paper is an account of his ananlytic experience, first with Fairbairn and then with Winnicott. Although attempting to be objective, he cannot disguise the fact that he is frustrated and dissatisfied. He raises this question: "How complete a result does psychoanalytic therapy achieve?" The question Guntrip is, in effect, asking himself, is: "What went wrong?" We suggest the following points: The failure of both analysts to recognize a very specific form of resistance and to deal with an unusual transference situation. Fiarbairn's insistence on giving oedipal interpretation to a patient who, as Winnicott recognized, did not have an oedipus complex. The failure of both analysts to recognize Guntrip's infantile megalomania; to expose his insistence that the blame for his neurosis must be attached to a "totally" bad mother; and the failure to recognize the intensity of his sibling rivalry. Psychoanalytic therapy is not merely "correct" interpretation and "correct" technique. It involves the interaction of two human beings. The countertransference of Fairbain and Winnicott prevented their perceiving and dealing with the essential problem of this exceptionally gifted patient.