A critique of the theological use of Winnicottian psychoanalysis (D. W. Winnicott)

Among both religious and non-religious writers, there has been significant development in psychoanalytic perspectives on religion since Freud's writings on the subject, and a substantial and varied body of literature exists treating psychoanalytic perspectives on religious belief. Within Christian theological circles, many theologically committed writers have formed conciliatory responses to psychoanalytic ideas, and the ideas of depth psychology have become a regular part of theological discourse, especially in light of the "turn to the subject" or the "turn to experience" in theology. This dissertation addresses what can be regarded as a paradoxical conflation of psychoanalytic and theological methodologies, focusing specifically on the appropriation by a number of theologically committed writers of the English object-relations practitioner D. W. Winnicott. Winnicott's elaboration of "transitional" objects and "transitional" phenomena is regarded by these writers as offering a promising theoretical system for elaborating the origins of religious belief. His analysis of culture, of which religion is a component, does not pathologize religion, but treats it as one of many potentially enriching and life-enhancing cultural products. His work has been especially welcome among theologically committed writers seeking a psychoanalytic model that, unlike the writings of Freud, makes provision for healthy forms of religion. These writers go beyond a merely descriptive or religious phenomenological undertaking, however, and seek to ground specific religious perspectives in Winnicott's theories of subjectivity and the origins of culture. This juxtaposition, I argue, attempts to unite two essentially dissimilar disciplines, and does a disservice to both Winnicott's elaboration of object relations, and to theological work.