Content uploaded by Gal Gerson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gal Gerson on Jun 21, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Individuality and Ideology in
British Object Relations Theory
“What could be timelier than a book that illuminates the path from
maternal holding and caretaking to active citizenship, peaceful civiliza-
tions, and the promotion of redistributive social policies?”
Michael A. Diamond, Professor Emeritus of Public Affairs and
Organization Studies, University of Missouri
“Gerson usefully i lluminates the often obscured ethico-political vision un-
derpinning competing schools of psychodynamic thought and practice—
specically, their underlying patriarchal or matriarchal orientation.”
Don Carveth, Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Social &
Political Thought, Senior Scholar, York University
Following the work of prominent object relations theorists, such as Fair-
bairn, Suttie and Winnicott, Gal Gerson explores the correlation between
analytical theory and intellectual environment in two ways. He notes the
impact that the British object relations school had on both psychology
and wider culture, and suggests that the school’s outlook involved more
than a clinical choice.
Gerson rst interprets the object relations model as a political theory
that completes a certain internal development within liberalism. He later
outlines the relationship between the analytical theory and the historical
setting in which it formed and took root. By engaging with these questions,
Gerson demonstrates the deeper structure and implications of object re-
lation theory for social philosophy. This allows him to answer questions
such as: ‘What kind of social arrangements do we endorse when we accept
object relations theory as a fair description of mind?’; ‘What beliefs about
power, individuality, and household structure do we take in? What do we
give up when doing so?’; and, lastly, ‘What does it say about contemporary
advanced societies that they have taken in much of the theory’s content?’
Proposing a novel rethinking of human nature, Individuality and Ideol-
ogy in British Object Relations Theory provides much-needed insight into
how this school of psychoanalytic theory has impacted contemporary
social and political life.
Gal Gerson teaches political theory and the history of political
thought at the University of Haifa, Israel
Psychoanalytic Political Theory
Edited by Matthew H. Bowker, Medaille College and David W. McIvor,
Colorado State University
Psychoanalytic Political Theory provides a publishing space for the
highest quality scholarship at the intersection of psychoanalysis and
normative political theory. It offers a forum for texts that deepen our
understanding of the complex relationships between the world of politics
and the world of the psyche.
Recently Published Books
1 The Lucid Vigil
Deconstruction, Desire and the Politics of Critique
Stella Gaon
2 Individuality and Ideology in British Object Relations Theory
Gal Gerson
Individuality and Ideology
in British Object Relations
Theory
Gal Gerson
First published 2021
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa busin ess
© 2021 Taylor & Francis
The right of Gal Gerson to be identied as author of this work
has be en ass erted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78
of the Copyright, Desig ns and Pat ents Act 1988.
All r ights reser ved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and re cording, or in a ny infor mation
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporat e names may be
trade marks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identi cation and explanation w ithout int ent to in fringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Pu blication Data
Names: Gerson, G al, 1964– author.
Title: Individuality a nd ideology in Br itish object relations
theor y : from the c radle and on / Gal Gerson.
Desc ription: New York, NY : Routledge, 2021. |
Series: Psychoanalytic pol itica l theor y ; vol 2 |
Includesbibliographical references and index.
Identiers: LCCN 2020058238 (pr int) |
LCCN 2020058239 (ebook) | ISBN 9781138333154 (hardback) |
ISBN 9780429446146 (ebook) | ISBN 9780429820823 (adobe pdf ) |
ISBN 9780429820809 (mobi) | ISBN 9780429820816 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Object relations (Psychoanalysis)—
Great Br itai n. | Individuality— Great Brita in.
Classicat ion: LCC BF175.5.O24 G37 2021 (print) |
LCCBF175.5.O24 (ebook) | DDC 150.19/5—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020058238
LC ebook re cord available at https://lc cn.loc.gov/2020058239
ISBN: 978-1-138-33315-4 (hbk)
ISBN: 9 78 - 0-367-76165 -3 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-44614-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by codeMantra
Introduction 1
1 Individual Interiors and the Liberal Order 10
2 Love against Hate: Ian Suttie and Jane Suttie 39
3 Ronald Fairbairn and the Legacy of Prussian
Idealism 63
4 Donald Winnicott: Transition to Liberty 86
5 Play in the Open Society: Winnicott and Popper 109
6 Jessica Benjamin and the Consequences of
Maternal Agency 133
Conclusion 163
Index 169
Contents
Object relations psychoanalysis can justly claim credit for its inuence on
society and culture. Emanating from modications of Freud’s theory, the
idea that the mind is structured around internalized images of very early
parental inputs has become prevalent in therapeutic thinking and prac-
tice. The legacy of the object relations approach has fused with the popu-
lar image of psychotherapy and psychology themselves (Clarke, 2006: 9).
While psychoanalysis is still identied with the classical terminology of
the oedipal situation and erotogenic zones, the second half of the twenti-
eth century has become equally acquainted with notions taken from the
object relations literature, such as maternal deprivation, transitional ob-
jects and the goodenough mother. Ideas based on object relations theory
inform disciplines that are adjacent to psychology, such as social work,
education, sociology and criminology. Through the multiplication of
therapeutic, counselling and coaching practices, ideas rooted in object
relations theory have migrated into the terms and languages of everyday
experience in ways far removed from the original, midcentury context in
which these notions had been formulated. This broad impact points at
the ability of that particular psychoanalytical school to reect, respond
to, and possibly modulate, the sensibilities of its time.
Scholarship has been slow to take note of these many connections be-
tween obje ct relations theory and the sur rounding society. While Freudian
theory has caught the attention of historical, philosophical and sociolog-
ical research, object relations theory’s makeup and implications are more
seldom considered in such terms. Possibly, this relative neglect emanates
from the same factors that allowed the contents of object relations theory
to be so prevalently disseminated. Object relations analysts were not in-
tentionally social iconoclasts. Without the sense of outrage that attended
Freud’s reception, engagement with their theory remained localized
within the orbit of their own and neighbouring professions, drawing lim-
ited attention from social or political scholars. But this continuity itself
makes the content of object relations theory worthy of additional con-
sideration. It entails that the analysts added detail and coherence to an
already existing ideology and thus triggered no overt counter-reaction.
Their works can be read as texts in the history of political thought.
Introduction
2 Introduction
Nonetheless, some researches on the social historical and political im-
plications of object relations have been conducted. They point to the the-
ory’s connections with the formation of the welfare state in Britain. The
term refers here to the aggregate of governmental service-delivering bod-
ies along with the legislation, administrative policies and economic mea-
sures meant to facilitate the operation of these bodies, as these emerged in
Britain and in other Western countries during the 1930s and 1940s.
Researchers have noted two kinds of such links between object re-
lations theory and the ideology of the liberal welfare state. The rst is
sociological and organizational. Forged during a time of war and mass
displacement, object relations theory focuses on the concerns of a society
grappling with crisis. As it emphasizes the crucial role of the family en-
vironment, object relations thought correspondingly stresses the adverse
results of separation and loss. The theory therefore entails guidelines
for action calibrated to minimize such harm to individuals and families
while stabilizing and preserving valued social practices (Homans, 1989:
227–229; Riley, 1983; van der Horst and van der Veer, 2010). Clinicians’
ideas about the roles of motherhood, the family household and education
frequently served as material for public policies, as embedded, for ex-
ample, in the Children Act of 1948 (Jones, 1960: 147–152). Implementing
these policies was the responsibility of the welfare apparatus as it devel-
oped in the 1930s and 1940s. Psychologists worked alongside and within
the public agencies charged with health and education. Their thinking
was enmeshed with the practices, ideas and prejudices that character-
ized these organizations, as pointed out by Butler (2020), Mayhew (2006),
Rose (1985, 1996) and Shapira (2013).
The second type of connection between object relations theory and
the welfare state is more focused on the intellectual and philosophical
contents of the ideas that the psychoanalytical theory upholds. Object
relations psychoanalysis regards individuality, personal freedom and cre-
ativity as conditioned on the individual’s early environment, and therefore
as essentially social: the analysts understand the formation of the coher-
ent, benevolent and autonomously acting personality as predicated on the
availability of a nourishing setting and attentive parent. With varying em-
phases, Alexander (2012), Etheridge (1977), Gerson (2004), Groarke (2014),
Hoggett (2008), Rustin (1991) and Zaretsky (2004: 249–275) point out that
believing in such a relationship between social provision and individual
agency concurs with the advanced liberal and social-democratic thinking
that underlined the construction of the redistributive, welfare-oriented
polity. Within the broad contours of this ideology, personal freedom is the
cherished end, while environmental support is the indispensable means.
By providing an account of how the link between support and autonomy
works on the level of the individual person’s mind, object relations theory
accords with the ideas that shored up the welfare-state agenda associated
with William Beveridge’s 1942 Plan.
Introduction 3
Welfare-state thought displays another trait beside its wish to guar-
antee sufcient social conditions for the development of a free, self-
determining individuality. The intellectual input that went into the
making of the welfare state favoured the expansion of governmental
provision, but, true to its roots in historical liberal philosophy, not of
state authority. The welfare state was forged to address an essential and
integrative, not technical, perception of society’s needs. Planning, redis-
tribution and the expansion of services were tied to a set of concepts that
pertained to human life in its holistic entirety. The formulation ‘from the
cradle to the grave’ that attached to it captures this feature: welfare-state
thought aspired to neglect no corner of our experience (Fraser, 2017: 14).
As the state could not simply be trusted with powers over such an expanse
of issues, advanced liberals sought to render the state and its government
secondary to a federative alignment of everyday contacts and forms of
cooperation, voluntary associations, and wider, regional and global gov-
ernance systems. This advanced liberalism assumed that individuals who
enjoy the social safety network furnished by their polity would form into
a self-regulating civilization in which the coercive, force-wielding func-
tion of government would diminish. Politics in the conventional sense
would become a more marginal issue than before.
Here, I argue that, when examined as a political theory, object rela-
tions thought matches this character of the advanced liberal approach
developed in the rst half of the twentieth century. To different degrees
and with considerable variations, the psychoanalysts think of the civic
politics that takes place around sovereign institutions as at best a regret-
table necessity, expecting its signicance to decline if the conditions for
a healthy democracy are maintained. The expectation of a diminished
politics was essential enough for it to be retained within object relations
thought even once the setting has changed from its midcentury congu-
ration. In later elaborations of the theory, the vision of a benign, natu-
ral social mode that gradually obviates existential disagreement and the
organs mandated to channel it is upheld and occasionally made more
explicit.
The Argument: Outline and Section Sequence
As the current scholarly consensus establishes, object relations theory
formed within the intellectual climate that made possible the justication
of a more interventionist state from liberal and individualist premises.
In early-twentieth century and midcentury Britain, that justication in-
cluded the perception of sociability as a constitutive human character
that generates a universal right to engage with other individuals in mul-
tiple sites and locations. Emphasizing this trait made it feasible for lib-
eral and individualist thinkers to task government with offering channels
for sociability to unfold. Liberal reformers valued sociability for several
4 Introduction
reasons, among which the period’s circumstances played a crucial role.
On the one hand, industrial society caused alienation and seemed to en-
courage a turn towards illiberal ideologies that promised a more commu-
nal existence. On the other hand, the same industrial conditions offered
venues for communication and, consequently, for personal development,
an end compatible with the values of constitutional democracy itself as
understood by these thinkers. To compete with its illiberal detractors
while making good use of the new conditions, liberalism rephrased it-
self in terms that highlighted the function of interpersonal closeness.
Reforming liberals played up the concept of the human individual as
other-seeking, using that concept as a lynchpin that connected the dif-
fering historical perceptions of individual liberty. Government was
charged with preserving the conditions where natural society’s bodies
could thrive but also with protecting each person’s autonomy and ability
to associate within these bodies. While expanding the state’s responsibil-
ities, this concept did not extend the state’s authority to the same extent.
Freely and spontaneously engaging with each other, democratic subjects
were creative: together, they produced ideas and goods that they could
not have alone. One of the things they created together was new forums
for engagement. Hence, while natural in the sense of preceding the state,
the society made of these multiple engagements was not xed in scope.
Its practices and mental habits could develop to the degree of permeating
the sphere of government. Politics could cease to be a region for the work
of power and conicting interests. Fears of bureaucratic invasion into
privacy could be allayed, as governmental ofces were the arms of a mul-
tilayered and complex civilization based on mutually interested individ-
uals. Reforming liberals presented the expanded apparatus required by
the welfare state as assisting the region of liberty, privacy, dynamic cre-
ativity and personal contacts rather than as an imposition on that region.
The vision of a private sphere which, when acknowledged and pro-
tected by political institutions, curbs the conictual dimension of poli-
tics appeared in more ideologies than welfare-oriented liberalism. The
realization that the world’s different parts were irrevocably linked and
that war could not be kept local meant that many who did not neces-
sarily agree with the welfare agenda shared its concern with allowing a
space for freely created ties to unfold so as to tame the expressly politi-
cal, force-wielding bodies. The ideal of a worldwide, plural system that
empowers the multiple overlapping and dynamic interactions entered
voluntarily by individuals was gaining traction. It was shared, with vary-
ing emphases, by ideological positions on the left and right of welfare-
state liberalism. It was provided with a comprehensive philosophical
argument – as well as a popular catchphrase – by Popper’s notion of
the open society. These right, left and centre ideologies shaped public
and scholarly debates about the postwar world. The growing trust in,
and corresponding willingness to calibrate government to cultivate, the
Introduction 5
various activities, associations and groupings individuals are believed to
wish to enter and generate on their own can be seen as a kind of zeitgeist,
a rising agreement on what freedom and democracy were.
Object relations theory matched these outlooks by offering a view
of the individual mind that was similarly organized around a sociable
motivation whose manifestations could branch out gradually until they
enfolded the forums tasked with collective decision and enforcement.
Initiating the creation of object relations theory as an independent and
distinctly British approach in a series of observations since the 1920s,
Ian Suttie and Jane Suttie located a tender, other-seeking motivation at
the core of psychic development, replacing Freud’s sexualized notion of
libido and allowing for the construction of the mother-dominated family
as the site where any tendency towards violence is pre-empted. In the
1930s, Ronald Fairbairn anchored a comparable belief in a governing
sociable motivation to the structured and tidily argued terms of a psy-
choanalytic model. Fairbairn reinterpreted Melanie Klein’s view of de-
structive instincts and the part-objects they create as reecting the work
of an integrative and sociable drive. Fairbairn described these drives and
objects as a matrix generated by the interaction of different other-seeking
strategies the very young child engages in. Starting later in that decade,
Donald Winnicott further elaborated these insights by formulating the
concept of a transitional space for play and creativity opened up be-
tween child and parent. Pervaded by its search for validation, the self
becomes able to tolerate, and then value, difference and disagreement,
thus constantly proceeding towards a more integrated, condent and
explorative existence. Tensions and frictions are foils for the wish to en-
gage with others, and assist its growing sophistication. As condence,
exploration and movement are themselves conditioned by the experience
of early attachment, autonomy means that healthy individuals create
further attachments through new friendships, families, collegial afli-
ations, professional achievements and other activities that derive their
signicance from the experience they offer individuals of being witnessed
and responded to by others. Together, these activities constitute an inter-
mediate world accessible to all and incrementally impacted by all. For
the Sutties, Fairbairn and Winnicott alike, society as a whole was tasked
with providing conditions in which the secure household could function.
As its function was creative and dynamic, the products of this protected
private sphere could be expected to enfold the entire society, including its
political and civic spaces. In Winnicott’s particular formulation, these
ideas are compatible with the notions of the democratic civilization as
described at the time by Popper.
Decades later, far from the midcentury British setting in which the
Sutties, Fairbairn and Winnicott worked, Jessica Benjamin developed
a comprehensive, expressly political and social theory from object re-
lations premises. It replicates and accentuates some of the features
6 Introduction
that appeared in more implicit ways in the midcentury analysts. Like
the Sutties, Benjamin views the empowerment of mothers and women
as the key to individual and social health. With Winnicott, she stresses
the self-healing and dynamically creative character of differences
when tested, asserted and survived in a validating environment. The
resulting outlook is expressly critical of the Hobbesian perception
according to which lethal violence and the organs tasked with it are
central to human existence. Such perceptions, Benjamin maintains,
normalize the pathology of a self that is preoccupied with power du-
alities, hierarchic distinctions, boundaries and classications. The
overall trend towards expanding the patterns based on the domestic,
intimate and emotional private sphere to the point where the politics
of public, impersonal and force-wielding institutions become second-
ary and possibly redundant is explicitly central in Benjamin, placing
into relief an ideological feature that existed in object relations theory
all along.
This is the mainstay of the argument here. It is presented in six chap-
ters. The rst is a general description of the ideas about the distinction
of politics and its relationship with the private existence of individuals
and households, as they appeared in both the reforming liberalism of the
early to mid-twentieth-century welfare state and in the object relations
literature. The second and third chapters discuss two early versions of
the ideological notions involved in object relations psychoanalysis: the
more optimistic, borderline-utopian vision offered by Ian Suttie and Jane
Suttie, and the comparatively dour and lowkey version laid out by Ron-
ald Fairbairn. The fourth chapter is devoted to Donald Winnicott’s ideas
about the link between the home, healthy or otherwise, the experiences
and social venues based on the home, and the political realm. It is fol-
lowed by a comparison of Winnicott’s views with those of Popper in the
fth chapter, and then by an account of Benjamin’s contribution in the
sixth chapter.
Boundaries and Disclaimers
This essay relies on existing research, whose descriptions and assertions
it basically takes for granted as its axiomatic basis. It relies on the histo-
riography that depicts the development of Anglophone, mainly British,
liberal thought from a minimalist creed that sought to shelter individuals’
private lives into a more interventionist platform, in which governmental
acts, planning and day-to-day involvement are benecent for personal
freedom. The classical liberal positions that served as the basis of this
transformation are generally those of John Locke and J.S. Mill, and to a
differing degree, those of Edmund Burke and Lord Acton. Their revision
was carried out in the twentieth century by scholars, journalists and pol-
icy planners, like Leonard Hobhouse; John Hobson; and, later, William
Introduction 7
Beveridge and T.H. Marshall (Backhouse, Bateman, and Nishizawa,
2017; Clarke, 1978; Freeden, 1978; Jackson, 2007). This essay depends,
additionally, on the research literature that traces the controversy within
political thought between the individualist liberalism that focused on the
single person as the carrier of rights, and the more pluralist approach
that stressed the role of voluntary associations as defences against gov-
ernmental power. One occurrence within this development was the en-
dorsement of pluralist elements into the way democracy was understood
since the 1940s in the Atlantic West (Levy, 2015; Rosenboim, 2017). I take
my view of object relations theory’s origins, development, content and
boundaries from accounts that name Ian Suttie, Ronald Fairbairn, John
Bowlby and Donald Winnicott as some of its main authors, and describe
these authors’ differences from Freud and Klein as serious enough to
identify them as a distinct and roughly cohesive psychoanalytic school
(Gomez, 1997; Greenberg and Mitchell, 1983; Rayner, 1990; Schwartz,
1999; Symington, 2014).
Based on these accounts of the welfare state’s grounding in liberal phi-
losophy, the pluralist inux into consensual views of democracy and the
formation of object relations theory, this essay attempts to connect them.
It does so by discussing how the contents of object relations theory match
the view of politics entailed by a certain range of mainly liberal political
and social authors. Accordingly, this essay is primarily a text on the his-
tory of political thought, in which the sources happen to be composed
of psychoanalytical literature. It treats that literature as a private case
of a wider transformation within social thought, and details some of the
causes and effects of this transformation where such details are relevant
to object relations thought. It stakes no claims on the clinical, medical
or therapeutic validity of object relations psychoanalysis or any other
method of treatment.
I wish to thank the team at Routledge, in particular the series edi-
tors, Matt Bowker and David McIvor, for their helpful suggestions and
supportive attitude. The organizers and participants of Graham Clarke’s
and David Scharff’s 2014 symposium on Fairbairn at the Freud Museum,
London, gave a favourable and fruitful welcome to some of the ideas
printed here. I have been fortunate in having an uncommonly tolerant
and cooperative work environment at the University of Haifa, enabled
and daily maintained throughout the challenges of institutional life by
my divisional colleagues Ayelet Banai, Daphna Canetti, As’ad Ghanem,
Liran Harsgor, Annabel Herzog, Doron Navot, Aviad Rubin, and Israel
Waismel-Manor.
Parts of Chapter 2 in this essay are reproduced with the permission of
the American Psychological Association from an article that was origi-
nally published as:
Gerson, G. (2009). Culture and ideology in Ian Suttie’s theory of mind.
History of Psychology 12 (1): 19–40.
8 Introduction
Elements of Chapter 3 in this essay are reproduced with permission
from Taylor and Francis through PLSclear from a chapter contribution
that originally appeared as:
Gerson, G. (2014). From Oedipus to Antigone: Hegelian themes in
Fairbairn. In Scharff, D., and Clarke, G.S. (eds.), Fairbairn and the object
relations tradition. London: Karnac, 27–39.
Elements of Chapter 4 in this essay are reproduced with the permission
included in the guidelines announced by Sage from articles that origi-
nally appeared as the following two articles:
Gerson, G. (2004). Winnicott, participation and gender. Feminism &
Psychology 14 (4): 561–581.
Gerson, G. (2005). Individuality, deliberation and welfare in Donald
Winnicott. History of the Human Sciences 18 (1): 107–126.
References
Alexander, S. (2012). Pr imary maternal preoccupation: D.W. Winnicott and so-
cial democracy in mid-twentieth-century Britain. In Alexander, S., and Tay-
lor, B. (eds.), History and psyche: Culture, psychoanalysis, and the past. New
York: Palgrave, 149–172.
Backhouse, R.E., Bateman B.W., and Nishizawa, T. (2017). Liberalism and the
welfare state in Britain, 1890–1945. In Backhouse, R.E., Bateman B.W., Nishi-
zawa, T., and Plehwe, D. (eds.), Liberalism and the welfare state. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press, 25–38.
Butler, L. (2020). Michael Young, social science and the British left 1945–1970.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, G.S. (2006). Personal relations theory. London: Routledge.
Clarke, P.F. (1978). Liberals and social democrats. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Etheridge, L. (1977). Optimal federalism: A model of psycholog ical dependence.
Policy Sciences 8: 161– 171.
Fraser, D. (2017). The evolution of the British welfare state. Fifth edition. London:
Palgrave.
Freeden, M.S. (1978). The new liberalism. Oxford: Clarendon.
Gerson, G. (2004). Object relations psychoanalysis as political theory. Political
Psychology 25 (5): 769–794.
Gomez, L. (1997). An introduction to object relations. New York: New York Uni-
versity Press.
Greenberg, J.R., and Mitchell, S.A. (1983). Object relations in psychoanalytic the-
ory. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Groarke, S. (2014). Managed lives. London: Routledge.
Hoggett, P. (2008). Relational thinking and welfare practice. In Clarke, S., Hahn,
H., and Hoggett, P. (eds.), Object relations and social relations. London: Kar-
nac, 65– 86.
Homans, P. (1989). The ability to mourn. Chicago, IL and London: The Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Horst, F.C.P van der, and Veer, R. van der. (2010). The ontogeny of an idea: John
Bowlby and contemporaries on mother-child separation. History of Psychol-
ogy 13 (1): 25–45.
Introduction 9
Jackson, B. (2007). Equality and the British left. Manchester: Manchester Uni-
versity Press.
Jones, K. (1960). Mental health and social policy. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Levy, J.T. (2015). Rationalism, pluralism, and freedom. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Mayhew, B. (2006). Between love and aggression: The politics of John Bowlby.
History of the Human Sciences 19 (4): 19 –35.
Rayner, E. (1990). The independent mind in British psychoanalysis. London: Free
Association.
Riley, D. (1983). War in the nursery. London: Virago.
Rose, N. (1985) The psychological complex. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rose, N. (1996). Inventing our selves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenboim, O. (2017). The emergence of globalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rustin, M. (1991). The good society and the inner world. London and New York:
Ver s o.
Schwartz, J. (1999). Cassandra’s daughter. London: Penguin.
Shapira, M. (2013). The war inside. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Symington, N. (2014). Fairbair n, Suttie and Macmurray – An essay. In Clarke,
G.S., and Scharff, D.E., Fairbairn and the object relations tradition. London:
Kar nac, 59– 67.
Zaretsky, E. (2004). Secrets of the soul: A social and cultural history of psychoanal-
ysis. New York: Alfred K nopf.
Bellamy, R. (2003). The advent of the masses and the making of the modern
theory of democracy. In Ball, T., and Bellamy, R. (eds.), The Cambridge His-
tory of twentieth-century political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Pre ss, 70–103.
Beveridge, W. (1942). The pillars of security. New York: Macmillan.
Beveridge, W. (1948). Voluntary action. London: Allen and Unwin.
Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. Geneva: World Health
Organization.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Separation. London: Hogarth.
Bowlby, J. (1997). Attachment. London: Pimlico.
Bradley, (1979). Hegel in Britain: A brief history of British commentary and atti-
tudes. Heythrop Journal 20 (2): 163–188.
Brooks, T. (2007). Hegel’s political philosophy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Brunner, J. (2000). Freud and the rule of law. In Levine, M.P. (ed.), The analytic
Freud. London: Routledge, 277–293.
Burn s, C.D. (1919). Greek ideals. London: G. Bell and Sons.
Clarke, P.F. (1978). Liberals and social democrats. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Collini, S. (1991). Public moralists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dangereld, G. (1935). The strange death of liberal England. New York: Harrison
and Smith.
Den Otter, S. (1996). British idealism and social explanation. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Eksteins, M. (1990). The rites of spring. New York: Anchor.
Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1952). Psychoanalytic studies of the personality. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Fawcett, E. (2014). Liberalism: The life of an idea. Princ eton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Freeden, M. (1978). The new liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gerson, G. (2004). Margins of disorder. Albany, NY: SUNY.
Goodin, R. (1988). Reasons for welfare. Princ eton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Guntrip, H. (1961). Personality structure and human interaction. New York: Inter-
national Universities Press.
Harris, J. (1993). Private lives, public spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hart, B. (1910). The psychology of Freud and his school. Journal of Mental Sci-
ences 56: 431– 452.
Herman, A. (1997). The idea of decline in Western history. New York: Free Press.
Hobhouse, L.T. (1904). Democracy and reaction. London: Unwin.
Hobhouse, L.T. (1911). Social evolution and political theory. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Hobhouse, L.T. (1921). The rational good. London: Allen Unwin.
Hobhouse, L.T. (1922). The elements of social justice. New York: Henry Holt and
Co mpa ny.
Hobhouse, L.T. (1924). Social development. New York: Allen Unwin.
Hobhouse, L.T. (1994). Liberalism and other writings. Ed. J. Meadowcroft. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, J.A. (1921). Problems of a new world. New York: Macmillan.
Holmes, J. (1993). John Bowlby and attachment theory. London: Routledge.
Hughes, J.M. (2000). Fairbairn’s revision of libido theory: The case of Harry
Guntrip. In Grotstein, J.S., and Rinsley, D.B. (eds.), Fairbairn and the origins
of object relations. New York: Other Press, 250–272.
Kern, S. (1983). The culture of time and space 1880 –1918. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Linstrum, E. (2014). The making of a translator: James Strachey and the origins
of British psychoanalysis. Journal of British Studies 53: 685 –70 4.
Locke, J. (1946). The second treatise of civil government. Oxford: Blackwell.
Manent, P. (1995). An intellectual history of liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Mercier, C. (1910). Insanity as disorder of conduct. Journal of Mental Science 56
(23 4): 405 – 418.
Morgenthau, H.J. (1946). Scientic man versus power politics. Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Nicholson, P.P. (1990). The political philosophy of the British idealists. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nicklin, J.A. (1898). Ideals of friendship. The Westminster Review 149:
680– 687.
Nussbaum, M. (2006). Winnicott on the surprises of the self. The Massachusetts
Review 47 (2): 375–393.
Roazen, P. (2003). Freud and his followers. In Ball, T., and Bellamy, R. (eds.), The
Cambridge History of twentieth-century political thought. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 392–411.
Ryan, A. (2012). On politics v. 2. New York: W.W. Norton and co.
Schuett, R. (2007). Freudian roots of political realism: The importance of Sig-
mund Freud to Hans J. Morgenthau’s theory of international power politics.
History of the Human Sciences 20 (4): 53–78.
Shapira, M. (2013). The war inside. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suttie, I.D. (1933). Is acquisitiveness an instinct? Psyche 13, 154–163.
Suttie, I.D. (1999). The origins of love and hate. New York: Free Association.
Suttie, I.D., and Suttie, J.I. (1932a). The mother: Agent or object? British Journal
of Medical Psychology 12 , 91–10 8.
Suttie, I.D., and Suttie, J.I. (1932b). The mother: Agent or object? Part II. British
Journal of Medical Psychology 12 , 199–233.
Sykes, A. (1997). The rise and fall of British liberalism 1776–1988. London:
Routledge.
Tolman, C.W. (1987). The comparative psychology of Leonard T. Hobhouse: Its
context and conception. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 1 (2):
85–96.
Trotter, W. (1908). Herd instinct and its bearing on the psychology of the civilised
man. Sociological Review 1 (3): 227–248.
Trotter, W. (1909). Sociological applications of the psychology of the herd. Socio-
logical Review 2 (1): 36 –54.
Wallas, G. (1914). The great society. London: Macmillan.
West, R. (1986). Law, rights and other totemic illusions: Legal liberalism and
Freud’s theory of the rule of law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 13 4
(4): 817–882.
Winnicott, D.W. (1965a). The family and individual development. London:
Tav i stoc k .
Winnicott, D.W. (1965b). The maturational processes and the facilitating environ-
ment. London: Hogarth.
Winnicott, D.W. (1984). Through paediatrics to psychoanalysis. London: Karnac.
Winnicott, D.W. (1986). Home is where we start from. Eds. C. Winnicott, R. Shep-
herd, and M. Davis. New York: Norton.
Winnicott, D.W. (1988). Human nature. Philadelph ia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Winnicott, D.W. (1989). Psycho-analytic explorations. Eds. C. Winnicott, R.
Shepherd, and M. Davis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winnicott, D.W. (1991). Playing and reality. London: Routledge.
Anon. (1936). Review of The origins of love and hate. Journal of Neurology and
Psychopathology 16: 377.
Bacal, H.A. (1990). Ian Suttie. In Bacal, H.A., and Newman, K.M. (eds.), The-
ories of object relations: Bridges to self psychology. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 17–27.
Beauvoir, S. de (1989). The second sex. New York: Vintage.
Benjam in, J. (1988). The bonds of love. New York: Pantheon.
Bondi, L. (2013). Between Christianity and secularity: Counselling and psycho-
therapy provision in Scotland. Social and Cultural Geography 14 (6): 668–688.
Bowlby, J. (1999). Foreword. In Suttie, I.D. (ed.), The origins of love and hate.
London: Free Association, xv–xviii.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley: University of Cal-
ifor nia Press.
Clarke, G.S. (2006). Personal relations theory. London: Routledge.
Clarke, G.S. (2011). Suttie’s inuence on Fairbairn’s object Relations theory.
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Society 59 (5): 939 –959.
Doane, J., and Hodges, D. (1992). From Klein to Kristeva. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Gerson, G. (2004). Margins of disorder. Albany: SUNY.
Gerson, G. (2009). Culture and ideology in Ian Suttie’s theory of mind. History
of Psychology 12 (1): 19– 40.
Heard, D. (1999). Introduction. In Suttie, I.D. (ed.), The origins of love and hate.
London: Free Association, xix–xl.
Hewitt, M.A. (2018). Christian anti-Judaism and early object relations theory.
Critical Research in Religion 6 (3): 226–242.
Holmes, J. (1993). John Bowlby and attachment theory. London: Routledge.
Kirkwood, C. (2012). The person in relation perspective. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
MacKinnon, C. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Miller, G. (2007). A wall of ideas: The ‘taboo on tenderness’ in theory and cul-
ture. New Literary History 38: 667– 681.
Miller, G. (2008). Scottish psychoanalysis: A rational religion. Journal of the His-
tory of Behavioural Science 4 4: 38 –58.
Okin, S.M. (1989). Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic.
Rodman, F.R. (2003). Winnicott: Life and work. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Suttie, I.D. (1922). Critique of the theory of ‘Herd instinct’. Journal of Mental
Science 68: 245–254.
Suttie, I.D. (1923a). Some aspects of sociology and their psychiatrical applica-
tion. Part I. Journal of Mental Science 69: 49 –51.
Suttie, I.D. (1923b). Some aspects of sociology and their psychiatrical applica-
tion. Part III. Journal of Mental Science 69: 314 –318 .
Suttie, I.D. (1924a). Metapsychology and biology. Journal of Neurology and Psy-
chopathology 5: 61–70.
Suttie, I.D. (1924b). Moral imbecility. Journal of Mental Science 70: 362–363.
Suttie, I.D. (1924c). The development and evolution of mind: Biological versus
psychological interpretations of the ontophylogenetic parallelism. Journal of
Neurology and Psychopathology 5 (18): 133–145.
Suttie, I.D. (1924d). Two cases illustrating the conception of moral imbecility.
Journal of Mental Science 70: 612–626.
Suttie, I.D. (1925). An unwarranted accretion to the Freudian theory. British
Journal of Medical Psychology 5: 83 – 91.
Suttie, I.D. (1928). The evolution of social thought. Psyche 33: 31–36.
Suttie, I.D. (1929). Psychotherapeutic clinics. Psyche 37: 82– 8 4.
Suttie, I.D. (1932). Religion: Racial character and mental and social health. Brit-
ish Journal of Medical Psychology 12: 289 –314 .
Suttie, I.D. (1935). Mental factors in the welfare of the child. Public Health 48:
294–301.
Suttie, I.D. (1999). The origins of love and hate. London: Free Association.
Suttie, I.D., and Suttie, J.I. (1932a). The mother: Agent or object? British Journal
of Medical Psychology 12: 91–108 .
Suttie, I.D., and Suttie, J.I. (1932b). The mother: Agent or object? Part II. British
Journal of Medical Psychology 12: 199 –233.
Suttie, J.I. (1922) Mental stresses of adjustment in women. British Medical Jour-
nal 3221 (23): 549–551.
Winnicott, D.W. (1989). Psycho-analytical explorations. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Zaretsky, E. (1998). Melanie Klein and the emergence of modern personal life.
In Stonebridge, L., and Phillips, J. (eds.), Reading Melanie Klein. New York:
Rout le dge, 33–48.
Zaretsky, E. (2015). Political Freud. New York: Columbia University Press.
Beaney, T. (2009). Beautiful death: The nineteenth century fascination with An-
tigone. Opticon 1826 (7): 1–8.
Benjam in, J. (1999). Recognition and destruction: An outline of intersubjectiv-
ity. In Mitchell, S.A., and Aron, L. (eds.), Relational psychoanalysis: The emer-
gence of a tradition. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press, 181–210.
Birtles, E.F. (2002). Why is Fairbairn relevant today – A modernist/postmodern-
ist view. In Pereira, F., and Scharff, D.E. (eds.), Fairbairn and relational theory.
London: Karnac, 36–52.
Birtles, E. Fairbairn (2005). Difference, repetition and continuity: Philosophical
reections on Fairbairn’s concept of mature dependence. In Scharff, J.S., and
Scharff, D.E. (eds.), The legacy of Fairbairn and Sutherland. London and New
York: Routledge, 39–49.
Bosanquet, B. (1910). Charity organization and the Majority Report. Interna-
tional Journal of Ethics 20 (4): 395–408.
Bosanquet, B. (2001). The philosophical theory of the state. Kitchener: Batoche.
Bradley, J. (1979). Hegel in Britain: A brief history of British commentary and
attitudes. The Heynthrop Journal 20 (1): 1–24.
Brooks, T. (2007). Hegel’s political philosophy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Clarke, G.S. (2006). Personal relations theory. Hove: Routledge.
Clarke, G.S. (2011). Suttie’s inuence on Fairbairn’s object relations theory. Jour-
nal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 59 (5): 939–959.
Den Otter, S. (1996). British idealism and social explanation. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Fairbairn, N. (1987). A life is too short, London: Quartet.
Fairbairn, R.W.D. (1994). From instinct to self. London: Jason Aronson.
Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1952). Psycho-analytic studies of the personality. London:
Tav i stoc k .
Franco, P. (1997). Hegel and liberalism. The Review of Politics 59 (4): 831–860.
Grotstein, J.S. (2000). Notes on Fairbairn’s metapsychology. In Grotstein, J.S.,
and Rinsley, D.B. (eds.), Fairbairn and the origins of object relations. New York:
Other Press, 112–148.
Guntrip, H. (1961). Personality structure and human interaction. New York: Inter-
national Universities Press.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1952). Hegel’s philosophy of right. Oxford: Clarendon.
Honig, B. (2013). Antigone interrupted. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopkins, B. (2005). Winnicott and imprisonment. American Imago 62 (3):
269–283.
Kernberg, O.F. (2000). Fairbairn’s theory and challenge. In Grotstein, J.S., and
Rinsley, D.B. (eds.), Fairbairn and the origins of object relations. New York:
Other Press, 41–65.
Kernberg, O.F. (2002). A contemporary exploration of the contributions of
W.R.D. Fairbairn. In Pereira, F., and Scharff, D.E. (eds.), Fairbairn and rela-
tional theory. London: Karnac, 11–27.
Leonard, M. (2013). Freud and tragedy: Oedipus and the gender of the universal.
Classical Receptions Journal 5 (1): 63–83.
Levy, J. (2014). Fairbairn’s unique contributions to dream interpretation. In
Clarke, G.S., and Scharff, D.E. (eds.), Fairbairn and the object relations tradi-
tion. London: Karnac, 237–248.
Miller, G. (2008). Scottish psychoanalysis: A rational religion. Journal of the His-
tory of the Behavioral Sciences 44 (1): 38–59.
Mitchell, S.A. (2000). The origin and nature of the ‘object’ in the theories of
Klein and Fairbairn. In Grotstein, J.S., and Rinsley, D.B. (eds.), Fairbairn and
the origins of object relations. New York: Other Press, 66–87.
Morrow, J. (1984), Liberalism and British idealist political philosophy: A reas-
sessment. History of Political Thought 5 (1): 91–108.
Nicholson, P.P. (1990). The political philosophy of the British idealists. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ogden, T.H. (1992). The matrix of the mind: Object relations and the psychoana-
lytic dialogue. London: Karnac.
Ogden, T.H. (2010). Why read Fairbair n? International Journal of Psychoanalysis
91: 101 –118.
Scharff, D.E. (2005). The development of Fairbairn’s theory. In Scharff, J.S., and
Scharff, D.E. (eds.), The legacy of Fairbairn and Sutherland. London and New
York: Routledge, 3–18.
Shainess, N. (1982). Antigone, the neglected daughter of Oedipus: Freud’s gender
concepts in theory. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 10 (3):
443 – 455.
Sharpe, C. (2016). From the individual, to the relational and communal: The
Kirk’s inuence on three Scottish thinkers: Ronald Fairbairn, John Macmur-
ray and Ian Suttie. Ethics and Social Welfare 10 (3): 224–238.
Suttie, I.D. (1999). The origins of love and hate. New York: Julian.
Winnicott, D.W. (1984). Through paediatrics to psychoanalysis. London: Karnac.
Winnicott, D.W. (1986). Home is where we start from. New York: Norton.
Winnicott, D.W. (1991). Playing and reality. London: Routledge.
Alexander, S. (2012). Pr imary maternal preoccupation: D.W. Winnicott and so-
cial democracy in mid-twentieth-century Britain. In Alexander, S., and Tay-
lor, B. (eds.), History and psyche: Culture, psychoanalysis, and the past. New
York: Palgrave, 149–172.
Alford, C.F. (2000). Levinas and Winnicott: Motherhood and responsibility.
American Imago 57 (3): 235–239.
Alford, C.F. (2019). Hate, aggression, and recognition. In Allen, A., and O’Con-
nor, B. (eds.), Transitional subjects: Critical theory and object relations. New
York: Columbia University Press, 51–73.
Benjam in, J. (1999). Recognition and destruction: An outline of intersubjectiv-
ity. In Mitchell, S.A., and Aron, L. (eds.), Relational psychoanalysis: The emer-
gence of a tradition. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press, 181–210.
Doane, J., and Hodges, D. (1992). From Klein to Kristeva. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Eyer, D. (1992). Mother-Infant bonding. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1952). Psychoanalytic studies of the personality. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Flax, J. (1990). Thinking fragments. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cal-
ifor nia Press.
Flax, J. (1993a). Disputed subjects. London and New York: Routledge.
Flax, J. (1993b). The play of justice: Justice as a transitional space. Political Psy-
chology 15: 331–346.
Gerson, G. (2005). Individuality, deliberation and welfare in Donald Winnicott.
History of the Human Sciences 18 (1): 107–126.
Gerson, G. (2017). Winnicott and the h istory of welfare state thought in Britain.
In Bowker, M.H., and Buzby, A. (eds.), D.W. Winnicott and political theory.
New York: Palgrave, 311–332.
Greenberg, J.R., and Mitchell, S.A. (1983). Object relations in psychoanalytic the-
ory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1952). Hegel’s philosophy of right. Ed. T.M. Knox. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Hoggett, P. (1992). Partisans in an uncertain world: The psychoanalysis of engage-
ment. London: Free Association.
Jacobs, M. (1988). D.W. Winnicott. London: Sage.
Kahr, B. (1996). D.W. Winnicott: A biographical portrait. London: Karnac Books.
Lederman, S. (2014). Agonism and deliberation in Arendt. Constellations 21 (3):
327–337.
LeJeune, J. (2017). Adults in the playground: Winnicott and Arendt on politics
and playfulness. In Bowker, M., and Buzby, A. (eds.), D.W. Winnicott and po-
litical theory. New York: Palgrave, 247–268.
Locke, J. (1946). The second treatise of civil government. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Manent, P. (1995). An intellectual history of liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
McIvor, D. (2017). In transition, but to where? Winnicott, integration, and dem-
ocratic associations. In Bowker, M., and Buzby, A. (eds.), D.W. Winnicott and
political theory. New York: Palgrave, 205–227.
Mill, J.S. (1977). The collected works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. XVIII. Ed. J.M.
Robson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Minsk y, M. (19 96). Psychoanalysi s and gender. New York and London: Routledge.
Nussbaum, M. (2006). Winnicott on the surprises of the self. The Massachusetts
Review 47 (2): 375–393.
Phillips, A. (1989). Winnicott. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Riley,
D. (1983). War in the nursery. London: Virago.
Rodman, F.R. (2003). Winnicott. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Rosenblum, N.L. (1987). Another liberalism. Cambridge, MA: Har vard Univer-
sity Press.
Rudnytsky, P.L. (2002). Reading psychoanalysis. Ithaca, NY and London: Cor-
nell University Press.
Rustin, M. (1991). The good society and the inner world. London and New York:
Ver s o.
Scharff, D.E. (2005). The development of Fairbairn’s theory. In Scharff, J.S., and
Scharff, D.E. (eds.), The legacy of Fairbairn and Sutherland. London and New
York: Routledge, 3–18.
Shapira, M. (2013). The war inside. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winnicott, D.W. (1950). The ordinary devoted mother and her baby. London: pri-
vate edition.
Winnicott, D.W. (1965a). The family and individual development. London:
Tav i stoc k .
Winnicott, D.W. (1965b). The maturational processes and the facilitating environ-
ment. London: Hogarth.
Winnicott, D.W. (1971). Therapeutic consultations in child psychiatry. London:
Hogar th.
Winnicott, D.W. (1975). Through paediatrics to psycho-analysis. London:
Hogar th.
Winnicott, D.W. (1984). Through paediatrics to psychoanalysis. London: Karnac.
Winnicott, D.W. (1986). Home is where we start from. New York and London:
W.W. N o r to n.
Winnicott, D.W. (1988). Human nature. London: Free Association.
Winnicott, D.W. (1989) Holding and Interpretation. London: Karnac.
Winnicott, D.W. (1991). Playing and reality. London and New York: Routledge.
Alexander, S. (2012). Pr imary maternal preoccupation: D.W. Winnicott and so-
cial democracy in mid-twentieth-century Britain. In Alexander, S., and Tay-
lor, B. (eds.), History and psyche: Culture, psychoanalysis, and the past. New
York: Palgrave, 149–172.
Beveridge, W.H. (1940). Peace by federation? London: Federal Union.
Beveridge, W.H. (1945). The price of peace. London: Pilot.
Bowker, M.H. (2017). Safety in danger and privation: Ambivalent fantasies of
natural states invoked in reaction to loss. In Bowker, M.H., and Buzby, A.
(eds.), D.W. Winnicott and political theory. New York: Palgrave, 137–162.
Carr, E.H. (1945). Nationalism and after. London: Macmillan.
Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1952). Psycho-analytic studies of the personality. London:
Tav i stoc k .
Fawcett, E. (2014). Liberalism: The life of an idea. Princ eton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Guntrip, H. (2001). Schizoid phenomena, object-relations and the self. London:
Karnac.
Hacohen, M.H. (2000). Karl Popper – The formative years, 1920 –1945. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayek, F.A. (2007). The road to serfdom. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Hayek, F.A. (2011.) The constitution of liberty. Chicago, IL: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Hoggett, P. (2008). Relational thinking and welfare practice. In Clarke, S., Hahn,
H., and Hoggett, P. (eds.), Object relations and social relations. London: Kar-
nac, 65– 86.
Holthaus, L. (2014). G.D.H. Cole’s international thought: The dilemmas of jus-
tifying socialism in the twentieth century. The International History Review 36
(5): 858–875.
Laing, R.D. (1965). The divided self. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lamb, P. (2004). Harold L aski. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Laski, H.J. (1938). A grammar of politics, Fourth Edition. London: Allen and
Unwin.
Laski, H.J. (1943). Reections on the revolution of our time. New York: Viking.
Levy, J.T. (2015). Rationalism, pluralism, and freedom. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Mitrany, D. (1943). A working peace system. London: The Royal Institute of In-
ternational Affairs.
Nachman, D.L. (1981). Psychoanalysis and social theory: The origin of society
and of guilt. Salmagundi 52/53: 65 –106.
Popper, K.R. (1966). The open society and its enemies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Popper, K.R. (1972). The logic of scientic discovery, 6th impression. London:
Hutchinson.
Popper, K.R (1979). Objective knowledge, revised edition. Oxford: Clarendon.
Popper, K.R. (2002). Conjectures and refutations. New York and London:
Routledge.
Press.Popper, K.R. (2008). After the open society. London and New York:
Routledge.
Rieff, P. (1966). The triumph of the therapeutic. New York: Harper and Row.
Rosenboim, O. (2017). The emergence of globalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rustin, M. (1991). The good society and the inner world. London and New York:
Ver s o.
Ryan, A. (2012). The making of modern liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Shearmur, J. (1996). The political thought of Karl Popper. London and New York:
Routledge.
Stokes, G. (1998). Popper. Cambridge: Polity.
Wallace, E.R. (1992). Freud and the mind-body problem. In Gelfand, T., and
Kerr, J. (eds.), Freud and the history of psychoanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: The An-
alytic Press, 231–269.
Winnicott, D.W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environ-
ment. London: Hogarth.
Winnicott, D.W. (1984). Through paediatrics to psychoanalysis. London: Karnac.
Winnicott, D.W. (1986). Home is where we start from. New York and London:
W.W. N o r to n.
Winnicott, D.W. (1988). Human nature. Philadelph ia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Winnicott, D.W. (1991). Playing and reality. London: Routledge.
Alford, C.S. (1990). Reparation and civilization: A Kleinian account of the large
group. Free Associations 1T (19): 7–30.
Beauvoir, S. de (1989). The second sex. New York: Vintage.
Benhabib, S. (2011). Dignity in adversity: Human rights in troubled times. Cam-
bridge: Polity.
Benjam in, J. (1988). The bonds of love. New York: Pantheon.
Benjam in, J. (1998). Shadow of the object. London: Routledge.
Benjam in, J. (1999). Recognition and destruction: An outline of intersubjectiv-
ity. In Mitchell, S.A., and Aron, L. (eds.), Relational psychoanalysis: The emer-
gence of a tradition. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press, 181–210.
Benjam in, J. (2000). Intersubjective distinctions: Subjects and persons, recogni-
tions and breakdowns. Psychoanalytic Dialogues 10 (1): 43–55.
Benjam in, J. (2018). Beyond doer and done to. New York: Routledge.
Berman, E. (1997). Relational psychoanalysis: A historical background. Ameri-
can Journal of Psychotherapy 51: 185–203.
Bradley, J. (1979). Hegel in Britain: A brief history of British commentary and
attitudes. The Heynthrop Journal 20 (1): 1–24.
Brooks, T. (2007). Hegel’s political philosophy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Chodorow, N. (1991). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Davies, J.M. (2004). Whose bad objects are we anyway? Repetition and our
elusive love affair w ith evil. Psychoanalytic Dialogues 14 (6): 711–732.
Dinnerstein, D. (1976). The mermaid and the minotaur: Sexual arrangements and
human malaise. New York: Harper & Row.
Flax, J. (1981). Psychoanalysis and the philosophy of science: Critique or
resistance? The Journal of Philosophy 78 (10): 561–569.
Flax, J. (1990). Thinking fragments. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Franco, P. (1997). Hegel and liberalism. The Review of Politics 59 (4): 831–860.
Frosh, S. (2011). The relational eth ics of conict and identity. Psychoanalysis,
Culture and Society 16: 225–243.
Gerhardt, J., Sweetnam, A., and Borton, L. (2000). The intersubjective turn
in psychoanalysis: A compar ison of contemporary theorists: Part 1: Jessica
Benjamin. Psychoanalytic Dialogues 10 (1): 5–42.
Hale, N.G., Jr. (1995). Freud in America v. 2 . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hochschild, A. 1997. The time bind: W hen work becomes home and home becomes
work. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Hockmeyer, A. (1988). Object relations theory and feminism: Strange bedfel-
lows. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 10 (1): 20–28.
Kymlicka, W. (2001). Politics in the vernacular. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lasch, C. (1984). The minimal self. New York: W.W. Norton.
Levy, J.T. (2015). Rationalism, pluralism, and freedom. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Locke, J. (1946). The second treatise of civil government. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
MacKinnon, C. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
McKay, R.K. (2019). Where objects were, subjects now may be: The work of Jes-
sica Benjamin and reimagining maternal subjectivity in transitional space.
Psychoanalytic Inquiry 39 (2): 163–173.
Meehan, J. (2002). Arendt and the shadow of the other. International Journal of
Philosophical Studies 10 (2): 183–193.
Mitchell, S.A. (2003). Can love last? New York: W.W. Norton.
Mitchell, S.A., and Aron, L. (1999). Preface. In Mitchell, S.A., and Aron, L.
(eds.), Relational psychoanalysis: The emergence of a tradition. Hillsdale, NJ:
The Analytic Press, ix–xx.
Ogden, T. (1999). The analytic third: Working with intersubjective analytical
facts. In Mitchell, S.A., and Aron, L. (eds.), Relational psychoanalysis: The
emergence of a tradition. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press, 459– 492.
Okin, S.M. (1989). Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic.
Seligman, S. (2019). Relational psychoanalysis as a ‘child of the sixties’: Politics,
innovation, and the transition from adolescence. Psychoanalytic Inquiry 39 (2):
146–155.
Westerman, M.A. (2005). What is inter personal behavior? A post-Cartesian
approach to problematic interpersonal patterns and psychotherapy process.
Review of General Psychology 9 (1): 16 –34.
Winnicott, D.W. (1984). Through paediatrics to psychoanalysis. London: Karnac.
Yeatman, A. (2014). A two-person conception of freedom: The signicance
of Jessica Benjamin’s idea of intersubjectivity. Journal of Classical Sociology
15 (1): 3–23.
Benjam in, J. (2018). Beyond doer and done to. New York: Routledge.
