Winnicott’s work has been both criticized and commended by feminists: it
was attacked for normalizing women’s traditional role, but praised for
conceptualizing relationships which are free of the I-other oppositions. In the
picture painted by his advocates, Winnicott appears as a participationist who values
the transformative qualities of social interaction and public deliberation. I argue
that, while Winnicott does hold participation up as an ideal, he relegates other
pursuits to subsidiary roles that are distanced from participation, and so divides
the world into two realms that complement and exclude each other. His work is
therefore at odds with feminism’s project of overcoming the sphere division.
Alford, C.F.
(2000)
‘Levinas and Winnicott: Motherhood and Responsibility‘
, American Imago57(3):
235-239
.
2.
Arendt, H.
(1963) On Revolution.
London: Faber & Faber
.
3.
Barber, B.R.
(1984) Strong Democracy.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
.
4.
Beauvoir, S. de
(1989) The Second Sex.
New York: Vintage
.
5.
Benjamin, J.
(1988) The Bonds of Love.
New York: Pantheon
.
6.
Benjamin, J.
(1998) Shadow of the Other.
New York and London: Routledge
.
7.
Butler, J.
(1990) Gender Trouble.
New York: Routledge
.
8.
Chodorow, N.
(1978) The Reproduction of Mothering.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
.
9.
Dietz, M.
(2002) Turning Operations.
New York: Routledge
.
10.
Doane, J.
and
Hodges, D.
(1992) From Klein to Kristeva.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
.
11.
Eyer, D.
(1992) Mother-Infant Bonding.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
.
12.
Flax, J.
(1990) Thinking Fragments.
Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of
California Press
.
13.
Flax, J.
(1993) Disputed Subjects.
London and New York: Routledge
.
14.
Franzblau, S.
(1999)
‘Historicizing Attachment Theory: Binding the Ties that Bind‘
, Feminism & Psychology9(1):
22-31
.
15.
Frosh, S.
(1994) Sexual Difference.
London and New York: Routledge
.
16.
Gerson, G.
(2002)
‘Liberal Feminism: Individuality and Oppositions in
Wollstonecraft and Mill’
, Political Studies50(4):
792-808
.
17.
Greenberg, J.R.
and
Mitchell, S.A.
(1983) Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory.
Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press
.
18.
Grosz, E.
(1990) Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction.
London and New York: Routledge
.
19.
Honig, B.
(1996) ‘Difference, Dilemmas and the Politics of
Home’, in
S. Benhabib
(ed.) Democracy and Difference, pp. 257-277.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
.
20.
Jacobs, M.
(1988) D.W. Winnicott.
London: Sage
.
21.
Kahane, D.
(1999)
‘Diversity, Solidarity and Civic Friendship’
, Journal of Political Philosophy7(3):
267-286
.
22.
Macedo, S.
(2000) Diversity and Distrust.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
.
23.
MacIntyre, A.
(1984) After Virtue.
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press
.
24.
MacKinnon, C.
(1989) Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
.
25.
Minsky, M.
(1996) Psychoanalysis and Gender.
New York and London: Routledge
.
26.
Okin, S.M.
(1989) Justice, Gender, and the Family.
New York: Basic
.
27.
Okin, S.M.
(2002)
‘“Mistresses of Their Own Destiny”: Group
Rights, Gender, and Realistic Right of Exit’
, Ethics112:
205-230
.
28.
Pateman, C.
(1989) The Disorder of Women.
Cambridge: Polity
.
29.
Phillips, A.
(2000)
‘Feminism and Republicanism: Is this a Plausible Alliance?’
, Journal of Political Philosophy8(2):
279-293
.
30.
Rich, A.
(1980)
‘Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience’
, Signs5(4):
631-660
.
31.
Riley, D.
(1983) War in the Nursery.
London: Virago
.
32.
Rudnytsky, P.L.
(2002) Reading Psychoanalysis.
Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press
.
33.
Rustin, M.
(1991) The Good Society and the Inner World.
London and New York: Verso
.
34.
Sandel, M.
(1996) Democracy’s Discontents.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
.
35.
Winnicott, D.W.
(1950) The Ordinary Devoted Mother and Her Baby.
London: private edition
.
36.
Winnicott, D.W.
(1965) The Family and Individual Development.
London: Tavistock
.
