At 04:12 PM 5/31/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Apropos of nothing (well maybe the patriotism thread, tangentially),
>except that I just came across a copy of this paper in my files, this
>classic list of reasons why the mother hates her baby from D.W.
>Winnicott's "Hate In The Counter-Transference" (International Journal of
>Psycho-Analysis 30 [1949], part 2, pp. 69-74).
>
>>The mother, however, hates her infant from the word go. I believe Freud
>>thought it possible that a mother may under certain circumstances have
>>only love for her boy baby - but we may doubt this. We know about a
>>mother's love and we appreciate its reality and power. Let me give some
>>of the reasons why a mother hates her baby, even a boy.
>>
>>A. The baby is not her own (mental) conception.
>>
>>B. The baby is not the one of childhood play, father's child, brother's
>>child, etc.
Are we only talkin' boys here? Didn't Winnicott make some effort to point out Freud's chauvinism and how they differ? Okay? Anyway, how would it be the baby's fault for not looking like the Thumbelina doll? Btw, which father? And couldn't the baby's father's child be the baby itself or the mother's father's child be the mother herself? This is confusing.
>>C. The baby is not magically produced.
Is Winnicott for real and why would one have hatred toward a baby for not having been magically produced?
>>D. The baby is a danger to her body in pregnancy and at birth.
>>
>>E. The baby is an interference with her private life, a challenge to
>>preoccupation.
Preoccupation? How about a challenge to an "occupation." Caring for a baby while working and/or attempting to pursue a career is a very real challenge for mothers, but, it is not the baby's fault rather it is the fault of a legacy of male privilege and a patriarchal system that just seems to linger.
>>F. To a greater or lesser extent a mother feels that her own mother
>>demands a baby, so that her baby is produced to placate her mother.
>>
>>G. The baby hurts her nipples even by suckling, which is at first a
>>chewing activity.
>>
>>H. He is ruthless, treats her as scum, an unpaid servant, a slave.
>>
>>I. She has to love him, excretions and all, at any rate at the beginning,
>>till he has doubts. about himself.
>>
>>J. He tries to hurt her, periodically bites her, all in love.
(G. and J. together) Most babies may try to bite (innocently trying out those new skills) when nursing (mine did) but when the mother's initial reaction is to stop the nursing and since all babies like nursing a lot more than they like biting, they give it up on their own very quickly with no other thoughts or intervention needed. There is certainly no hatred and any pain is short lived.
>>K. He shows disillusionment about her.
>>
>>L. His excited love is cupboard love, so that having got what he wants be
>>throws her away like orange peel.
>>
>>M. The baby at first must dominate, be must be protected from
>>coincidences, life must unfold at the baby's rate and all this needs his
>>mother's continuous and detailed study. For instance, she must not be
>>anxious when holding him, etc,
>>
>>N. At first he does not know at all what she does or what she sacrifices
>>for him. Especially he cannot allow for her hate.
>>
>>O. He is suspicious, refuses her good food, and makes her doubt herself,
>>but eats well with his aunt.
>>
>>P. After an awful morning with him she goes out, and be smiles at a
>>stranger, who says: 'Isn't he sweet!'
>>
>>Q. If she fails him at the start she knows he will pay her out for ever.
>>
>>R. He excites her but frustrates - she mustn't eat him or trade in sex
>>with him.
Disillusionment? orange peel? suspicious? scum? unpaid servant? slave? Ah ha! I've got it now! It's all in Winnicott's title "...counter-transference." Counter-transference implies that there are third-party effects beyond the little twosome of the mother and the baby. The hatred (or an interpretation that there is hatred) comes from some outside third-party source. Well, why didn't he come right out and say it?
Diane