ABSTRACT
To refer to Winnicott in the context of the marks of psychoanalysis is to consider the clinical consequences of his theoretical innovations. Winnicott’s case histories allow us to grasp what “the right style” might be: it lies in giving a clinical account that enables the transmission of psychoanalysis. Lacan specifies the reasons for his praise for Winnicott’s practice when he refers to the concept of frustration. He shows that for Winnicott, the problem for the child is not about knowing how to extract himself from frustration, but rather from satisfaction. For Winnicott, the subject is informed by unconscious knowledge, and the position the analyst adopts along with his interpretations are the means by which the treatment reaches its end. Winnicott takes a liberty with regard to analytic standards is evident in that he appears to reverse the postulate that the clinic is organised through conditions fixed by a standard.
