Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To see translations of this article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

When there are translations of the current article, you will see a flag/pennant icon next to the title, like this: 2015-11-06_11h14_24 For example:


Click on it and you will see a bibliographic list of papers that are published translations of the current article. Note that when no published translations are available, you can also translate an article on the fly using Google translate.


For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Davis, M. (1991). Play and symbolism in Lowenfeld and Winnicott. Free Associations, 2(3):395-421.

(1991). Free Associations, 2(3):395-421

Play and symbolism in Lowenfeld and Winnicott

Madeleine Davis

In her biography of Margaret Lowenfeld which appears as the introduction to the book of Lowenfeld's selected papers entitled Child Psychotherapy, War and the Normal Child (1988), and which is reproduced in this journal in shortened form, Cathy Urwin has brought splendidly to life not only Lowenfeld herself but also the social context, including the prevailing attitudes to child health, that formed the background to her work. It was a context shared by Donald Winnicott, who was Lowenfeld's exact contemporary; and this, together with the fact that each brought to child psychiatry a training in the medicine of childhood, does much to explain how the two came so close together in their ideas about the play of children and its therapeutic value. In fact they interwove with each other over a period of many years: their association goes back to at least 1928, when Winnicott was for a time on the board of Lowenfeld's Clinic for Nervous and Difficult Children, which later became the Institute of Child Psychology (ICP).

When looking at play in the work of Lowenfeld and Winnicott it is necessary first of all to follow Winnicott's admonition to ‘make a distinction between the noun “play” and the verbal noun “playing”’. He made this distinction, he said, because child psychoanalysts had been ‘too busy using play content to look at the playing child, and to write about playing as a thing in itself’.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.