Winnicott Attachment Theory

Talking about Winnicott's "I am moment", Dalal (2006) succinctly expresses when the infant gathers some elements together from the environment to form itself, it simultaneously repudiates other elements. I wonder whether only in doing so can one really find oneself, even though this involves the discrimination of the 'Other'. Leary (2006) states just as Winnicott believed there is no such thing as a baby, then perhaps there is no such thing as a black or a white (without the other), whenever they are talking about the Other, they are talking about themselves.

Dalal (2012, p.97) states splitting is a kind of forgetting at a profound psychological level, that the divided are aspects of the same process are necessary to the existence of each
Kris(1975) used 'common symbols of identification' to explain early identification, which I think is linked to attachment. Bowlby(1979, p.129) stated, "Attachment behaviour is any form of behaviour that results in a person attaining or maintain proximity to some other preferred and differentiated individual..attachment behaviour is held to characterize human beings from cradle to grave". Internal attachment difficulties lead to aggressive tendencies. However as Dalal (2006) outlines, racism is not a phenomenon relevant to non-securely attached individuals, but perhaps difficulty during early developmental processes will have an impact on it. Dalal (ibid.) says the personal self is intrinsically social which means "in attaching to persons we are also of necessity, attaching to categories, however, subliminal sense of them might be." This is, I believe, linked to what Volkan(2014) writes that existing conditions in the environment direct children to invest in various types of large-group belongingness. Spitz (1965) thinks infants' recognition that not all faces around them belong to their caregivers, which I think accounts for racism, and in this sense is 'detachment', the opposite of