Primitive Love Impulse

Abstract

In this article, I seek to analyze, both theoretically and descriptively, Winnicott's conception of what he characterized as the Primitive Love Impulse. It involves analyzing this proposition within the framework of understanding the fundamental basic impulses that guide and direct human relations. After briefly referring - with the aim of simply establishing a counterpoint and marking differences - to how these impulses were considered historic and critically by Freud and Klein (based on instinctual life, the theory of drives, and sexuality), by Fairbairn (with libido seeking objects) and by Bowlby (with the theory of attachment, aiming at species survival), I aim to show that Winnicott considered the existence of a primitive loving impulse as the expression of being alive (with his consideration of the need to be and continue being). Initially, this impulse was associated with the very notion of motility and later as an impulse in actions in the world that, even though it may cause harm, does not have the intention of destroying it. As a complementary theme to understanding this impulse, one can distinguish between unintentional and intentional destructive actions, contributing to clarifying the origins of aggressiveness in humans, within the framework of Winnicott's theory of emotional development.