The work presented here aims to re-establish Deleuze s dialogue with psy-choanalysis, once interrupted in A Thousand Plateaus. Starting from a dialogue be-tween Deleuzian philosophy and Winnicottian psychoanalysis, we defend the thesis that the Winnicottian paradigm constitutes a minor language within psychoanal-ysis itself, which breaks with the limitations established by the orthodox psychoan-alytic field. With this in view, we develop three main axes: a) a re-evaluation of masochism and sadism in order to solve the problems pointed out by Deleuze (and Guattari) in the approach of these so-called perver-sions, by traditional psychoanalysis. To do so, we mobilize Winnicott s critique of the Freudian notion of death drive and a deconstruction of the notion of normality itself. With that we aim to defend - supported by a joint reading of the three texts by Deleuze dedicated to Masoch, together with Winnicott s theory of aggressive-ness - a positive reading of masochism that depathologizes it, understanding it as a manifestation of creativity in the erotic life; b) starting from a genealogy of the Oedipus complex, we seek to demon-strate how Deleuze and Guattari s critiques are compatible with Winnicott s anedi-pal paradigm, which contains an analytical proposal that dispenses with the notion presented as the nuclear complex of the neuroses. At the same time, based on an approach to Winnicott s theory of primitive emotional development, we describe how the English psychoanalyst brings psychoanalysis back to immanence, under-standing the constitution of subjectivity from a singular encounter between the mother s and the baby s bodies; c) finally, considering the inadequacy of the oedipian paradigm, in conso-nance with Deleuze and Winnicott s readings, we delineate how the production of subjectivity is configured from Modernity to the present moment. Based on the assumption that the production of subjectivity cannot be understood apart from the sociopolitical context, we argue that Winnicottian psychoanalysis is in tune not only with the demands of the contemporary subject, but also with Deleuze s reading of the clinical model best suited to address their malaise. In this sense, by drawing a bridge between the authors, we show how in both of them we can find a clinical practice whose focus is on the experiential dimension, based on care and away from the interpretative model characteristic of traditional psychoanalytic hermeneutics.