You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Thirty years ago, the reach of psychoanalytic inquiry expanded exponentially, with a profusion of theories about certain especially problematic analysands who were coming to analysts in increasing numbers. Analytically trained practitioners, steeped as they were in Freud's theory and treatment of the neuroses, were confronted by transferences and transference-like relationships that were chaotic, that often were impervious to interpretive methods, and that not infrequently were accompanied by a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms. While borderline and narcissistic cases had been discussed by Michael Balint, Helene Deutsch, R. P. Knight, Annie Reich, and Adolf Stern, among others, the well-known writings of Kernberg, Kohut, Meissner, Searles, and a host of others presented clinical findings and offered new transference paradigms and corresponding technical recommendations with a clarity sufficient to foster the view that these patients, compared to their neurotic cousins, were sculpted from different stone or, at least, painted with a fundamentally different brush. And if these patients were to be considered sui generis, then how more appropriate a way to mark this distinction than by taxonomically situating such cases in their own well-circumscribed four cubits and by labeling those areas Borderline and Narcissistic Territory. Although in the Schreber case Freud (1911), restricted the confusion of of word and thing representations to schizophrenia, experience tells us that such naming processes as occurred in the writings on borderline and narcissistic disorders are not without influence over our perceptions. And so it was to be: borderlines and narcissists required their own very special brand of analytically informed therapy. And that was that—except for a few such as Peter Giovacchini (1979), who maintained that many patients suffering from what he