Differing Narcissisms

Dear Sir

In the continuing debate around narcissism I would like to add my observations regarding the writings of the two principal contributors in this field, Kernberg and Kohut. Following on from David Smith's article (British Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol 4(3)) attempting to throw some welcome light on the very confused area that exists in the literature I would like to support his view that most of the writing on this subject can be divided into two camps. However I have found it helpful to think about the position from which these two authorities come.

I recently had occasion to consider the writings of Kernberg and Kohut for the purposes of presenting them to peers for discussion: I came to the subject as a relative ingenue and spent a considerable period wondering why I felt completely confused by what they appeared to be saying, particularly in relation to one another. A number of articles I read drew parallels and highlighted the differences between the two. Clearly there was a large measure of agreement around the concept of the grandiose self, and differences around the areas of development, meaning of the core features, and consequent treatment approaches. Despite this I could not grasp the essential comparisons between them. It was only when I realised that the two authors were not writing within similar frames of reference that I suddenly understood why I had not been able to get my head around the comparisons and the differences.

Kernberg is writing from a firm theoretical base rooted in object relations theory in a direct line of descent. From the theory emerges practice, neatly consequent upon the assumptions underpinning it. Kohut was writing from a position familiar to many, that of the therapist faced with (at first) difficult patient reactions and painful intense countertransference; in other words, the clinical material. From this time-honoured position he attempted to construct an explanatory base for what he intuitively felt was the right approa