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.
Kernberg's discussion is labeled an object relations point of view. She disagrees with other interpersonal object relations theoreticians (Sullivan, Guntrip, and Kohut), saying that internalized object relations do not reflect only actual past relations but combinations of actual and fantasied object relations and defenses against them. The more significant the psychopathology, the more interpersonal the clinical
picture appears. This does not necessarily mean that the etiology is more interpersonal. In the analysis of transference one can see the relationship between intrapsychic structure and object relations. Kernberg outlines how this occurs. She discusses empathy, attunement, and social referencing, the latter clearly an interpersonal phenomenon, and she underlines the importance of these for a successful analytic process. With this background she discusses the clinical material bridging the conceptual gap from intrapsychic defense mechanism to its expression as an interpersonal transference resistance. Her understanding of the basic intrapsychic conflicts of the case appears to be much the same as Schlesinger's. Her emphasis on empathy, social referencing, and framing the transference in interpersonal terms are interpersonal additions to his discussion.