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.
The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the contribution of the Kris Study Group to the understanding of borderline psychopathology and to try to place that contribution in perspective. I approach this task by way of contrasting the Kris group findings and the contributions of Otto Kernberg. In large measure, the report of the Kris Study Group (Abend et al., 1983) is structured along the lines of a continuing dialogue with Kernberg. In tracing the contrast between these two approaches, I aim at subsuming them under a broader perspective, namely, one provided by the borderline spectrum (Meissner, 1984a). I argue that both Kernberg and the Kris group are looking at and working with patients who represent different ranges within the borderline spectrum, so that their respective observations, descriptions, theoretical formulations, and forms of technical intervention are dictated more by the nature of the underlying pathology than by any verifiable theoretical differences.
It should be noted that even their view of borderline pathology differs. The Kris group tends to regard borderline character structure as relatively stable, tending neither to become markedly psychotic nor to improve very much. They were more likely to see impediments as varying along a quantitative continuum of different degrees of severity (Buie, 1985); thus, the basic pathology of