A Response

It has been ten years since the Kris Study Group of the New York Psychoanalytic Institute completed its study of borderline pathology, and perhaps seven years since we finished our work on the manuscript of Borderline. Since then, much new material on the subject has appeared, including a number of contributions by other analysts, some of whose views are represented in this publication, in addition to a number of published reviews of our book. We three have also, singly and in combination, participated in a number of discussions and panels devoted to the topic. We have continued to discuss this subject among ourselves and with interested colleagues, to review the recent literature, and to treat borderline patients in our offices.

This activity underlines the high level of interest the borderline problem holds for all of us concerned with their treatment, and testifies to the lively intellectual ferment and scientific curiosity that characterizes our present state of knowledge. As we said in the introduction to our book, our views were even then being influenced by the stimulating exposures to the opinions and work of other colleagues, and by our experiences with new patients. This issue of Psychoanalytic Inquiry now gives us the opportunity to make a brief statement of our aims and our opinions, and to reflect on our own work in order to indicate what we believe our contribution to this topic has been. We will also try to respond, in part, to some of the ideas expressed in the thoughtful essays