Epilogue

Although the papers reflect a diversity of opinion, the contributors are all unanimous regarding the importance of the detailed analytic investigation of the borderline patient by Abend, Porder, and Willick.

The differences in opinion can be organized around two issues: (1) the concept of deficit in psychoanalysis; (2) the concepts that have the most explanatory value in the psychoanalysis of the borderline patient. Abend, Porder, Willick, Weinshel, and Wurmser agree on the importance of deficit in the borderline patient but they believe deficit can exist only as part of the complexity of psychic conflict that embodies wish, defense, and compromise formation. Adler, Grotstein, Giovacchini, and Meissner understand deficit existing outside of conflict and thus requiring a therapeutic technique different from that employed with conflict.

Several contributors — Grotstein, Giovacchini, and Adler — agree that the concepts of classical analysis are inadequate to explain the special interaction and transference of the borderline patient.

From the papers we see a tempering of the polarity of opinion and the hold on psychoanalysis of some of Kernberg's initial formulations on the borderline patient. Further modification and assimilation of the diversity of views can occur only with the type of investigation that has been presented by Abend, Porder, and Willick.