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.
Reviewing the types of cases described in analytic literature, the reader will be struck by a continuous shift in interest in the course of years. Breuer and Freud (1893-95) studied hysterical phenomena; then Freud wrote his classical articles on the obsessive-compulsive symptomatology. Subsequently analysts directed their attention to the character make-up of their patients. During the last twenty years or so a new development has taken place. When discussing some particularly difficult cases, colleagues will frequently remark that they differ from cases of character neurosis, the implication being that the diagnosis is a more ominous one.
I shall not attempt to discuss here whether we are dealing with a general shift in symptomatology or whether analysts are treating different types of cases as a result of the "widening scope of analysis," as it was called at the Arden House meeting (1954).1 However, the diagnosis "borderline" implies a warning—a warning concerning the prognosis as well as the therapy. We are faced with such questions as "How much stress of life can this person stand without deteriorating into a more overt psychotic state?" and the related question, "How much can this person benefit from analytic treatment?" Analysts disagree about the answers to these questions, which would indicate that there is need for a great deal more research into these cases.
Child analysts also have observed that many of their patients are "borderline" cases. Study of these cases may reveal data that will in turn clarify some of the problems in adult borderline cases. A review of the literature of the last twelve years on borderline cases in children