Kernberg And Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Kernberg, Object Relations, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Introduction
Throughout time, humans have wrestled with questions of motivations and subsequent behaviors towards other individuals. Embodying this phenomena, the ancient Greek, Aminias, portrayed a young man named Narcissus, who on day walked by a stream and fell in love with his reflection. To the young man’s detriment, Aminias ended Narcissus’s tale by portraying him marveling at his image as he pined away, and finally, marveling at his image in the River Styx. Freud borrowed this tale to describe people who surpass the preserving action of self-love and internalize their libidos by focusing its attention on their ego (1920). Freud claimed that although this is a normal
action for one to never fully rid themselves of libidinal love of their ego, narcissists never truly evolve into people who love objects outside themselves (1920). Although Freud may have popularized the idea of narcissism, several people who came after him fleshed out the concept to its present stage. Object theory is one such framework that attempts to explain narcissistic behavior.
Object Relations Theory One can trace Object Relations Theory back to the early 1900s. Psychoanalysts, such as Abraham, Klein, and Winnicott brought the theory into focus (Abraham, 1949; Klein, 1923; Flanagan, 2011; Winnicott, 1953), while Masterson, Fairbairn, Mahler, and Kernberg contemporized Object Relations Theory (Masterson, 1985; Flanagan, 2011; Kernberg, 2004). Furthermore, Klein, Fairbairn, and Winnicott are generally associated with Great Britain’s branch of objects theory, while Masterson, Mahler, and Kernberg are generally associated with the United States branch of objects theory (Flanagan, 2011). The author chose the word ‘generally’ because Klein, Mahler, and Kernberg immigrated to their final destinations from modern day Hungary, Austria, and Austria, respectively.
Early Object Relations Theory Early Object Relations Theory held that when one is a child, one does not yet possess the ability to see their caretaker for who they are: one who possesses positive and negative qualities.
Furthermore, the child internalizes their caretaker(s) as objects, which stays with the child well into adulthood. As such, when the child needs are met and when they are denied by their caretaker, the child interprets the caretaker/object as two (or more) separate entities (Flanagan, 2011). As the child becomes able to grasp that, indeed, the caretaker has positive and less than positive qualities, object relations holds that this ambiguity allows the child to mature. Finally, when the child grasps this ambiguity, either through the process of nature or nurture, the child can mature. Taking object relations in a direction that ‘smacks’ of the later created Attachment Theory, Winnicott theorized that since the idea a child’s successful maturation is extremely important, the child-caretaker relationship has primacy. Thus, Winnicott coined the phrase of “good-enough mother” which referred to a mother who pays enough attention to her child and does not punish it for displaying dissatisfaction. Furthermore, Winnicott added onto Klein’s idea of internal objects (conceptualized object within a child’s mind) and hypothesized about the existence of intermediate objects–objects which a child can manipulate and bring into its mouth or through other bodily functions (Winnicott, 1953).
Although several modern psychoanalysts hold these object relation ideas, contemporary Object Relations Theory has fleshed out the original framework into a diverse structure (Kernberg, 2004).
Contemporary Object Relations Theory As Contemporary Object Relations Theory is a diverse concept, the author of this paper has attempted to piece several of its ideas together.
Enhancing Contemporary Object Relations Theory, Kernberg reconciled Freudian drive theory with the Klein, Maher, and Jacobson braches of object relations (Palombo, Bendicsen, & Koch, 2009). Using Klein’s theory of development, Kernberg further developed her ideas and contributed information of abnormal development of humans (Palombo, Bendicsen, & Koch, 2009). Similarly, Fairbairn enhanced the theory by explaining that, as children, people internalize their caretakers, even when they can sometimes disappoint and act harshly to a child. As it is difficult for a child to rationalize that someone who cares for them can also disappoint, the child’s egocentric nature internalizes the ‘bad treatment’ to mean that the child is bad (Flanagan, 2011). The relationships with these early caretakers (objects) are internalized and carried forth as aspects of their personalities. Those who were treated poorly–e.g. abused, neglected, or undifferentiated from/by the caretaker –have troubles holding opposing viewpoints of objects. Subsequently, these people tend to ‘split’ their perceived negative attributions and project them on to external objects; this process is known as splitting (Flanagan, 2011, Kernberg,
1970).