Otto Kernberg on Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy

Certainly my cultural influences are Austrian, German, and that has influenced me in many ways. But my psychiatric training was integration of classical descriptive German psychiatry and psychoanalytic psychiatry/psychodynamic psychiatry. Later I became immersed in ego-psychology and Klein's work. I also visited Chestnut Lodge where I became acquainted with the culturist orientation, Sullivanian, Frieda Fromm-Reichman as well as the ego/object relations psychologists, Edith Jacobsen and Margaret Mahler. So it was natural to try to synthesize an object relations approach between the great ego psychological Kleinian and so-called British 'middle group' or independent approaches. Then many years later, to this was added a certain influence from French psychoanalysis.

I then took another patient into analysis, exactly like my previous one, and on the basis of my then-developing psychoanalytic knowledge, I developed a particular thesis on how to treat that patient. And this is how I developed the treatment of narcissistic personality, the diagnostic observations, the differential diagnosis between narcissistic and borderline typology, the generalization of the concept of borderline personality organization. So it was a combination of luck and interest.

But, perhaps also what has been very important to me is the excitement with the fact that there you have these patients with severe distortions, that ruin their lives. No doubt about it. This is not phony pathology for wealthy patients who have nothing to do but to go to a psychoanalyst. These people have not been able to maintain work, a profession, a love relation. And with the psychoanalytic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis you are able to change their personality, improve their lives. I think that is an extremely important contribution of psychoanalysis. And we need to do empirical research on this. One of the things that I have been very critical about is the lack of systematic and empirical research within the psychoanalytic world.

So I think that's probably the best approach nowadays to bring about fundamental personality change. There are indications and contra-indications; not all patients can be helped. I think that the prognosis depends on the type of personality disorder, on intelligence, on secondary gain, on the severity of anti-social features, on the quality of object relations, on the extent to which some degree of freedom of the sexual life has developed or not. So there are many features that make indication, contra-indication and prognosis for the individual cases different. We are in the middle of trying to spin all of these out.

I think that when people apply various techniques from different theoretical models, they cannot but end up in a chaotic situation in which transference and countertransference is going to drive the relationship in one direction or another. I'm not saying that you can't help patients with this. But you cannot learn how to develop a certain approach. I've seen so many bad consequences from that. Because then you don't match technique with the needs of the patient. And you don't give patients as much. So I prefer to have a cognitive-behavioral therapist, let's say, a well-integrated general theory that applies to his field, rather than one of these esoteric schools everybody has. In this field there is so much voodoo and so much fashion and quackery. It's paid for, and of course, it requires research. Now, unfortunately, most of the research that's been done on short-term psychotherapy done by non-therapists with non-patients in university settings, to grind out papers... so the real treatment that is done clinically has only been researched in a limited way... I think that's our major task. And I believe that we need to develop manualized treatments for long-term psychotherapists, whatever their background. And test them scientifically.

So, regarding training, I think that training should focus on theory of personality, personality change as a basis of technique. And then, apply it to clinical situations.

In my own Institute of Personality Disorder, we're trying to contribute in a modest way by carrying out empirical research. We have randomized three groups of 40 patients each, all of them with the diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. One group to be treated with transference-focused psychotherapy, which is a psychoanalytic psychotherapy that we have developed and tested. The second group by DBT, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, developed by Marsha Linehan for suicidal Borderline patients. And third, supportive psychotherapy based on psychoanalytic principles. We're going to compare these treatments, not simply in a kind of horserace, but we're trying to study what process mechanisms are connected with what mechanisms of change.

I don't believe that one treatment is 'better' than the others, but there are specific types of patients who respond better to one or another or that treatments may be equally good on the basis of different mechanisms of change. In this regard, I'm very critical of the assumption that non-specific aspects of psychotherapy are by far the overriding cause of its effectiveness. Because all the studies on which these conclusions are based are short-term psychotherapists of very questionable nature. Nobody has studied yet the comparison of long-term psychotherapists from the solid bases, as I have tried to define.

At the same time, the combination of the important development in biological psychiatry, the financial pressures reducing availability of psychotherapeutic treatment, the cultural critique of subjectivity and wish for quick solutions, adaptation—all that has tended to decrease the participation of psychodynamic psychiatry and psychodynamic psychotherapy and the training of psychiatrists. It has brought about the old-fashioned split between biological psychiatry (centering on basic research and psychopharmacological treatment) and psychotherapy (pushed off to other professions and being disconnected from medicine and psychiatry). I think that's unfortunate. That leads to a kind of mind/body divide when they should come together.

I also became interested in the subject of sexual relations, because I found out there were two types of borderline patients—I'm using the term loosely to mean severe personality disorders. One with an extremely severe primary inhibition of all sexual capacity, no capacity for sensual activation or enjoyment, no sexual desire, no capacity for masturbation. These patients had a bad prognosis because in the treatment, as everything was consolidating, more repressive mechanisms inhibits that sexuality even further. On the other hand, you had those with wild promiscuous sexuality—polymorphous perverse, invert, pan-sexuality, with masochistic, sadistic, voyeuristic, exhibitionistic, fetishistic, homosexual, heterosexual, everything...those with such a chaotic sexual life seem to have a terrible prognosis, but the opposite was true. These patients did extremely well, once their personality was functioning better. So it raised my interest, why this extremely severe sexual inhibition, what could be done about this? And, also, a more basic question about how much a couple can contribute to inhibit each other or to help each other to free themselves sexually. That's it, in a nutshell.

Very simply, we tell people who want to train, "Bring us a tape. The best tape you have, of any session that you are carrying out, a videotape with a patient in treatment." And we have developed methods of the psychotherapeutic interaction by which we can sort out who does have the talent for doing it. We can evaluate very quickly with manualized treatment whether the therapist is able to adhere and whether the therapist is competent. Competence is seen by the therapist talking, focusing on what is relevant, focusing on what is relevant with clarity, doing it relatively quickly and in depth. Relevance, clarity, speed, depth. The combination of them tell us who is a good therapist. It's terribly simple, and it works.

And I'll tell you, some experienced psychoanalysts are terrible; and some young trainees are very good. This creates the problem: does one have to be a psychoanalyst to do this kind of treatment? I would say it helps to have psychoanalytic training, but it's not indispensable. There are some people who have so much talent they can do it without psychoanalytic training, although, a personal psychotherapeutic experience always helps, particularly if people have a kind of "blind spot" in a certain area. Sometimes a psychoanalytic treatment or psychoanalytic psychotherapy helps.