In Factors in the Psychoanalytic Treatment of Narcissistic Personalities2 Kernberg described patients whose main disturbance lies in the regulation of self-regard. They show grandiosity alongside feelings of inferiority, an insatiable need for admiration, little empathy and intense envy. Their emotional life is shallow and lacks the capacity for genuine sadness and mourning.
Many of them function socially much better than other patients with severe character pathology. Beneath that surface, he argued, they share the defensive organization of borderline patients. Their distinctive structure is a pathological grandiose self, a fusion of the actual self, the ideal self and the ideal object. It shields them from dependence on others, while devalued images of self and others are projected outward.
He traced this structure to early relations with cold yet overprotective parental figures and to intense oral rage and envy. Pathological narcissism, on this view, differs in kind from normal infantile narcissism. In the transference the grandiose self is activated: the analyst is alternately idealized and devalued, or treated as nonexistent, and is often left bored or reduced to an extension of the patient. Prognosis depends on such factors as the strength of antisocial trends and the capacity to experience depression and guilt.
He set out his differences with Heinz Kohut in Contrasting Viewpoints Regarding the Nature and Psychoanalytic Treatment of Narcissistic Personalities7 (1974). The paper was first given at a 1972 panel of the American Psychoanalytic Association and answers The Analysis of the Self8 (1971). Kernberg took the clinical picture as broadly agreed and confined the dispute to theory and technique.
Kohut separated narcissistic disorders from borderline states; Kernberg held that most narcissistic personalities rest on a borderline organization, their surface functioning steadied by the grandiose self. Kohut saw pathological narcissism as an arrest at a normal archaic stage; Kernberg saw a specific pathological structure that protects against rage, envy and devalued images of self and others. He also rejected the idea of a line of narcissistic development apart from object love. For him the libidinal investment of self and of objects develop together, and neither can be understood apart from the fate of aggression.
In technique, Kohut advised letting the idealizing and mirror transferences unfold and accepting the patient's idealizing transference as the revival of a normal developmental need. Kernberg read that idealization as defensive. He called for systematic interpretation of the grandiose self as it is enacted in the transference, of the negative transference, and of the envy and devaluation behind it. A treatment that leaves the patient's aggression unanalysed, he warned, may bring adaptation without lasting structural change.
He aligned his own position with Jacobson, Mahler, Joan Riviere, Herbert Rosenfeld and van der Waals. Of Rosenfeld, the author of On the Psychopathology of Narcissism: A Clinical Approach9 (1964), Kernberg said that he had taken many aspects of his Kleinian technique while differing on details.
In Severe Personality Disorders5, which set his approach to narcissistic personalities against Kohut's, Kernberg also took up the phrase malignant narcissism, used earlier by Erich Fromm. He made it a clinical syndrome combining narcissistic personality, aggression, antisocial traits and paranoid features. The book treats it among the severe regressions of treatment, alongside stalemates, suicide risk, superego pathology and paranoid regression.