2022NeuropsychoanalysisRequires access

A revised top-down theory of the mind: Commentary on Otto Kernberg’s “Some Implications of New Developments in Neurobiology for Psychoanalytic Object Relations Theory”

Charles Perry Fisher

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

This commentary on Otto Kernberg’s paper, “Some Implications of New Developments in Neurobiology for Psychoanalytic Object Relations Theory,” proposes that psychoanalytic object relations theory has implications for research in neurobiology, in addition to the implications of new developments in neurobiology for psychoanalysis, which are addressed by Kernberg. The commentary considers Kernberg’s recommendations for revisions in psychoanalytic drive theory and the theory of the dynamic unconscious, in relation to identifying and enumerating the drives themselves and the development of the dynamic unconscious. The commentary also addresses the topics of conflict, the death drive, therapeutic implications, and neurobiological concepts of object representations in the brain and mind. There are apparent tensions between Otto Kernberg’s view of self-object-affect relations as “building blocks of the mind” and Mark Solms’ view that “all our relationships with the external object world are, at bottom, driven by our libidinal needs.” This commentary explores that apparent tension and finds that it frames a generative dialogue between psychoanalysis and neuroscience. The commentary ends with a suggestion for neuropsychoanalytic research connecting object representations with brain mechanisms. Previous work by Otto Kernberg on the topic of mourning is juxtaposed with neuroscience research by Mark Solms, Peter Freed, and their respective colleagues.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This commentary on Otto Kernberg’s paper, “Some Implications of New Developments in Neurobiology for Psychoanalytic Object Relations Theory,” proposes that psychoanalytic object relations theory has implications for research in neurobiology, in addition to the implications of new developments in neurobiology for psychoanalysis, which are addressed by Kernberg. The commentary considers Kernberg’s recommendations for revisions in psychoanalytic drive theory and the theory of the dynamic unconscious, in relation to identifying and enumerating the drives themselves and the development of the dynamic unconscious. The commentary also addresses the topics of conflict, the death drive, therapeutic implications, and neurobiological concepts of object representations in the brain and mind. There are apparent tensions between Otto Kernberg’s view of self-object-affect relations as “building blocks of the mind” and Mark Solms’ view that “all our relationships with the external object world are, at bottom, driven by our libidinal needs.” This commentary explores that apparent tension and finds that it frames a generative dialogue between psychoanalysis and neuroscience. The commentary ends with a suggestion for neuropsychoanalytic research connecting object representations with brain mechanisms. Previous work by Otto Kernberg on the topic of mourning is juxtaposed with neuroscience research by Mark Solms, Peter Freed, and their respective colleagues.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This commentary on Otto Kernberg’s paper, “Some Implications of New Developments in Neurobiology for Psychoanalytic Object Relations Theory,” proposes that psychoanalytic object relations theory has implications for research in neurobiology, in addition to the implications of new developments in neurobiology for psychoanalysis, which are addressed by Kernberg. The commentary considers Kernberg’s recommendations for revisions in psychoanalytic drive theory and the theory of the dynamic unconscious, in relation to identifying and enumerating the drives themselves and the development of the dynamic unconscious. The commentary also addresses the topics of conflict, the death drive, therapeutic implications, and neurobiological concepts of object representations in the brain and mind. There are apparent tensions between Otto Kernberg’s view of self-object-affect relations as “building blocks of the mind” and Mark Solms’ view that “all our relationships with the external object world are, at bottom, driven by our libidinal needs.” This commentary explores that apparent tension and finds that it frames a generative dialogue between psychoanalysis and neuroscience. The commentary ends with a suggestion for neuropsychoanalytic research connecting object representations with brain mechanisms. Previous work by Otto Kernberg on the topic of mourning is juxtaposed with neuroscience research by Mark Solms, Peter Freed, and their respective colleagues.

Key concepts: Psychoanalytic theory, Object relations theory, Object (grammar), Psychology, Unconscious mind, Psychoanalysis, Cognitive science, Relation (database)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A revised top-down theory of the mind: Commentary on Otto Kernberg’s “Some Implications of New Developments in Neurobiology for Psychoanalytic Object Relations Theory” — Research Paper | ScholarLens