Inner Work Notes

Tag: Otto Kernberg

  • Someone Praised You and It Didn’t Land

    Someone said the thing you had wanted to hear. You heard it. You said thank you and meant it. Ten minutes later nothing of it is left: your mood has not lifted, and there is nothing to go back to and feel again.

    Meanwhile a careless put-down someone made three weeks ago is still with you, down to the tone of voice.

    This usually gets filed under low self-esteem. But that is not an explanation. It only gives what just happened another name. Telling a person with a temperature that they have a fever says nothing about why the fever is there.

    There is an actual reason praise does not stay. Once you can see it, you will also see why years of encouragement have never once worked on you.

    At first, good and bad are kept apart

    The psychoanalyst Melanie Klein described a baby’s mind in its first months like this: the baby does not take in experience as one whole. From the start, experience comes in split into two parts, and the parts are stored separately. A baby does not have one mother. He has two — the one who feeds him and the one who leaves him hungry — and he keeps them in separate places and never puts them together. He does the same to himself: there is a good me and a bad me, and those are kept apart too.

    Later the psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg laid this out as two pairs: the mother who feeds him is paired with a good me, and the mother who leaves him hungry is paired with a bad me. It is one baby and one mother, but each is stored in two separate places.

    Klein did not see this as the baby getting things wrong. He is simply not yet strong enough to bear knowing that the mother who feeds him and the mother who leaves him hungry are the same person. So he keeps them apart. Psychoanalysts call this splitting. Keeping them apart protects the good: his anger at the mother who leaves him hungry cannot reach the mother who feeds him and destroy her.

    So splitting is not a mistake. It is a solution: dividing the mother into a good one and a bad one is how the baby keeps from losing the good one.

    A drop of ink in a glass

    Why can’t the good and the bad simply be put together? It is easiest to see with water.

    Here is a glass of clear water and here is a bottle of ink. One drop goes in and the glass is ruined. There is no clear water left anywhere in it, not even a mouthful; it has all turned grey. Nothing in that glass survives the mixing.

    So if this one glass is all the clear water you have, you will not let the ink in. You will guard the glass. Keeping the ink out is not stubbornness. It is the only way to keep any clear water at all.

    Now pour the same bottle into a river. The river takes it and stays a river. You would have trouble finding where it went.

    It depends on how much good there is, not on how hard you try

    This is the heart of it. Whether a person can hold the good and the bad in one place and bear it is not a matter of insight or willpower alone. It depends on how much good the person has known, in themselves and in other people. There has to be enough of it that one bad experience does not wipe it all out.

    When there is plenty of this good, the bad goes in the way the ink goes into the river: it mixes in, and the good is still there. Psychoanalysts call this integration. Put into words, it sounds like this: I am a person with faults. My mother loved me and also let me down. My friend is decent and occasionally careless.

    But where there is only about as much good as bad, the person has a glass, not a river. Then the two cannot be put together, because putting them together would spoil all of the good. So they stay split. That is not a symptom to argue someone out of. It is what is holding that person together right now.

    This is why being told you should try to see the good in yourself can feel like an insult rather than a comfort. The advice asks a person to put the good and the bad in themselves together, in one place. If they have only one glass of clear water, that means pouring ink into it.

    Where a compliment gets stopped

    The split into a good me and a bad me does not end with infancy.

    Someone who grew up hearing mostly about what they had done wrong comes into adult life with a picture of themselves as someone who falls short. They also bring a habit of mind that expects criticism and goes looking for it. So when another person says something to them, they are already listening for the criticism in it before they have even weighed whether it is true. This happens the moment the words reach them.

    Picture five people at a table. Four say your presentation went well; one says the middle section was confusing. For the rest of the evening, all you can think about is the middle section. That is not because that person put it harshly, and not because you are unusually thin-skinned. It is because theirs was the only remark that had a place already waiting for it inside you.

    Praise, on the other hand, has to get past that habit of mind first. On the way in, you answer it in your head: “They are just being polite. They want something. They have not seen the real me.” Long before the praise can reach you, it has been written off.

    Criticism does not have to get past anything, because it fits what you already believe: “Something is wrong with me.” So it goes straight in and is remembered in detail.

    So the problem is not simply a poor memory that lets only the good things slip away. There is a place ready for the bad words, and none for the good ones.

    Maturity does not come with age alone

    Here, maturity means one specific ability: taking in what is actually in front of you as it is, instead of through the habits of mind formed when you were small, like the one that expects criticism. The more mature a person is, the more they can take in this way.

    This ability does not come automatically with age. A person of sixty or seventy who has not grown up on the inside still sees the people around them the way they learned to see people in the family home they left fifty years ago. If they were criticized in that home, they feel criticized by the people around them now. A colleague’s compliment does not come through as a compliment; the old habit of mind gets to it first and colors it on the way in.

    There is a simple way to tell how much of this ability you have, and it is not whether you believe the good thing someone said. It is whether you can let it stand for one day, just as it was said, without adding your own “yes, but.”

    Where the water comes from

    If the problem is how much good there is next to the bad, then the answer is not to attack the ink. Most people have already spent years trying to argue their bad picture of themselves down to size, and it has not shrunk. The work is adding water.

    The water comes from real relationships, not only from encouraging things you tell yourself. One compliment is easily brushed off. What makes the difference is hundreds of ordinary hours with people in which nothing bad happens: you make a mistake and no one humiliates you; you turn down a request and the relationship does not end. Slowly those hours add up to evidence against the old picture you have of yourself. As that evidence builds, a criticism can be heard as a comment on one thing you did, not as proof that you are bad through and through.

    So the next time something kind is said and slides straight off, you have not failed at receiving it, and there was no technique you were meant to apply. Your glass is just small for now. More clear water comes from outside, slowly — mostly from staying a little longer with people when you would rather get up and leave.

    References

    • Klein, M. (1946). Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 27, 99–110. — splitting, and what Klein called the paranoid-schizoid position: the baby’s earliest state of mind, in which good and bad are kept apart.
    • Klein, M. (1935). A Contribution to the Psychogenesis of Manic-Depressive States. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 16, 145–174. — what Klein called the depressive position (not depression in the everyday sense): the later state of mind in which good and bad can be held together in one person.
    • Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson. — the inner pictures of a good and a bad self and of good and bad others (self and object representations).

    Related

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board

  • Free-Floating Anxiety: Why Limits Make You Feel Safer, Not Smaller

    It’s a Tuesday evening and nothing has happened. The dishes are done, nobody in the family is angry with you, and tomorrow is just another day at work. And still there’s something running underneath it all — a restlessness that follows you from room to room, and you couldn’t say what it’s about.

    Then there’s the other thing, the one you don’t mention to anybody. You told yourself one drink, or one episode of a show, or ten minutes on the phone — and then you reached the limit you’d set and went straight past it, and afterwards you couldn’t explain why, even to yourself.

    These look like two separate problems. They may be the same one: never having learned where to stop.

    Why do you feel anxious when nothing is wrong?

    The psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg described a pattern he called borderline personality organization. “Organization” here simply means the way a person is put together inside: the ways of coping they fall back on, again and again, whenever something goes wrong. The first mark Kernberg listed for this pattern is anxiety — a low, steady unease that never quite lifts. Feeling this way does not, by itself, mean you have this pattern. The same unease can also come from too little sleep, physical illness, or depression.

    The anxiety Kernberg described is not fear of something in particular. It is fear with nothing to attach itself to — it simply floats — which is why it is called free-floating anxiety. It turns up on quiet evenings and in the middle of an ordinary week, and when you ask yourself what exactly you are afraid of, you can’t find an answer.

    There is a reason for it, though. This kind of anxiety grows when your limits are unclear — when it is hard to say what you want, how far you will let yourself go, or when you will stop. Then, whenever you start something, whether a drink, a show or your phone, you don’t know how much is enough, and part of your attention has to keep checking whether you have already gone too far. And because nothing inside you holds your limits in place, they shift from one day to the next. You can never quite relax, even on an evening when nothing is happening.

    Picture an evening with nothing planned in it at all: nothing you have to do, all of it yours. That sounds like rest, and often it isn’t. What wears you down is not the freedom. It is that nothing tells you when to stop: when to put the phone down, when to switch off the show, when to go to bed.

    Is a limit a cage or a railing?

    Most people notice that a limit removes options, but a limit also removes uncertainty. If you decide before dinner that you will have one drink, the decision has already told you where the drinking ends. Without that limit, each empty glass means deciding all over again whether to have another.

    Stand on a balcony with a solid railing and you’ll lean out over it to look at the view below. Take the railing away and you’ll press yourself back against the wall instead. The railing never gave you the view. It gave you the nerve to go and look. A clear limit works the same way: because you know where it is, you can relax and choose freely inside it.

    The same thing happens with sleep, money, exercise, work, and phone use. A fixed bedtime removes the option of scrolling a little longer, but it also ends the argument you have with yourself every night about when to stop. A rule that part of every paycheck goes into savings limits what you can spend, but it also keeps that money safe from whatever you feel like buying on a given day.

    Why won’t a therapy session run late to make up for lost time?

    A therapy session runs fifty minutes. Say you arrive half an hour late — the trains were cancelled, a crash had the highway at a standstill, every word of your explanation is true and none of it is your fault. The session still ends at the moment it was always going to end. A minute or two over, sometimes. Never thirty.

    Nearly everyone hates this at first. It feels cold, and it feels like the one person who’s supposed to be looking after you is sitting there quietly watching the clock.

    But alongside the hurt, the fixed ending gives you something. If you arrive late, the lost time is gone; if you arrive on time, you get the full fifty minutes. After months of sessions that start and end the same way, you no longer wonder whether a crisis, an apology or an important story might buy you extra time. You know exactly what to expect, and that is part of what makes therapy feel steady and safe.

    Why does saying no settle a child down?

    Telling a child they can’t have what they want is hard, because you’re the one who has to stand there and watch the small face crumple. So you give in, and that’s easier on everybody for about four minutes.

    But a child who never gets stopped grows more anxious, not less. Being told no is a surprisingly large part of what makes a child feel safe.

    When you tell a child you’re not buying any more candy, the child may whine, become furious, or lie on the supermarket floor. That reaction means the child has run into a limit, and what you do next is what counts. If you let the child be upset but keep the same answer, and stay loving while you do, the child learns two things: being angry with you does not end the relationship, and not getting what they want right away is something they can live through.

    If you give in because the crying is too hard to bear, the child learns something else: the harder they push, the more the line moves. Instead of learning to stop, the child learns to demand more loudly.

    Is the drink the problem, or the line you crossed?

    Look closely at what addiction actually means, and it turns out to be less about what a person uses than about going past a limit.

    Are drugs bad? Some of the same drugs people get addicted to are part of ordinary medicine. If you’ve given birth with an epidural, it very likely contained an opioid, and some cough and cold medicines contain opioids too. Is alcohol bad? Not by itself — whole countries drink at dinner and then stop when dinner is over. Some substances do carry far more risk than others, especially illegal drugs and misused prescription drugs, but the substance is not what defines an addiction.

    What defines an addiction is going past the point where you meant to stop, again and again. One drink becomes several, ten minutes on the phone becomes three hours, and you keep going even when your health, your work, your finances or your relationships are suffering. You can name the limit before you start. What you can’t do is stop when you reach it.

    Can something healthy turn into a way to hurt yourself?

    Exercise makes this plain. A sensible amount of it does you good, which is why nobody thinks of it as a risk. Now watch somebody who has gone past the line. Their knees and shoulders are ruined, and they keep training anyway, straight through the damage. That isn’t health any more — something else has taken the wheel.

    There’s a name for that something: the superego, the part of you that watches and scolds and keeps score. It doesn’t tell you when enough is enough. It sets a standard, and when you fall short of it, it punishes you. Once it has taken the wheel, you aren’t training to look after your body any more. You’re training to wreck it, and the damage is the punishment.

    So you can’t tell whether something is an addiction by looking at what a person is doing, because the activity on its own tells you almost nothing. Even something good can wreck you once you go past the line, and for some people, wrecking themselves is the point.

    What happens when nobody ever says stop?

    I work as a therapist, and not long ago an elderly couple came to see me about their son. He’s thirty-six, still caught in his addiction, and still coming home some nights and not others.

    In all the years they were raising him, his parents never actually stepped in. When he stole money, nothing whatsoever happened. There were words, plenty of words — don’t do that, do this — and the words were all there ever was. No consequence ever followed them. Plenty of telling. Never any stopping. The line got talked about for years and never once got drawn.

    Where does that lead? A person who is never stopped keeps going, further and further out, until he hits a wall. Sooner or later he always does. The last line left is the law, the edge of what society will accept. He crosses it, and once he has, society can no longer put up with him. So he gets locked up. That is the wall.

    Why would a locked door feel like relief?

    Being locked up is hard, and people hate it, count the days, can’t stand another minute of it. And alongside all of that, something in them quietly settles, because somebody finally drew the line.

    Some of the people who end up in prison know something the rest of us find hard to believe: being inside is easier than being outside. Not better. Not kinder. Easier. Outside, there were no limits anywhere, and for years nothing stopped them. Inside, there are far fewer choices to make, and what happens next has already been decided.

    Under that strange pairing — unbearable and a relief at the same time — there may be a wish they have never put into words: Someone, please, tell me where this ends.

    So who is going to draw your line?

    A locked door can stop a person, but it cannot teach him to stop himself. Nobody drew the line for the son while he was growing up, and nobody is going to draw yours for you either. That is less bleak than it sounds, because it means you get to say where it goes. Draw one tonight, something small: the phone, the run, the work you’d otherwise carry past midnight. Decide where it ends before you start, and then actually stop there when you reach it. If it’s drinking, and you already know that once you start you can’t stop, your line may need to come before the first drink: don’t start at all, and get help, from a professional if you need it.

    The hard part comes after you stop. You may feel empty, deprived, restless, or angry that your own rule has taken away something you could have had. If you go straight back to it, the discomfort disappears and the old habit gets stronger. If you let the feeling stay without crossing the line, you learn that you can want more and still not act on it. Repeat that, and you begin to build the limit of your own that was missing — one that lets you stop yourself before a wall outside has to do it for you.

    References

    • Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Related

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board