#9 – The Fairbairnian Object-Relations Approach to BPD

In this post, we will explore Ronald Fairbairn’s approach to Borderline Personality Disorder. Fairbairn’s understanding of BPD was remarkably intuitive and deep, and helped later psychodynamic clinicians to effectively treat the disorder.

Psychodynamic Therapists Have Already “Cured” BPD

Most people do not know that psychoanalytically-oriented clinicians long ago “cured” BPD – meaning helped individuals with BPD to recover and live satisfying lives in work and relationships. These therapists include Gerald Adler, Vamik Volkan, James Masterson, Donald Rinsley, Jeffrey Seinfeld, Otto Kernberg, David Celani, Peter Giovacchini, and dozens of others. Their books convincingly present dozens of detailed case studies of borderlines who fully recovered, a reality which is totally contrary to the belief on many BPD web forums that BPD is life-long and incurable. These books are cited in the following article –


It should be noted that these therapists worked with borderlines in intensive treatments lasting 3-5 years or more, meeting with their patients on average at least twice a week (no, I do not believe that one absolutely has to have long-term therapy multiple times a week with a psychoanalyst in order to get better). Today, most of these therapists are unknown to the public, partly because modern psychiatry has tried to redefine BPD as a biologically-based, genetically-caused disorder. However, as discussed in the post below, there is little evidence to support this deterministic conclusion.


Who was Fairbairn?

Ronald Fairbairn was a Scottish psychiatrist working mainly in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. At the time, the ideas of Sigmund Freud dominated psychological theories. One of Freud’s main beliefs was that innate drives like sexuality and aggression were the primary motivators of human behavior. Fairbairn rejected that view and instead developed the idea that human relationships – “object relations” in psychoanalytic terms – are the primary force influencing human decisions. This view might seem obvious, but it was not at the time. Fairbairn then developed a theory of human psychology based around children’s attachment to good (libidinal) and bad (anti-libidinal) people in the outside world.

Fairbairn’s work with abused children

When developing his theory, Fairbairn was heavily influenced by his work with troubled children at Scottish hospitals. Some of these children were orphans, and others were children from difficult households where physical abuse and lack of love were common.

Fairbairn poignantly noted that these children, having been separated from their abusive parents and taken to the hospital for therapy, often feared asking for help. Usually, the children preferred to stay attached to their bad parents rather than risk opening up to potentially kind new doctor.

From his work with these and other patients, Fairbairn noted common themes in those who experienced severe abuse and emotional deprivation in childhood. Among other things, he noted:

– The children felt a perverse “loyalty” toward the parents who abused and neglected him, and a duty to protect the parents from exposure by the outside world.
– The children tended to blame themselves for the abuse and neglect they received. In other words, they believed that they were treated badly because they were “bad” children, not because they had poor parents. Fairbairn called this the “moral defense.”
– Using the moral defense, children could trick themselves into thinking that if only they were not so “bad”, the abuse would stop and the bad parents would become good parents. It maintained the fantasy that they had some control over a situation in which they were truly helpless.

– Fairbairn noted that the children rejected efforts to help them by external “good objects.” They distrusted the motives of new, potentially helpful people, expecting that at any moment these “hoped-for good objects” could turn bad and become abusive like the parents.
– Fairbairn called the part of the child that rejected good people the “internal saboteur”, a.k.a. the “anti-libidinal ego” (libidinal means loving or positive). He was dismayed by the great power of the anti-libidinal ego’s attachment to abusive people in childhood and adulthood.

– He saw that the children fiercely resisted attempts to separate them from the original parents, as well as from later figures (e.g. abusive romantic partners) that resembled the parents. Fairbairn called this the “attachment to the bad object.” He viewed this as the most stubborn obstacle to successful psychotherapy – that the children themselves strongly rejected efforts to help them. This occurred even when they became young adults or in situations where the original parents were long gone.

Object Relations as a Theory

Most people intuitively understand that our minds are filled with internal “images” or representations of people based on our experience in the outside world. In fact, we have many different images of ourselves and of other people inside our minds, and we often fantasize about these images  when we are alone. These images could also be called emotional memories.

These images or memories have feelings attached to them; they are a combination of cognitive/intellectual knowledge and positive/negative emotions. They are like our minds’ “code” for the knowledge and feelings we have toward ourselves and other people. We use these images as a map to understanding ourselves, others, and what is possible for us as we relate to the outside world. These ideas very roughly explain “object relations theory”, which is used by psychodynamic therapists to understand problems including BPD.

The Endopsychic Structure of BPD

Fairbairn created a model for how the abused person managed internal psychic representations of other people. He called this the Endopsychic Structure. This model explained the behavior of individuals who would later be diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder.

In later versions of Fairbairn’s object-relations model, healthy development was promoted by a predominance of good, comforting, loving experience in early childhood relationships. A secure attachment to the parents allowed the child to confidently explore the world and to develop mature relationships as an adult.

Fairbairn noted that good relationships in early childhood promoted the development of ego functions like tolerance for ambivalence (seeing things as mixtures of good and bad), frustration tolerance (being able to sacrifice short-term discomfort for long-term gain), the ability to comfort oneself, the ability to be alone and not feel abandoned, etc. The reader will recognize that these are exactly the ego functions that modern-day BPD sufferers do not have.

Fairbairn called the mature adult ego the “central ego”, and noted that it contained a mixture of positive and negative perceptions of self and other, with the positive being stronger or integrated with the negative.

By contrast, the borderline or abused person had a “split ego.” Fairbairn described how when abusive, neglectful experience predominated in childhood, the child seemed to hold apart the mainly negative experience in one part of his mind, and to keep the occasionally positive, redeeming experience in another. Integration (seeing people as mixtures of good and bad qualities) could not occur since it was too threatening. There was no reason for the abused person to combine the two sets of images and see how weak the good experiences had been and how helpless they really were, until the ratio of good-to-bad experience improved.

Fairbairn realized that the abused person’s view of themselves and others was completely unrealistic, although they had enough of a hold on reality to avoid permanent psychotic regression (called schizophrenia today). Instead of seeing the outside world in shades of grey, the borderline saw people as all-good or (usually) as all-bad, and related to them as such.

Everyone has slight distortions or differences in how they see the outside world, which is why we have the truism, “perception is reality.” But in the borderline’s case, these distortions of other people are massive and create serious relationship problems, since people are not nearly as bad or as good as the borderline thinks they are. People do not normally appreciate being the target of projections by borderlines who view them as saints or demons.

The Attachment to the Bad Object and Rejection of the Good Object

The borderline’s unrealistic view of the outside world involved the belief that most people were untrustworthy, uncaring, rejecting, “bad”, etc. In other words, the borderline projected the original “bad object” experience with their parents onto new people they met. The “bad object images”  – all the memories of abuse and neglect from parents – dominated their expectations of the outside world.  They were emotionally blind to the reality that many kind, genuinely helpful new people existed.

Not only were borderlines relatively unaware of potential help, but they actively rejected it when it appeared. Fairbairn saw that a new, helpful person could easily be mistrusted and seen as someone who would eventually disappoint, abandon, or turn on them. In this way the borderline feared that a new “hoped-for good object” would morph into a “bad object”.

Fairbairn’s “moral defense” described how borderlines blamed themselves for the poor treatment they received in order to, 1) Protect the truly bad parents from blame and thereby avoid retaliation from that parent, and 2) Prevent awareness of the helplessness of their situation (i.e. “If only I were not so bad, my parents would treat me better.”).

The moral defense created another massive obstacle, because it made borderlines blame themselves as “bad” and judge themselves as unworthy of help.

The Inversion of the Normative Developmental Process

Fairbairn understood how the abused child’s mistreatment early in life resulted in adult borderlines who continued to abuse themselves and form abusive, disappointing relationships with adult partners (or, simply avoid positive relationships and remain alone). It is no coincidence that women who repeatedly return to abusive partners frequently, but not always, have borderline psychopathology.

This is the ultimate meaning of Fairbairn’s “attachment to the bad object.” It means that the borderline individual continually recreates and maintains bad relationships, whether he means to or not. By distrusting potential good new relationships and clinging to people who disappoint and reject him, the borderline remains attached internally (emotionally, at the mental image level) to “bad objects” and continues to believe that the world is rejecting and “bad” like in childhood.

A dramatic example of the attachment to the bad object appears in Alfred Hitchcock’s film, Psycho. The leading character, Norman Bates, wants to befriend an attractive young woman who stays at his hotel. However, he later kills her (i.e. rejects the internal good object) and therefore maintains the attachment to the bad object, his possessive mother. Norman fantasizes that his mother, who is actually long dead, would be jealous, and would not want him to relate to this potential new good person. Therefore, Norman’s “internal bad object” (the mother) dominates his mind and makes him reject the good object. Norman Bates was actually psychotic, but the object relations mechanisms involved are similar to borderline object relations.

The writer Jeffrey Seinfeld (in his book, The Bad Object) described how the borderline’s mental processes involved an “inversion of the normative developmental process.” What this means is that instead of seeking out good experience and rejecting bad experience, the person with BPD seeks out bad experience and rejects good experience. In other words, consciously or unconsciously the borderline individual does the opposite of what healthy people do. Borderlines are “attached to the internal bad object” – they avoid accepting, loving relationships, and stay attached to uncaring, abusive ones.

What is Needed to Let Go of the Attachment to the Internal Bad Object

In earlier posts, I wrote about how borderlines need to develop a dependent, trusting long-term relationship with a therapist or friend. This builds self esteem, develops basic trust in others, and helps to develop self-control, tolerance for ambivalence (not splitting), frustration tolerance, etc. A healthy ego, able to manage the challenges of adult living, can only be developed through long-term support and love, in other words, through good object relationships. For more on what is needed for recovery from BPD, please see these posts –



How Fairbairn’s Theories Helped Me Recover From BPD

Most people who are familiar with BPD know nothing about Fairbairn’s theories. This is unfortunate, because for me they represent the most penetrating and useful explanatory model of Borderline Personality Disorder.

I benefitted greatly from understanding the ways in which I sabotaged myself after reading Fairbairn’s work. Because of the abuse from my father, I tended to distrust people who really wanted to help me. This understanding helped me to reverse destructive patterns of staying alone, being critical of other people, acting out via overeating, and rejecting people who were available as friends or dates. I learned to be very conscious about seeking out accepting people and staying in contact with them, which can be challenging in today’s modern, fast-paced world. I also needed to accept and learn to tolerate my fear of rejection.

Since I am no longer borderline today, I am much less afraid of rejection, including when dating. Although disappointment is always possible, I’m no longer afraid to take risks that may lead to rejection. I know that for the most part I’ll be accepted, since people tend to be more good than bad, and because I see others as mixtures of good and bad.

In Fairbairn’s terms, I project “bad object” images into other people less and don’t expect them to turn out like my disappointing father. From the good, dependent relationship I had with my therapist for many years, I internalized many “good objects” (positive memories) using her support and caring about me. I used these to build up my self-esteem, develop adult ego functions, and begin to expect that the outside world would respond well to me.

Eventually, when I had a better ratio of good to bad memories, I developed the ability to view myself and others more ambivalently, as both positive and negative. This process happened fairly spontaneously over a period of a year or two.

Today, I still use Fairbairn’s models to understand some of my friends and family that are undergoing relationship problems. Fairbairn’s object-relations models can help to understand anyone, since we all have good and bad relationships with other people.

As noted in the post below, I do not believe Borderline Personality Disorder truly exists. Instead, attachments to bad objects based on abusive experience can occur to greater or lesser degrees in anybody. The difference in those people who are diagnosed with BPD is that their histories are usually much more traumatic, and therefore their attachments to bad objects tend to dominate their whole lives rather than posing temporary problems.



I welcome any correspondance at bpdtransformation@gmail.com

If you are struggling with BPD yourself or are trying to help a borderline individual, I would be happy to listen to your story and provide feedback if possible. Feel free to provide constructive criticism of this site also.

This article is the opinion of a non-professional layperson, and should not be taken as medical advice or as the view of a therapist who is professionally qualified to treat Borderline Personality Disorder or any other mental health condition. Readers should consult with a qualified mental health professional before undertaking any treatment.

– Edward Dantes

26 thoughts on “#9 – The Fairbairnian Object-Relations Approach to BPD

  1. Pingback: Take Risks To Recover from BPD | BPD Transformation

  2. Pingback: #15 – Heroes of BPD : Gerald Adler | BPD Transformation

  3. DhammaGirl

    There is a grain of truth there but the view is simplistic. It is not that border lines choose bad relationships. In my view there is no voluntary part in this process. It is that their horrible experiences make them blind to positive sides of life and others. Do not forget these people were often abused so horribly their entire psyche was completely overwhelmed with pure survival. There was no room for healthy development. It is like a 6 year old child forced to labour in Victorian coal mine at age 6 for 16 hrs a day. You will not blame this abused child for failure to develop keen musical ear or other faculties at age 12. Simply because there was not just any opportunity, but active hurdle. The same is the case with BPD’s. And do not forget that experiences with mental “health” system are often just as bad and abusive as the original relationships. Just witness moronic writings on sociopathy and manipulative ness of BPDs in mainstream psychiatry today.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. bpdtransformation Post author

      Perhaps I could have chosen a better word than “choose”. You are absolutely right; most borderline behaviors are unconscious and automatic. If you read his work in detail, you would see that Fairbairn understood that. However, borderlines are still the ones who, however unawarely, perpetuate destructive relationships. They appear to be choosing, which is why I used that word in its everyday form, but a closer analysis reveals that much of their behavior is automatic, done without careful reflection or consideration.
      Fairbairn’s view doesn’t warrant the label simplistic; his object-relations approach is one of the clearest and most penetrating ways to explain borderline behaviors. I only wish I had the time to type out more of his writing here.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: Information Overload: Part I | The Broken Moped

  5. Dee Lint

    I have found your comments and explanations to be very insightful. My daughter is diagnosed BPD, seeking recovery for 2 years, and I am
    searching to gain understanding on the part I played in her disordered thinking. I do not hold a degree and am not highly intelligent so your easy to read info is most helpful.


    1. bpdtransformation Post author

      Thank you. I wish your daughter and you the best of luck. Fairbairn’s explanations about how BPD relationships work are very insightful. I don’t recommend showing books or writing about Fairbairn to your daughter – it’s better for a person with BPD to be helped by real people including family and therapists. However, you might be interested to read Jeffrey Seinfeld’s book on the four Fairbairnian phases of BPD treatment. I think I wrote about it in post # 10.


  6. Pingback: Five Myths About BPD Debunked | BPD Transformation

  7. Pingback: #18 – Heroes of BPD: Jeffrey Seinfeld | BPD Transformation

  8. Pingback: #20 – Splitting Explained and Thoughts on DBT | BPD Transformation

  9. georgielizabeth

    Hi, really interesting post. I find object-relations theory really interesting, love Kernberg’s writing on this and I think the “early” psychoanalysts were pioneers in this field. However, I just get stuck with this whole theory of a core/real/true ego. I don’t think that buried inside is this solid, true, continuous self. Object relations appear to suggest that if we can just bring out and build on this core then things will improve and I worry that this is just a myth, when actually the patient/client/person is just identifying with the (apparently healthy) ‘ego’ of the therapist. Seems like suggestion to me. What are your thoughts on this? 🙂


  10. bpdtransformation Post author

    Thanks for your thoughts. I actually do not like Kernberg very much! He is very intelligent theoretically, yes. But he is lacking in empathy and the way he writes, to me, shows a detachment from being really emotionally involved with his patients. That is why I think he was probably not so good at treating “borderline” or “schizophrenic” people, because he probably would not have developed or allowed them to develop a symbiotic relationship with him, given that he viewed it as a destructive and antitherapeutic.

    About the core/true ego idea; I agree with you generally on that. I think they are trying to create an abstraction of a central ego, which is probably too simplistic and concrete. I don’t know how the mind really works (who does) but I imagine that we must have literally millions of self-images that relate in a dynamic way to different parts of the environment and that also constantly influence each other. It’s hard to imagine how complicated it must be, given that the brain has about 100 billion nerve cells in it.

    I’d say also that human beings have evolved to try to find patterns and simple reliable ways of thinking about things, so you are seeing that happening in some of these psychological theories. It feels safer (and gives an illusory sense of control perhaps) for psychologists to think they have a simple model of how the mind works that is reliable and similar from person to person. Whereas by contrast, seeing the mind as extremely complicated, random, unpredictable, and unknowable might be threatening to their sense of security and even to their identity as a knowledgeable competent professional in some ways.

    Lastly, identifying with whatever strengths or adaptive ways exist in how the therapist thinks and functions is important and helpful to people (probably anyone would say that). I remember I read Masterson’s theory and I thought his notion of the “true self” (from Winnicott) buried under certain defenses was simplistic and unproven. But then again, maybe it doesn’t matter whether his theory was right or not, if the way he worked with people was helpful, which I don’t know! Perhaps he was helpful despite his theory, not because of it.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: #22 – Proof That Borderlines Are Motivated for Psychotherapy and Can Fully Recover | BPD Transformation

    1. bpdtransformation Post author

      Thanks! I am honored that a therapist would say that. I think Fairbairn’s model is the best model of “borderline” object relations, especially as developed by Jeffrey Seinfeld and David Celani in their books on borderline conditions.


  12. Pingback: #26 – Why BPD Should Be Abolished, and What Should Replace It | BPD Transformation

  13. Pingback: #27 – The Kleinian Approach to Understanding and Healing Borderline Mental States | BPD Transformation

  14. drjmkelley@gmail.com

    This is wonderful, I spent a long time studying this (and other Object Relations theory) prior to and while getting my certificate in psychoanalytic psychotherapy and I’m not sure I could have written this out so clearly and helpfully!


    1. bpdtransformation Post author

      Thank you! I adapted most of these ideas from the writing of Jeffrey Seinfeld (in the book The Bad Object) and David Celani (The Treatment of the Borderline Patient; The Illusion of Love). Another good book is Sutherland, Fairbairn’s Journey into the Interior. Thanks for commenting. I have always loved Fairbairn’s theory and find it such a great explanation of emotional development when it goes well and in developmental arrest/when there are serious obstacles.


  15. Jane Dailly

    I’m so pleased to have found this site. I’ve spent a lot of time reading about BPD and I find that the tone of much of what I read is very unsympathetic, lacking in compassion and focuses heavily (and soul destroyingly!) on description of the “symptoms” of BPD rather than the painful experiences which seem to have left me both with little capacity to tolerate intimate relationships and an all consuming sense of loneliness. The psychodynamic analysis of BPD seems so inherently compassionate and (therefore I suppose) so does the approach to and aims of therapy. In short it makes me feel hopeful and understood and more compassionate towards myself. Thank you.


    1. bpdtransformation Post author

      Hi Jane, I am glad you like this approach! Compassion and trying to understand the reasons behind troubling behavior should always be our approach to “borderline” conditions. “Symptoms” is a medicalized word which has no meaning when applied to human behavior, since there is no physical disease process underlying borderline states, being based on trauma and failure to develop sufficient comforting interpersonal relationships as they are.
      Many of the pessimistic-attacking forums you will read online are a biased sample of angry posts written by people encountering “borderline” (i.e. traumatized) individuals at some of the most difficult times for both sides… and, some of these people judging them have serious relational problems in their backgrounds themselves which leads to splitting on their behalf in terms of perceiving the “borderline” as all bad. So, I would not take these sites too seriously.
      You might like to see this white paper which my allies in ISEPP recently wrote about the great weakness of the biological model of mental distress – http://psychintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/White-Paper-Brain-Scan-Research.pdf
      Good luck

      Liked by 1 person

  16. Pingback: Object-Relations in BPD: Fairbairn and Personal Experiences (Link) | Sleeping Tiger

  17. Pingback: MY TWENTIETH BIRTHDAY. – maybe it hasn't started yet.

  18. Eliza

    Thanks for sharing this – and writing it all up. Do you have any shorter posts? (I find it really hard to focus for long times at the moment and split reading this post into three)



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s