with respect to the history of the term (helpful to get some context) 'borderline personality disorder' or 'borderline personality organisation' was meant to refer to individuals who were somewhere at the borderline between psychotic and neurotic.

what does that mean? freud and others were developing the psychoanalytic method which involved lying down on a couch and free associating while the therapist practiced 'theraputic neutrality' which was (in theory) supposed to consist in the therapist making 'mmm hmm, i see' comments along with some controntational interpretations. people who were neurotic (who had a tendency to experience distressing emotions) tended to do well in psychoanalysis. they fairly rapidly developed transference (started to project the traits of past figures who were important onto the therapist) and they developed a bond or attachment to their therapist. freud thought that neurotic symptoms resulted from an oedipus complex. we can recast that (in more modern terms) as a problem in fairly late childhood (can't quite remember when... ages 4-6?).

people who had psychotic symptoms were thought to be unsuitable for psychoanalysis. instead of engaging in the defences (projection and transference and so on and so forth) they tended to deteriorate when they were in analysis and they would become psychotic and often paranoid. they also had more difficulty in bonding / forming a theraputic alliance with their clinicians. most often... they didn't. psychosis was thought to result from a problem that occurred much much earlier in development.

people with borderline personality organisations originally presented with neurotic symptoms and hence it was thought that they would be suitable for analysis. when they were analysed they would rapidly deteriorate and become psychotic, however. they didn't seem to form a good working alliance with their clinician. they seemed to have difficulty attaching / bonding. freud thought that people with borderline personality organisations were thus unsuitable for therapy.

so the origins of the notion is that people who are 'borderline' are between neurotic symptoms and psychotic symptoms. the developmental problem is thought to occur earlier than the oedipal phase. the majority of current psychoanalytic theorists place the main problem at rapproachment / seperation individuation, i think. around age 2 i think.

in practice 'borderline personality disorder' became something of a dumping ground for individuals who initially looked like they would make good progress with treatment but who deteriorated over time. typically people are diagnosed with depression and / or anxiety and / or post traumatic stress and / or avoidant personality disorder and / or an eating disorder and / or OCD and / or... the notion, however, is that people with borderline personality disorder tend not to get better the way that people with 'simple' forms of axis one psychopathology typically do with treatment.

'borderline personality organisation' referred to both the modern day borderline personality disroder and the modern day narcissistic personality disorder (roughly). both of these conditions were thought to be forms of borderline (between psychosis and neurosis) organisations.

there was a lot of work by theorists trying to argue that borderline personality disorder was a syndrome in its own right and that the diagnosis SHOULD NOT be used as a dumping ground for people who didn't progress in the way their clinicians had hoped.

what do i think? well... i think that the historical take is very interesting indeed... i also like linehan's notion that borderline personality disorder is primarily a disorder of emotion regulation. i also have a great deal of time for Kohut's work on narcissistic personality disorders (where he is talking about borderline personalitly organisations really). many theorists have altered traditional analytic techniques of free association, couch work, and theraputic neutrality into other techniques such that people with borderline personality organisation can be treated by psychoanalytic / dynamic therapy.

i guess an analyst would say... whether you have a personalitly disorder or not would be revealed in how you respond to traditional analysis. generally speaking a diagnosis is important with respect to obtaining treatment / health insurance reimbursement but that is about all, really. i don't know why people are so keen to label themselves...