Response by Richard P. Alexander

I was gratified by Dr. Malin's excellent comprehension of the main premise of my paper. I agree that the fantasy of omnipotence is a manifestation of the manic defense characterized by control and triumph over the object, as for example, Mr. J.'s statement of picking my brains and stealing. I would like to clarify and expand Dr. Malin's last paragraph. It is my understanding that such patients have to destroy the good object because love for the object and regard for the self (including the good internal object and satisfying life experiences, e.g. successes) make the patient aware of the object and himself as separate beings. Of course, on the oedipal level successes also have to be destroyed when such strivings are dominated by omnipotent mechanisms and fantasies.

Conversely, I was disappointed with Dr. Zetzel's discussion because I don't believe she understood my basic orientation. I take as my fundamental frame of reference Freudian concepts enriched by certain of Melanie Klein's contributions. This frame of reference I utilize with all patients, be they neurotic, borderline or psychotic. Traditional explanations should always be open to modification and extension in the true spirit of scientific investigation. The writings of Greenacre, Schur, Gitelson and Zetzel are certainly of relevance as are papers of many other analysts which practical considerations precluded mentioning.

I believe Helene Deutsch's formulation regarding separation, anxiety, and phobia, is based on the concept that destructive wishes and fantasies against the object produce fears of destroying the object and result in the need to be constantly in the presence of the object to

assure its being intact; and that identification with this object brings about an agoraphobia. For some time, interpretations on this level were given but had only limited beneficial effect.

It was only when the patient could be shown how he projected undesirable parts of himself onto important persons in the external