What's a Good Object to Do? - PsyBC

Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 16(1):39–43, 2006
The Action’s in the Action
Reply to Commentary
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Neil J. Skolnick, Ph.D.
Points of agreement and discrepancy between Frankel and Skolnick are
addressed. A good measure of the disparity was traced to a basic
misunderstanding of the concept of Dynamic Identification, which
Frankel, at times, took to mean something akin to an analyst’s selfdisclosure
of her or his struggles, instead of the internalization of the
selfobject interaction in the analytical context. The question of state
diagnoses is considered with an emphasis on reconsidering the concept
of regression.
O KEEP IN STEP WITH FRANKEL’S DISCUSSION OF GOOD OBJECTS AND
great objects I will start my reply by assuming the persona of a
Tgreat object. And as the great object that I assume I am, I
would like to extend my appreciation to Frankel for his careful reading
of my paper. I particularly value his thoughtful comments aimed toward
comparing, contrasting, and integrating my ideas with other theoretical
strains. He correctly understood the heuristic value of my setting down
ideas in broad strokes. This allowed him to extrapolate from my
technical recommendations and make comparisons between my ideas
and those of others, principally Kohut, Balint, and the Classical
Psychoanalysts.
I will now continue as just a good object and address points of
agreement and disagreement between myself and Frankel. Frankel
presents Kohut’s ideas (1977, 1984) regarding the idealizing
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Neil J. Skolnick, Ph.D. is a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychology at the New
York University Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis; Faculty
and supervisor at the National Institute for the Psychotherapies, the Institute for
the Psychoanalytic Study of Subjectivity, and the Westchester Center for the Study
of Psychoanalysis, as well as a number of regional psychoanalytic training programs
throughout the country.
39 © 2006 The Analytic Press, Inc.