Kohut's (1979) paper, "The two analyses of Mr. Z.," is used to highlight difficulties in the maintenance of an analytic attitude toward certain preoedipal conflicts. It is suggested that two separate and distinct issues are confused in the concept of selfobject: the subject's needs for the object and the status of the object as not separate and distinct from the subject. This obfuscates the subject's relation to the object, neglecting attitudes, representations, feelings, and valuations of the object. Distinctions between "need-satisfying object" and "specific object" are used to clarify the status and multiple functions required of the selfobject. The author disagrees that it is useful to differentiate selfobjects from a more general class of preoedipal objects. The motivational forces presumed for selfobject relationships are criticized as experience-distant, nonaffective, metapsychological constructs. The position is taken that etiology in selfobject pathology is more complex than deficits in parental empathy. Interrelations between developmental deficits and psychic conflict are examined; they indicate that insufficient attention has been paid to the role of defense in the concept of selfobject relationship.