A brief discussion is offered to expand the concern described by Frank Summers for a limited understanding of the term “self object.” Here self object as a function of the analyst’s behavior is distinguished form the experiences the patient has of the analyst. The argument put forth is that using the term as a function devlitalizes and limits an understanding made possible by a more interactive perspective focusing on the patient’s experience of the analyst’s emotional struggles emerging in the analytic relationship. This perspective is seen to be illustrated in the case offered by Summers.