You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Whatever the merits of our high degree of … education, we have lost the gift for being puzzled. Everything is supposed to be known—if not to ourselves then to some specialist whose business it is to know what we do not know… to be puzzled is embarrassing, a sign of intellectual inferiority. To have the right answer seems all-important. To ask the right question is considered insignificant by comparison (Fromm, 1951, p. 3).
MOST PSYCHOANALYTIC SUPERVISORS VIEW THEIR role in the supervisory process as substantially different from their role in the psychoanalytic process and stress the dangers of blurring the distinctions. Levenson's (1982, p. 13) directive to "stay out of the supervisee's analysis," is generally adhered to in principle, although often not in practice.
Supervisors attempt to facilitate the supervisee's analytic work by elaborating technique, by elucidating transference manifestations, by proposing the direction and thrust of the inquiry, and by suggesting appropriate dynamic formulations about the patient or the process. A major aim is to increase the supervisee's ability to observe and explore significant patterns. When the supervisor becomes aware of resistances and/or countertransferences which rest primarily in the supervisee, the supervisee is usually advised to "take it up in analysis." The prevailing notion is that the supervisee's countertransference may be alluded to but not directly explored.
Fromm-Reichmann (1950), Tauber (1954), Searles (1961), and other authors have discussed and elaborated on the positive value of utilizing the analyst's personal reactions to the patient. These unique reactions are viewed as important to a fuller understanding