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.
Isakower did not say flat out that his devotion to the idea of the analyzing instrument was but an aspect of his wish to help establish a theory of supervision. It was characteristic of his style to approach matters analytic allusively.
Nonetheless the atmosphere emanating from his discussion, the allusions and some of the more concise statements point toward such an ultimate goal: a system of principles or concepts to be established for the teaching of analytic technique (practice) through supervision. Consider the following: “Such an investigation [of the analyzing instrument] would then, it is hoped, make it possible to establish criteria for the behavior, actions, and interventions of the analyst, and afford an evaluation of their effect on the analysand” (November 20th, 1963, p. 199).
Making an implied comparison of the present state of supervision to the state of the practice (technique) of analysis, Isakower says: “Herein lies also the reason for the admission we must make (regretfully, he implies) that the practice of analysis, in its present state of development, in many important aspects, is still more in the nature of an art rather than a science” (October 14th, 1963, p. 189). Evidently Isakower deplored (and possibly today would still deplore) this state of affairs in the practice or technique of analysis. It would be remedied, he evidently hoped, by a more scientific methodology. Also he obviously hoped that a scientific methodology for supervision could be developed by investigation of the analyzing instrument.