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.
I Would Like to contribute to the present Symposium by making some remarks about the supervision of students in their handling of cases taken in the child analytic training, London.
I have previously stated my position with relation to supervision as a whole (FORDHAM I), and a re-reading of that paper does not make me want to alter the essential argument: supervision, in contrast to analysis, should be directed towards the student's performance with his case and not to the students affective internal world. I have now some further comments to make as to the result of knowledge gained about students, their differing styles of analysis, and how these help in defining the directions in which improvement in their analytic skills might be made.
In view of the various usages of the word analysis I would draw the reader's attention to previous of my writings on the subject (especially FORDHAM 2), and summarise these by stating that analysis is essentially an attitude of mind which sorts out complex structures with a view to gaining insight into the operation of their more simple components.
The reflections that I shall present are derived from the supervision of child analyses which require a formal setting or framework in which the student sees the child frequently, four or five times a week. The room contains a sink and available water, two chairs, a table, a couch with a rug and cushions. Toys are kept in a cupboard outside the treatment rooms and are those selected by the child with others that the analyst may wish to add.