Correspondence

I imagine I am not the only person, still close to training experiences, to feel grateful to the eight contributors to the symposium on supervision which appeared in the April issue of the Journal. As I read, I became aware of how important it was that the writers were functioning as individuals and not as representatives of institutions. The symposium encouraged this response.

It is possible to extract from each contribution a sense of what each of these experienced supervisors is striving towards; that is, what they want— for themselves, their supervisees and, by implication, the patient.

Plaut seems to be striving for colleagueship—for instance, his reflections on post-supervision professional relations. Dreifuss seems to be striving for influence—he refers to his candidates' personal ‘weak points’ and to correcting ‘shortcomings’. Fordham seems to be striving for balance—for every strength of the student reveals a hidden lack and the supervisor can use other students to highlight this. Henderson seems to be striving for an archetypal experience of initiation (not that this can be obtained by conscious means, more by an exposure to the impact of symbolic processes and, as a special instance, by recognising differences between sexual and symbolic union). Humbert seems to be striving for a boundary to be perceived between patient and analyst—each piece of interaction throws up blind spots for the candidate which he must deal with separately from his professional involvement with the patient. Jacoby strives for an individual approach, free from ‘should’ and ‘ought’. Ulanov strives for a total response by the trainee analyst to the patient (involving paying attention to countertransference). Finally, Wilke seems to be striving to clarify the nature of the supervisory experience and relationship.

These kernels were arrived at by asking myself a deliberately limited question—what do each of these people want? The question is one which, on many levels one imagines, will r