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.
It Looks as though these problems of supervision were in the air. Shortly after the German and Swiss analysts meeting on Supervision at Flims in the autumn of 1981 the Journal published its symposium on the same topic. It would seem that this important aspect of training can be approached in many different ways and that it will be some time before we may expect a synthesis to emerge.
Meanwhile, my own contribution to the Flims meeting was published in the German Journal (FREY-WEHRLIN 2), in which I attempted to sum up my experience in the following ten theses:
The candidate is the focal point of supervision and not the patient.
Supervision is a continuation of analysis in a broader context.
Like analysis, supervision is based on the subjective information supplied by the candidate.
Control groups meeting over a short period of time are of little use.
The supervisor's emotions may be relevant.
Supervision is not the same as training analysis. What ‘comes up’ in supervision should be ‘worked on’ in analysis.
Demanding too much of the candidate puts him on the defensive (i.e., he cannot perform).