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.
When I prepared this paper on supervision, I wondered whether I should use the Peter Gay-Ernest Jones dialogue (Marshall, 1991) because the degree of playfulness and unorthodoxy that I might portray probably would not be consonant with their positions and statures. Since I hold Peter Gay in the highest esteem and consider him to be the outstanding contemporary Freud scholar, I could not in all good conscience use his name in the following fashion. I consider Ernest Jones one of the prominent leaders in the psychoanalytic field, a man who had devoted his entire life to advancing the art and science of psychoanalysis. Since his position in the psychoanalytic world cannot be compromised nor misunderstood, I am taking this opportunity to use Ernest Jone's name to help enliven and clarify a subject which is ordinarily heavy and complex. Therefore, let us imagine that Ernest Jones is paying a visit not to Peter Gay, but to this author.
Marshall: Welcome to my earthly abode, Ernest. What brings about this great honor?
Jones: I did want to return Peter Gay's visit and to see what the colonies are up to these days in terms of tea and supervision. I understand that you have made impressive gains in the area of supervision.
Marshall: Yes, as I look ovr the past 40 years I discern some significant shifts. I would be happy to share with you some of my
* This paper was originally presented at the CMPS Conference: Transference and Resistance in the Supervisory Process, November 7, 1992.
impressions if you would tell me what supervision was like in the old days.
Jones: Bully idea. In the beginning there was no concept per se of supervision. The acutal practice probably began in 1902, at the Wednesday night meetings at Freud's house, where a handful of prominent scholars discussed psychoanalysis. Cases were sometimes presented and were informally supervised, with emphasis clearly on the dynamics of the patient. Some surprisingly strong judgments emerged about the presenting analysts. Freu