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.
In reviewing the sixty years of psychoanalytic history as reflected in the teaching of technique, the author is sympathetic to the viewpoint that equates creativity with unstructuredness, but defends structure and the refinement of pedagogic method as necessary for the maintenance of standards and the growth of analysis. In a detailed consideration of the problems of supervision and control, he
advances the hypothesis that many of the regulations formulated to this end represent the fact that individualized teaching has been replaced by institutional teaching which requires measures to guarantee the capacity for collaboration among different teachers. The author cautions against the dangers, inherent in the injudicious use of recording devices, of superficial imitation and loss of awareness of internal processes in the therapist, and reiterates the need, whatever the technical devices, to retain a student-centered or process-centered approach to supervision. He suggests a 'model for an integrated concept of supervision' based upon balanced recognition of the student's countertransference as a problem requiring further personal analysis; the student's need for didactic instruction in the specifics of case handling; the countertransference reactions that require immediate handling within the supervisory context; and, the interpersonal impact between student and supervisor. These four modes reflect different periods in the history of psychoanalytic training and may be variously emphasized by supervisors, often without adequate concern for selection of mode best suited to the particular student. To be fruitful all teaching techniques require integration with a deep commitment as to what one teaches, a commitment that historically has made for controversy but also for creativity.