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.
Arlow examines the supervisory process by studying its unique characteristic interaction between therapist and supervisor. This reflects and is also analogous to, but not identical with, the interaction in therapy between patient and analyst. The same splits in ego function (Sterba) and vicissitudes of empathy (Greenson) occurring in both patient and analyst in psychoanalysis also take place in the therapist and supervisor in supervision. From the observation in supervision of these transient identifications and shifts in empathy, such difficulties in the analysis as grow out of shared resistances and defenses of patient and therapist with their influence on the nature and timing of interpretations can be inferred, as can the common fantasies and id impulses.
Proper reporting in supervision, analogous to analysis, implies a minimum of resistance. Identification with the supervisor is the most effective pedagogical influence; the work of supervision is addressed to the observing portion of the therapist's ego and imparts information, understanding, and a realistic appraisal of the psychoanalytic process. In addition, Arlow compares supervision as a learning process to artistic creation. He warns that, for the resolution of unconscious problems of the therapist, supervision is no substitute for psychoanalysis (foregoing the collaboration with the therapist's analyst advocated by DeBell)