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.
Fedida discusses modes of conceptualizing supervision. Perhaps the classical view offers an objective model of the supervised case: the material is discussed by supervisor and supervisee, with emphasis on observation, selective attention, memory, and synthesis. This medical or scientific view emphasizes the case, patient, treatment, etc., as imaginary objects for the contract of exchanges between supervisor and supervisee. In contrast is the model drawn from communications theory: the supervisor is said to serve less as a superego function and more as a facilitator of communication between the supervisor, the treating analyst, and the progress of the treatment. This communicational aspect is contrasted with the emphasis on memory in psychoanalytic work. Fedida proposes that the use of the communications model increases interest in psychic functioning and co-functioning in their interrelation, and moves away from the anecdotal method of the supervisee recounting all that can be remembered of a session. There is a third way of viewing the supervisor/supervisee session, that is, of someone who is speaking before an analyst. The last view gets away from supposing there are two types of analytic work—treatment and supervision—in favor, simply, of what is said before an analyst. Such a view, with no separate theory of supervision, emphasizes the unity of psychoanalysis.