Shaming Psychoanalytic Candidates

Some sources of shame in analytic training are inevitable, while others could be avoided. I emphasize the shame-inducing aspects of analytic training that are present regardless of the helpful intentions of supervisors and teachers. I consider some possible long term effects of candidates' shame experiences, as they impact our ambitions, and our professional and personal identities.

I think it's a good idea not to overwhelm a supervisee with all the clever ideas that you as a supervisor think you have. This is one of the ways in which I tend to err in supervision. I get very stimulated, and sometimes I talk too much, and it can have a deleterious effect on the work of the supervisee. Occasionally, supervisees who are working through the problems of speaking up against authority in their own analyses begin to indicate to me that I sort of make them feel stupid—things like that.

In these refreshingly candid reflections, Roy Schafer (1984, p. 225) named some of the potential sources of candidates' shame. Which of us has not felt inadequate when we compared ourselves to a renowned supervisor? Are some painful shame experiences inherent in analytic training, and, therefore, unavoidable? Does shame make any positive contribution to our professional growth? After exploring some sources of candidates' shame, I discuss its immediate and long-term impact. Briefly, I believe that our shame experiences in training can have a lasting effect on our subsequent ability to deal with shame in the treatment relationship, as well as on other aspects of our professional and personal lives.

Even when the training process seems successful, the possibility of evoking shame is present, as I will elaborate. But first, I would like to mention the tremendous potential impact when the supervisee feels he is “failing,” for whatever reason. For example, consider the impact on the career and personal life of the candidate who is given a predominantly negative supervisory evaluation. While this