A Contribution to The Theory and Practice of Supervision*

Throughout the history of psychoanalytic training two approaches to supervising analysts-in-training have prevailed. The first, promulgated by Ferenczi and Rank in the 20s (1966) and Searles (1965) in the 50s, 60s and 70s stresses the importance of empathizing with the analyst-in-training and utilizing countertransference feelings to teach the method of psychoanalysis. Feelings of anger, boredom, and confusion are seen as significant communications worthy of discussion in supervision because of the information potentially to be gleaned about the patient. Ferenczi and Rank believed that the supervisory situation, with its unique function and the additional time required beyond the personal analysis of the analyst-in-training can aid the supervising analyst in “the task of dealing with the unresolved complexes of the candidate as they emerge during his work with the patient” (in Fleming and Benedek. 1966, p. 11). They considered a supervisor, who was also the candidate's personal analyst, as the one most capable of helping the student analyst: for who could know the candidate's character more fully?

The second approach, first stated by Eitingon in the 20s and 30s, as reported in Fleming and Benedek (1966) and A. Reich (1973) in the 50s and 60s, stresses empathic teaching of theory and technique as a means to achieving more effective long-term learning. Analytic sessions had to be fully described during the supervisory hour. The dynamics of the emerging transference, resistances, and dreams had to be understood theoretically and clinically. The supervisor, by