Abstract
Psychoanalytic supervision is moving well into its 2nd century of theory, practice, and (to a limited extent) research. In this paper, I take a look at the pioneering first efforts to define psychoanalytic supervision and its importance to the psychoanalytic education process. Max Eitingon, the “almost forgotten man” of psychoanalysis, looms large in any such consideration. His writings or organizational reports were seemingly the first psychoanalytic published material to address the following supervision issues: rationale, screening, notes, responsibility, supervisee learning/personality issues, and the extent and length of supervision itself. Although Eitingon never wrote formally on supervision, his pioneering work in the area has continued to echo across the decades and can still be seen reflected in contemporary supervision practice. I also recognize the role of Karen Horney—one of the founders of the Berlin Institute and Poliklinik, friend of Eitingon, and active, vital participant in Eitingon’s efforts—in contributing to and shaping the beginnings of psychoanalytic education.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The most sensational and scandalous controversy in which Eitingon became embroiled had nothing to do with psychoanalysis. Then as now, speculation has swirled and continues to swirl about his perhaps having been a secret operative for Soviet Russia, maybe even a Stalinist spy or assassin in his post-Berlin days. In an earlier article appearing in this journal, Moreau Ricaud (2005) deftly dealt with those issues and the seeming unfairness of it all for Eitingon and his hard-earned reputation of beneficence. Nevertheless, a recent scholarly paper (Ginor & Remez, 2012)—in which new evidence was used to consider Eitingon’s possible Soviet involvement—is sure to once again fan the flames of speculation about that matter.
Such debate about the training analysis is by no means new, has been with us down through the decades, and was even present during Eitingon’s time. For instance, in the 1930s, Kovacs (1936)—when presenting the Budapest model as alternative to the Berlin model—argued that: (1) the training and control analyses must overlap; and (2) the training and control analyst must be one and the same person (thereby allowing for countertransference analysis to best occur). As Balint (1948) later indicated, Kovacs’ first recommendation eventually found widespread favor, but her second recommendation was hotly debated and proved to be “the main topic of discussions at both Four Countries’ Conferences” (p. 166).
The way in which the training analysis has evolved across the decades may be a big part of our problem: It has metamorphosed into something far different now from what it was then in 1920s Berlin. As Kirsner (2010) has nicely described, training analysis at the outset was flexible, potentially short, relatively unintrusive, and designed to give the candidate a sampling of psychoanalysis. Freud, considered to be the first training analyst, even provided such analysis to Eitingon on their nightly walks in Vienna. Only later did the training analysis come to be viewed as “a means of control instead of liberation” (Kirsner, 2010, pp. 976–977) and the “pseudo-private … concealed center of everything” (Kächele & Thomä, 2000, p. 807).
References
Auchincloss, E. L. & Michels, R. (2003). A reassessment of psychoanalytic education: Controversies and changes. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 84 (1), 387–403.
Balint, M. (1948). On the psychoanalytic training system. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 29 (2), 163–173.
Berman, E. (1997). Relational psychoanalysis: A historical background. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 51 (2), 185–203.
Berman, E. (2000). Psychoanalytic supervision: The intersubjective development. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 81 (2), 273–290.
Bibring, E. (1937). Methods and techniques of control analysis: Report of second Four Countries Conference. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 18 (4), 369–371.
Binder, J. L. & Strupp, H. H. (1997). Supervision of psychodynamic therapies. In C.E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of Psychotherapy Supervision. (pp. 44–62). New York: Wiley.
Board on the Professional Standards of the American Psychoanalytic Association (2010). Standards for Education and Training in Psychoanalysis. New York: APA. http://www.apsa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yo5vqUk7jJ8%3d&tabid=219, accessed May 9, 2012.
Bosworth, H., Aizaga, K. H. & Cabaniss, D. L. (2009). The training analyst: Analyst, teacher, mentor. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 57 (3), 663–675.
Brill, A. A. (1943). Max Eitingon. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 12 (3), 456–457.
Cabaniss, D. L. & Bosworth, H. (2006). The aim of the training analysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 54 (1), 203–229.
Cabaniss, D. L., Glick, R. & Roose, S. (2001). The Columbia Supervision Project: Data from the dyad. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 49 (2), 235–267.
Cabaniss, D. L., Schein, J., Glick, R. & Roose, S. (2003). Progression in analytic institutes: A multicenter study. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 84 (1), 77–94.
Chagoya, L. & Chagoya, C. (1994). The development of a psychotherapy supervisor. In S. G. Greben & R. Ruskin (Eds.), Clinical Perspectives on Psychotherapy Supervision. (pp. 189–209). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Coopersmith, S. (Ed.) (2010). Special issue: The future of the training analysis. Psychoanalytic Review, 97 (6), 899–1020.
Danto, E. A. (1999). The Berlin Poliklinik: Psychoanalytic innovation in Weimar Germany. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 47 (5), 1269–1292.
Danto, E. A. (2005). Freud’s Free Clinics: Psychoanalysis and Social Justice, 1918–1938. New York: Columbia University Press.
DeWald, P. A. (1987). Learning Process in Psychoanalytic Supervision: Complexities and challenges. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
DeWald, P. A. (1997). The process of supervision in psychoanalysis. In C.E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision. (pp. 31–43). New York: Wiley.
Doehrman, M. (1976). Parallel processes in supervision and psychotherapy. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 40 (1), 3–104.
Dorn, R. M., Stein, H. F. & Moore, B. E. (2006). Genealogy in psychoanalytic education: Reinforced adherence or useful aids toward individuation? Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23 (1), 8–29.
Eagle, M. N. (2011). From Classical to Contemporary Psychoanalysis: A Critique and Integration. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Eitingon, M. (1923). Report of the Berlin Psychoanalytical Policlinic. Bulletin of the International Psychoanalytical Association, 4 (4), 254–269.
Eitingon, M. (1926). An address to the International Training Commission. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 7 (2), 129–135.
Eitingon, M. (1928). Report to the International Training Commission. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 9 (2), 135–156.
Eitingon, M. (1933). Report to the International Training Commission. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 14 (1), 155–168.
Eitingon, M. (1935). Report of the general meeting of the International Training Commission. Bulletin of the International Psycho-Analytical Association, 16 (2), 242–262.
Ekstein, R. & Wallerstein, R. (1958). The Teaching and Learning of Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.
Ekstein, R. & Wallerstein, R. (1972). The Teaching and Learning of Psychotherapy. 2nd edn. New York: International Universities Press.
Fine, R. (1979). A History of Psychoanalysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
Fleming, J. & Benedek, T. F. (1966). Psychoanalytic Supervision: A Method of Clinical Teaching. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Fleming, J. & Benedek, T. F. (1983). Psychoanalytic Supervision: A Method of Clinical Teaching. New York: International Universities Press.
Frank, G. (2010). A commentary on the training analysis. Psychoanalytic Review, 97 (6), 945–953.
Frawley-O’Dea, M. G. & Sarnat, J. E. (2001). The Supervisory Relationship: A Contemporary Psychodynamic Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Freud, S. (1909). Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-year-old Boy Standard Edition (Vol. 10, pp. 3–152). London: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1914). On the History of the Psycho-analytic Movement Standard Edition (Vol. 14, pp. 3–66). London: Hogarth Press.
Garza-Guerrero, C. (2004). Reorganisational and educational demands of psychoanalytic training today: Our long and marasmic night of one century. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 85 (1), 3–26.
Gediman, H. K. & Wolkenfeld, F. (1980). The parallelism phenomenon in psychoanalysis and supervision: Its reconsideration as a triadic system. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 49 (2), 234–255.
Ginor, I. & Remez, G. (2012). Her son, the atomic scientist: Mirra Berens, Yuli Kharton, and Max Eitingon’s services for the Soviets. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 11 (1), 39–59.
Hess, A. K. (2008). Psychotherapy supervision: A conceptual review. In A. K. Hess, K. D. Hess & T. H. Hess (Eds.), Psychotherapy Supervision: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2nd edn. (pp. 3–22). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Horney, K. (1930). The establishment of the educational program: On organization. In: Zehn Yahre Berliner Psychoanalytisches Institut.. Vienna: Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag. 48–52.
Jacobs, D., David, P. & Meyer, D. J. (1995). The Supervisory Encounter: A Guide for Teachers of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy and Analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jones, E. (1943). Obituary: Max Eitingon. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 24 (2), 190–192.
Jones, E. (1955). The life and work of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 2. New York: Basic Books.
Kächele, H. & Thomä, H. (2000). On the devaluation of the Eitingon–Freud model of psychoanalytic education. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 82 (4), 806–808.
Kernberg, O. (1996). Thirty methods to destroy the creativity of candidates. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 77 (8), 1031–1040.
Kernberg, O. (2000). A concerned critique of psychoanalytic education. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 81 (1), 97–120.
Kernberg, O. (2010). A new organization of psychoanalytic education. Psychoanalytic Review, 97 (6), 997–1020.
Kernberg, O. (2011). Psychoanalysis and the university: A difficult relationship. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 92 (3), 609–622.
Kernberg, O., Cabaniss, D. L., Auchincloss, E. L., Glick, R. A. & Roose, S. P. (2012). Three problematic assumptions about psychoanalytic education: A brief communication. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 60 (1), 97–102.
Kirsner, D. (2009). Unfree Associations: Inside Psychoanalytic Institutes. New York: Aronson.
Kirsner, D. (2010). Training analysis: The shibboleth of psychoanalytic education. The Psychoanalytic Review, 97 (6), 971–995.
Kovacs, V. (1936). Training and control-analysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 17 (3), 346–354.
Landauer, K. (1937). Difficulties in controlling an analysis: Report of the second Four Countries Conference. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 18 (3), 371.
Lane, R. C. (Ed.) (1990). Psychoanalytic Approaches to Supervision. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Leader, D. (2010). Some thoughts on supervision. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 26 (2), 228–241.
Levy, S. T. (2009). Psychoanalytic education then and now. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 57 (6), 1295–1309.
Lothane, Z. (2007). Ethical flaws in training analysis. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 24 (4), 688–696.
Makari, G. (2008). Revolution in Mind: The Creation of Psychoanalysis. New York: Harper Collins.
McKinney, M. (2000). Relational perspectives and the supervisory triad. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 17 (3), 565–584.
Moreau Ricaud, M. (2005). Max Eitingon and a question of politics. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 65 (4), 353–366.
Ogden, T. H. (2005). On psychoanalytic supervision. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 86 (5), 1265–1280.
Paul, H. A. (2010). The Karen Horney Clinic and the legacy of Horney. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 70 (1), 63–64.
Pomer, S. L. (1966). Max Eitingon: The organization of psychoanalytic training. In F. Alexander (Ed.), Psychoanalytic pioneers. (pp. 51–62). London: Transactions.
Reeder, J. (2004). Hate and Love in Psychoanalytic Institutions. New York: Other Press.
Richards, A. K. (2010). Training analysis and training analyst status: Where are we now? Psychoanalytic Review, 97 (6), 955–969.
Rosbrow, T. (1997). From parallel process to developmental process: A developmental/plan formulation approach to supervision. In M. H. Rock (Ed.), Psychodynamic supervision. (pp. 213–238). Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Rubins, J. L. (1978). Karen Horney: Gentle Rebel of Psychoanalysis. New York: Dial Press.
Sachs, H. (1943). In memoriam: Max Eitingon. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 12 (3), 453–456.
Sarnat, J. (2012). Supervising psychoanalytic psychotherapy: Present knowledge, pressing needs, future possibilities. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42 (3), 151–160.
Schroter, M. (2002). Max Eitingon and the struggle to establish an international standard for psychoanalytic training. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 83 (4), 875–893.
Searles, H. F. (1955). The informational value of supervisor’s emotional experience. Psychiatry, 18 (2), 135–146.
Szecsody, I. (2003). To become or be made a psychoanalyst. Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 26 (2), 141–150.
Teitelbaum, S. H. (1990). Supertransference: The role of the supervisor’s blind spots. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 7 (2), 243–258.
Thomä, H. (1993). Training analysis and psychoanalytic education: Proposals for reform. Annual of Psychoanalysis, 21 (1), 3–75.
Tracey, T. J. G., Bludworth, J. & Glidden-Tracey, C. E. (2012). Are there parallel processes in psychotherapy supervision: An empirical examination. Psychotherapy, 49 (2), 330–343.
Wallerstein, R. S. (Ed.) (1981). Becoming a Psychoanalyst: A Study of Psychoanalytic Supervision. New York: International Universities Press.
Wallerstein, R. S. (2007). The optimal structure for psychoanalytic education: A feasible proposal? Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 55 (4), 953–984.
Wallerstein, R. S. (2010). The training analysis: Psychoanalysis’ perennial problem. The Psychoanalytic Review, 97 (6), 903–936.
Wallerstein, R. S. (2011). Psychoanalysis in the university: The natural home for education and research. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 92 (3), 623–639.
Watkins, Jr. C. E. (2011a). Celebrating psychoanalytic supervision: Considering a century of seminal contribution. Psychoanalytic Review, 98 (3), 401–418.
Watkins, Jr. C. E. (2011b). Toward a tripartite vision of supervision for psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapies: Alliance, transference-countertransference configuration, and real relationship. Psychoanalytic Review, 98 (4), 557–590.
Windholz, E. (1970). The theory of supervision in psychoanalytic education. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 51 (3), 393–406.
Zachrisson, A. (2011). Dynamics of psychoanalytic supervision: A heuristic model. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 92 (4), 943–961.
Zaslavsky, J., Nunes, M. L. T. & Eizirik, C. L. (2005). Approaching countertransference in psychoanalytical supervision: A qualitative investigation. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 86 (4), 1099–1131.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to the Editor and reviewers for their most helpful feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript. I benefited greatly from their ideas about how to expand the scope of this paper and make its content more meaningful.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
1Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of North Texas.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Watkins, C. The Beginnings of Psychoanalytic Supervision: The Crucial Role of Max Eitingon. Am J Psychoanal 73, 254–270 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/ajp.2013.15
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ajp.2013.15