This paper examines the meaning of stepping in and out of the formal supervisory roles and allowing relational unbidden experiences in the supervisory space. Such episodes evolve the supervisory relationship because they help to relieve the supervisees of their sense of aloneness in bearing a burdensome clinical responsibility: they change the supervisees’ perspective on therapeutic processes from first person singular to first person plural. Despite their evaluative function and the professional community that they share with supervisees, supervisors can facilitate the emergence of these episodes with the widely accepted practice of imagining therapeutic interactions. Such activity changes the hierarchy and reduces the tension in the supervisory space, and allows unbidden relational experiences to emerge. Thus, challenging the supervisory framework and temporarily stepping out of the formal roles not only strengthens the supervisees’ ethical clinical position but also allows for productive and creative processes in supervision.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Anderson, T., Holberg, J. L. & Carson, K. L. (2000). The contextual therapeutic relationship: Ecological considerations in psychotherapy research and practice. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 37(2), 107–116, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087727.
Bass, A. (2000). Psychoanalysis in a new key: Commentary on Paper by Randall Lehmann Sorenson. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 10, 875–888.
Baudry, F. (1993). The personal management of the supervisory situation with a special note on parallel process. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 62, 588–614.
Bion, W. R. (1970). Attention and interpretation. In: Seven servants. New York, NY: Aronson, 1977.
Bleger, J. (1967). Symbiose et ambiguïté: Étude psychanalytique. [Symbiosis and ambiguity: Psychoanalytic study.]. Paris: P.U.F., 1981.
Boston Change Process Study Group (BCPSG). (2013). Enactment and the emergence of new relational organization. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 61, 727–749.
Brandchaft, B., Doctors, S. & Sorter, D. (2010). Toward an emancipatory psychoanalysis: Brandchaft’s intersubjective vision. New York: Routledge.
Bravesmith, A. (2008). Supervision and imagination. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 53, 101–117.
Brodsky, H. (2017). Supervision triangles and the attempt to turn a blind eye to them. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 53, 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.2017.1348212.
Cavell, M. (2000). Reasons, causes, and the domain of the first-person. In P. Fonagy, R. Michels & J. Sandler (Eds.), Changing ideas in a changing world: The revolution in psychoanalysis. Essays in honour of Arnold Cooper (pp. 207–213). London: Karnac.
Coltart, N. (1993). How to survive as a psychotherapist. London: Sheldon Press.
Cwik, A. J. (2006). The art of the tincture: Analytical supervision. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 51, 209–225.
Driver, C. (2008). Assessment in supervision: An analytic perspective. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 24, 328–342.
Fiscalini, J. (2009). A community of clinicians. Toward a broader concept of the ideal psychoanalytic institute. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 45, 322–329.
Flinders, S. L. (2014). An intimate success with Veronica. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 34, 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2014.899788.
Fonagy, P., Bateman, A. & Luyten, P. (2012). Introduction and overview. In A. Bateman & P. Fonagy (Eds.), Handbook of mentalizing in mental health practice. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Fosha, D. (2005). Emotion, true self, true other, core state: Toward a clinical theory of affective change process. Psychoanalytic Review, 92, 513–551.
Fosshage, J. L. (1997). Toward a model of psychoanalytic supervision from a self-psychological/intersubjective perspective. In M. H. Rock (Ed.), Psychodynamic supervision: Perspectives of the supervisor and supervisee (pp. 189–210). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Frank, J. D. & Frank, J. B. (1991). Persuasion and healing: A comparative study of psychotherapy (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Frawley-O’Dea, M. G. & Sarnat, J. E. (2001). The supervisory relationship: A contemporary psychodynamic approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Friedman, D. & Kaslow, N. (1986). The development of professional identity in psychotherapists: Six stages in the supervision process. The Clinical Supervisor, 4, 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1300/J001v04n01_03.
Gabbard, G. O. (2000). What can neuroscience teach us about transference? Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis, 9, 1–18.
Gallese, V. (2009). Mirror neurons, embodied simulation, and the neural basis of social identification. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 19, 519–536.
Gardner, J. R. (1995). Supervision of trainees: Tending the professional self. Clinical Social Work Journal, 23, 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02191751.
Hanoch, E. (2006). The loudness of the unspoken: Candidates’ anxiety in supervision. Psychoanalytic Perspectives, 3(2), 127–146.
Herzog, B. (2016). Establishing the therapeutic impact of empathy through “affect sharing”. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology, 11, 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1141609.
Hopper, E. (2009). The theory of the basic assumption of incohesion: Aggregation/massification or (BA) I:A/M. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 25, 214–229.
Jacobs, D. (2001). Narcissism, eroticism, and envy in the supervisory relationship. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 49(3), 813–829.
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.
Koh, E. & Twemlow, S. (2016). Towards a psychoanalytic concept of community (II): Relevant psychoanalytic principles. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 13, 124–141.
Langs, R. (1997). The framework of supervision in psychoanalytic psychotherapy. In B. Martindale, M. Mörner, M. E. Rodriguez & J.-P. Vidit (Eds.), Supervision and its vicissitudes (pp. 117–133). London: Karnac Books.
Lanyado, M. (2016). Transforming despair to hope in the treatment of extreme trauma: A view from the supervisor’s chair. Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 42, 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/0075417X.2016.1191198.
Lord, S. (2015). Meditative dialogue: Cultivating the transformative theater of psychotherapy. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 22, 71–87.
Milner, M., (1955). The role of illusion in symbol formation. In P. Heimann, M. Klein & R. E. Money-Kyrle (Eds.), New Directions in Psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Moss, D. (2001). On hating in the first person plural. Thinking psychoanalytically about racism, homophobia, and misogyny. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 49, 1315–1334.
Nijenhuis, E. & Van der Hart, O. (2011). Dissociation in trauma: A new definition and comparison with previous formulations. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 12, 416–445.
Ogden, T. H. (2005). On psychoanalytic supervision. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 86, 1265–1280.
Pollack-Gomolin, R. (2002). The countertransference dream. Modern Psychoanalysis, 27, 51–73.
Quagelli, L. & Solano, P. (2016). On interpretative experiences: Unconscious-to-unconscious communication through reverie, language, and the setting. Psychoanalytic Review, 103(2), 169–198.
Ringel, S. (2001). In the shadow of death: Relational paradigms in clinical supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 29, 171–180.
Rustin, M. (2006). Psychoanalysis and the social order. Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 7, 335–352.
Sander, L. W. (2002). Thinking differently: Principles of process in living systems and the specificity of being known. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 12, 11–42.
Searles, H. F. (2017). Concerning transference and countertransference. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 27(2), 192–210.
Stern, D. N. (2004). The present moment in psychotherapy and everyday life. New York, NY: Norton.
Stern, D. B. (2013). Relational freedom and therapeutic action. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 61, 227–255.
Stern, D. N., et al. (1998). Non-interpretive mechanisms in psychoanalytic therapy: The ‘something more’ than interpretation. [The Process of Change Study Group]. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 79, 903–921.
Szecsödy, I. (2008). Does anything go in psychoanalytic supervision? Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 28, 373–386.
Szecsödy, I. (2013). Supervision should be a mutual learning experience. The Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 36, 126–129.
Tronick, E. Z. (2001). Emotional connections and dyadic consciousness in infant-mother and patient-therapist interactions: Commentary on paper by Frank M. Lachmann Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 11, 187–194.
Tucket, D. (2005). Does anything go? Towards a framework for the more transparent assessment of psychoanalytic competence. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 86, 31–49.
Varela, F. J. (2000). El Fenómeno de la vida [The Phenomenon of Life]. Chile: Dolmen Ediciones.
Watkins, C. E. (2012). Moments of real relationship in psychoanalytic supervision. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 72, 251–268.
Watkins, C. E. & Callahan, J. L. (2016). How does psychoanalytic supervision work? A brief communication. The Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 39, 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/01062301.2016.1218599.
Zachrisson, A. (2011). Dynamics of psychoanalytic supervision: A heuristic model. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 92, 943–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-8315.2011.00417.x.
Zicht, S. R. (2013). On the experiential and psychotherapeutic dimensions of psychoanalytic supervision: an interpersonal perspective. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 73, 8–29.
Zinkin, L. (1996). Supervision: The impossible profession. In P. Kugler (Ed.), Jungian perspectives on clinical supervision. Einsiedein: Daimon Verlag.
Address correspondence to: Hanoch Yerushalmi, Ph.D., Professor emeritus, Department of Community Mental Health, University of Haifa, 48a Eder Street, 3475293, Haifa, Israel.
About this article
Cite this article
Yerushalmi, H. LONELINESS, CLOSENESS AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY IN SUPERVISION. Am J Psychoanal 78, 231–246 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s11231-018-9147-4
- moments of meeting
- clinical responsibility