|
Training
analysis
should
become
a
“common
or
garden”
analysis,
not
only
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
analytic
process
but
particularly
because
of
the
abuses
of
power
stemming
inevitably
from
the
institutional
framework,
prone
to
idealization,
splitting
and
disavowal.
This
analysis
took
as
granted,
it
is
certainly
possible
to
imagine
an
institutional
transmission
of
psychoanalysis
focused
on
supervision.
How
should
training
supervision
be
structured
if
it
became
the
core
of
training
and
evaluation?
These
notes
deal
with
some
issues
related
to
a)
institutional
aspects
of
supervision
and
with
b)
the
supervising
process.
Relationship
between
supervisor
and
didactic
analyst,
evaluation
of
the
supervising
process,
promotion,
collective
supervision
are
considered
among
the
former.
The
role
of
transference
and
countertransference,
the
ambiguous
opposition
between
“teaching”
and
“treating”,
the
role
of
imagination
and
surprise,
supervision
as
a
transitional
area
between
subjectivity
and
objectivity
and
the
triad
evaluation-qualification-promotion
are
some
issues
treated
in
the
second
item.
|