ABSTRACT
When we consider how important supervision is thought to be during the training of a psychoanalyst or psychotherapist, it is surprising how little has been written about it, A lot of weight is ascribed to the supervisors' reports during training, and yet this job, which demands high skills, may be comparatively new ground when one has clambered up the hierarchy far enough to be asked to do it. It is almost as if it has a special sort of privacy about it, which even experienced practitioners are reluctant to open up and write about; this is so even in the case of analysts who are perfectly prepared to write clinical papers that may be very revealing of themselves at work with patients. I recently attended a meeting of training analysts of the British Society at which the subject under discussion, supervision, possibly threw a little light on this in the sense that writing about supervision may betray that we do, at times, exert "undue" influence on our students. A particular aspect—choice of super 110visors—was discussed at length, and the problem of the extent to which the training analyst influences the choice of his/her student came up. It was suggested, discussed, and then actually proposed that the analyst should never make any sort of influential suggestion to the student but should allow absolutely free choice. This seemed to me impossibly idealistic, to a degree that is totally unrealizable. Psychoanalysts, however well-analysed and self-aware, are only human and have their share of opinions, prejudices, likes and dislikes, rivalries and favouritisms. In fact, in some ways I believe we are a rather disabled profession, disabled in the sense that some of our ideals, and perhaps neutrality and not being hampered by these human attributes, are so inordinately difficult to maintain. Too often, one can become aware that illusions and self-deception grow in the attempt to reach or maintain ideals. And the further up the hierarchy we go, the greater our authority in our own limited sphere, and the fewer the checks and balances; truly, it becomes a case of quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
