ABSTRACT
Initially it was the Hungarian School headed by Michael and Alice Balint with the influence of Sandor Firenczi hovering in the background that recognized this as a conundrum and tried to find a solution by incorporating an awareness of the effect of the personality of the therapist on therapy into the process of supervision. The Hungarian School proposed that the first control case of a student analyst be supervised by his or her analyst, arguing that only the analyst could be aware of the role that the personality of the trainee analyst played in the treatment. A debate about supervision ensued which according to Rosbrow led to a 'teach-treat split as a false dichotomy based on the spurious premise that only interpretive work is legitimate in analysis and only instruction is appropriate in supervision'. The co-constitution of the intersubjective field and the context-dependent interpretation of human meaning apply both to the context of supervision and treatment.
