ABSTRACT
The papers presented here by Drs. Caruth and Oberman and the discussion by Dr. Mayman emphasize some aspects of the supervisory situation not commonly focused upon. The expansion of the analyst's working self to include a professional commitment to supervision is more than simply the addition of an important role. Isakower's unpublished references to the unconscious as the “instrument” of analysis paved the way for further elaboration of the functions and traits of the analyst in the process of analyzing—an elaboration that may also be fruitfully applied to the analyst in the process of supervising. The state of mind of the analyst at work— whether analyzing or supervising—may be referred to as “a subsystem in the ego” (Gill & Brenman, 1959), “a categorical person … the temporarily built-up person who [functions] under the circumstances and for the period of his work” (Fliess, 1942), or perhaps somewhat less precisely as “work ego” (Olinick et al., 1973). The differences between these analytic and supervisory functions have previously been discussed at length, and that discussion is carried forward and refined by our panelists.
