ABSTRACT
As a way to frame some •nal thoughts and to highlight what I •nd important, let me begin by addressing some common misconceptions about the theory of intersubjectivity and its practice. In Chapter 1, I describe a therapeutic encounter in which the supervisee cries in the course of our joint exploration of the case. I do not mean to suggest that supervision takes the place of, or is a concurrent form of, a training analysis. Such a reaction is not a daily event in supervision. It can only occur as the result of a speci•c •t between the three people immediately involved
in the intersubjective •eld-a •t that is characterized as much by a feeling of safety as it is by a delimited focus on the circumscribed clinical exchange being explored. Nonetheless, inasmuch as the object of analytic scrutiny is in our view made up of the intersecting subjectivities, painful or any other deep feelings on the part of the therapist may emerge as we examine the •eld. In particular they often become the center of attention when there are impasses in the treatment. If we then focus on such feelings it is in the service of understanding the patient. A decentering of the analyst’s feelings is a precondition to reopening the path of empathy toward the patient. As we know, we have to go through, to integrate and go beyond.
