On the morning of Sunday, March 4, 2012 there will be 8 concurrent invited panel discussions. Please click here to see a description of all panels. Here the participants, Emanuel Berman and Philip Ringstrom reflect on what their panel will attempt with a live and improvisatory presentation.

Emanuel Berman
My interest in training, and particularly in the supervisory dyad, dates back many years. My first publication in this area appeared in 1988, and was entitled "The joint exploration of the supervisory relationship as an aspect of psychoanalytically oriented supervision." When I joined the newly formed Relational Orientation at the NYU Postdoc program, during a sabbatical in NYC in 1992-93, I sought to integrate this interest with the basic issues raised by Steve Mitchell and by this creative group of analysts. Issues of training and supervision came up in many of my discussions with Steve, Mannie Ghent (my former supervisor at the NYU Postdoc), and other colleagues. One of my conclusions was that discussing supervision among supervisors alone is futile -- that in the absence of the supervisee's perspective the dynamics of the dyad cannot be fully understood.

The International Psychoanalytic Association held a conference on supervision in Barcelona, in 1997, and I was delighted when the organizers accepted my proposal that each small discussion group will explore the supervisory process of one dyad, with both supervisor and supervisee presenting their experience. This innovative format was established over the objections of numerous analysts who were concerned about boundaries being eroded.

I crystallized my thinking about the emotional currents of supervision in "Psychoanalytic supervision: The Intersubjective Development" which appeared in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis (2000, 81:273-290) and was included in Relational Psychoanalysis volume 2 (2005). I became more cognizant of the mutuality of many of the anxieties and vulnerabilities of the supervisory situation. My discussions about training issues with Steve continued during my next sabbatical at NYU, in 2000. Shortly after that sabbatical our lively dialogue was cut short by Steve's sudden death.

Steve helped me plan a book about training, and Lew Aron and Adrienne Harris helped me complete it, under the title "Impossible Training: A Relational View of Psychoanalytic Education" (2004). This book expands the intersubjective analysis of supervision, in the context of the wish to reduce the infantilizing, judgmental and conformist aspects of many psychoanalytic institutes, which at times promote a false analytic self.
In line with my feeling that both partners in the dyad must be heard, I led supervisor-supervisee open discussions in conferences organized at the Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute (2007) and the Massachusetts Institute of Psychoanalysis (2008).

In the forthcoming IARPP conference we will utilize such a spontaneous format too. I was delighted that Philip A. Ringstrom consented to conduct a real-life supervisory session on stage, and that his supervisee, Michael Pariser, agreed to present a session with his analysand. This will be the first half of our panel, while in the second half I will invite Phil, Michael and the audience to join me in figuring out the subtle interactions and relational patterns we all experienced and observed. Our goal will be to avoid the traditional focus on the patient, and to listen to the supervisory process as an intersubjective phenomenon in its own right, with its own conscious and unconscious nuances, which necessarily go beyond its stated educational goals.

Philip Ringstrom
I am delighted to have been invited to join Emanuel Berman on this panel on supervision. It will be very exciting to see what insights Emanuel, as well as audience members, will have regarding the in vivo supervisory process I will be conducting with Michael Pariser, Ph.D. Michael is an analytic candidate from ICP-LA (who actually just graduated!) and with whom I have been engaged in supervision on one of his three psychoanalytic four sessions per week control cases.

Our supervisory experience has been a joyous one for me, which says quite a lot after having been doing supervision for close to thirty years. Part of what makes it so meaningful is that Michael readily engages with me in an improvisatory method in taking up his work with his analytic patient. Looking for the places of an improvisatory attitude and process has been a subject of fascination of mine for close to a decade and a half culminating in 12 published articles and chapters on the subject as well as several presentations at several conference venues including IARPP, Self Psychology, Division 39 and the American Psychoanalytic Association.

How an improvisatory method arises between Michael and me begins with our listening to audio recordings of his work with his patient. Since he sees her four times a week, he has to choose limited parts of his sessions, a decision he makes on a number of basis’ including for example, something he is puzzled about, something he felt did not go so well and he wonders why, or periodically something that really exemplifies quality analytic work that he wishes to share with me for both our edification, enjoyment, and recognition of the good work coming out of our supervisory sessions. Meanwhile, I have complete freedom to intermittently ask Michael to pause the recording so that I can spontaneously react to something that I am hearing in his process with his patient. This supervisory method has been amazing and is one that I would strongly encourage others to do, though it takes a lot of guts on the part of the supervisee to be so transparent.

For reasons of confidentiality, our panel at the upcoming IARPP conference has elected not to share direct audio recorded material. However, we did decide that Michael will prepare some transcript material that he can read aloud. On that basis, we will attempt to simulate something of a process that has become so familiar to us. Best of all, we will then have Emanuel to improvise with us, in sharing his spontaneous thoughts and questions, and, of
course, it will be fun to engage the audience in a like manner.

One last note is in memory of Stephen Mitchell, who was my third control case supervisor from 1994 to 1996 when I was engaged in my analytic training at ICP-LA from 1992-1996. Of course our supervisory sessions had to occur over the phone, but it was remarkable to me how present I always experienced him being, including the crunchy sound of his sandwich as he listened intently to my analytic tale. I miss that sound, one that I found comforting and a bit amusing, but which I also readily accepted, since, after all, while it was 9:00 AM for me, it was lunch time for him!I just felt lucky enough to have gotten time with him, which not only created one of my greatest supervisory experiences, but also graced me with a dear mentor and friend, so sorely missed!

Take me to eNews Cover | Take me to top of this page