Supervision for our times: countertransference and the rich legacy of the Budapest School

Abstract

In this paper I ask what an investigation of the Budapest model of supervision adds to our psychoanalytic imaginary. The Budapest model confronts us with a number of crucial questions for contemporary psychoanalysis, including the question of envisaging ways of working on the countertransference of the analyst to their patient. I discuss the forgetfulness that surrounds the Budapest model, and I read it in relation to the unsettling issues it stirs up, including those of authority, horizontality, and the ethics of psychoanalysis. In this model, supervision can be seen as a form of "double dreaming" or of "dreaming up of a dream". In particular, in drawing on the writings of Sándor Ferenczi and Michael Balint, I point to some principles behind the Budapest model and to the epistemic, technical, and ethical implications of their ideas. I also work toward a Ferenczian "translation" of the idea of "parallel process".

A supervisão e a transmissão do estilo empático na clínica psicanalítica

“…É dentro dessa perspectiva que vislumbramos um caminho bastante promissor na compreensão do espaço da supervisão no contexto da formação analítica, principalmente a partir da tradição ferencziana. Soreanu (2019) nos explica que a supervisão ferencziana é aquela que produz um double dreaming ou concentric dreaming, como um sonho dentro de outro, ou um sonho sonhando outro sonho. Podemos compreender essa afirmação como se o analista sonhasse o paciente e o supervisor pudesse sonhar o sonho que o analista tem de seu paciente.…”

Supervisory Experiences and Their Context

“…The author highlights the usefulness of consultations at such points of impasse, as well as contributions made by education and neuropsychology, to understand and use parallel processes productively, to enhance personal and professional growth. Soreanu (2019) investigates the contribution of the Budapest School to psychoanalysis and to the theory and practice of analytic supervision and to the training of therapists. The author believes that throughout the entire history of psychoanalysis, the Budapest model has been marginalized and its significant contribution to the theory and practice of analytic therapy overlooked.…”