From the author: The article analyzes the hidden complexities of supervisory practice, which are associated with a similar structure of the supervision process and personality theory in psychoanalysis. The article also talks about the master class “Therapeutic Supervision*”, conducted by the authors of the project of the same name on the 25th Anniversary Abstract: The article analyzes the hidden complexities of supervisory practice, which are associated with a similar structure of the supervision process and personality theory in psychoanalysis. The article also talks about the master class “Therapeutic Supervision*”, conducted by the authors of the project of the same name at the 25th Anniversary Conference of MGI in 2016. Key words: supervision, supervisory process, shame, fear of evaluation, personality structure, psychoanalysis, Id, Ego, Super -Ego, Personality. Supervision is a form of professional reflection and self-care for a psychotherapist. And a very necessary thing. However, in reality, very few of my colleagues regularly use this support and form of self-care. Of course, there are also banal economic reasons. People simply feel sorry for spending money on supervision. But I think there are other reasons, purely psychological and essentially “field”. The main problems of beginners and psychotherapists who continue to practice for some time are: 1) strong shame and fear of evaluation during supervision 2) lack of understanding of what it is and how and why to use it It is these experiences of colleagues who form resistance to the institution of supervision. I will note that, as a rule, over time, users of supervision stop experiencing these feelings to such a strong extent, or understand that they are useful. That is, regular experiences of shame and professional evaluation form tolerance to experience. But my question remains: is this torment really necessary, or are we still victims of our own traditions (“five minutes of shame and you’re free” is a common expression in the scientific community)? When will our team (Viktor Bogachenko, Denis Avtonomov, Elena Leontyeva) formulated the values ​​of the Therapeutic Supervision project, I vividly remembered an episode from my first intensive course in Sochi. I was a client and not yet enrolled in the program. My mind was free of introjects of subsequent learning about how to properly be a therapist, client, or supervisor. Everything was for the first time. And I clearly remember that the presence of a supervisor and his intervention greatly influenced the process. And this influence seemed to me to be a variant of an irregular, ugly form. Then I went to study in the program and my protest faded away: “since they teach it this way, then this is how it should be.” It is clear that the presence of a supervisor, work in groups of three is very important for learning and the form itself is educational and is never encountered in life. It is obvious. It’s not obvious - why maintain an ugly form that is not found in real practice? At this point my healthy Geshgalt realism is greatly strained. I don’t like ugly forms. And only now has this protest taken shape in my understanding of why, in fact, I don’t like this form and seems strange. The fact is that the institution of supervision itself and its structure were inherited from the psychoanalytic tradition. I would venture to suggest that the three-member structure of supervision is directly related to the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe structure of the psyche in psychoanalysis. In accordance with the principle of similarity, the structure of the therapeutic process repeats the mental process. So, in this hypothesis, the Client is a representative of the Id structure or Id-function. Let the orthodox Gestaltists forgive me, in this particular case I do not see a fundamental difference between the ideas about the structure of the psyche in psychoanalysis and the Gestalt approach. So, the Client with his restless Id comes to the Therapist, personifying the Ego or Ego function. Then the Therapist goes to the Supervisor - to the Super-Ego (an experienced figure who knows the rules). The therapist is responsible for the Ego simply because it is his concern to somehow resolve the situation between the Id and the Ego. In fact, the therapist is a mediator betweenClient and Supervisor. So, the entire mental process is fragmented into three people, but, in essence, represents a single mental reality. The advantage of this unity is the ability to detect between the supervisor and the psychotherapist phenomena that are hidden from the therapist when working with the client (figures of avoidance, possible request, etc.). The unity of this process allows us to detect “transitioning figures” from the client-therapist pair to the client-supervisor pair. The client, the carrier of the Id, has some desires, needs, unconscious drives, conflicts that he wants to discuss and resolve with the help of the Ego (therapist ) - the authority that makes decisions and makes preferences after analyzing the situation. The therapist, when applying for supervision, complicates the structure and tells the Super-Ego about the problems of the Id and how he, the therapist, copes with the presence of such problems in the Id. The Super-Ego or Personality in this case represents that side of psychic reality that is responsible for identity, prohibition laws and the like. And it is very important what kind of Super-Ego it is, because it directly determines what kind of supervision there will be. Shame, fear of evaluation, inhibition of activity and creative adaptation, desire for approval - all this is addressed to the Super-Ego. And supervision can turn out to be judgmental, punitive, too oppressive and “overfeeding”, supportive, or something else. In a sense, we are captive of this structure and recreate its semblance all the time. This is especially important here, in Russia, where the Super-Ego is distinguished by special, often contradictory features. It is necessary to have a good understanding of the background in which certain institutions exist. We are very inclined to absolutize the supreme authorities, power, to endow it with supernatural divine features. And we had different Gods in Russia. Including very scary ones. Transferential characteristics of a supervisor - controller, overseer, inspector, strict teacher, senior comrade, dear father. Any inspector in our reality is an enemy. Plus, experienced Russian psychotherapists, with more than 20 years of work experience, are usually associated in the past and present with the academic teaching environment, which is also reflected in transference characteristics. I think it is precisely in connection with this background that the, so to speak, cautious attitude towards the institution of supervision is associated . There, in the depths of supervision, you can run into something unpredictable and toxic. And dangerous for security. As a consequence of this process, therapists become unnecessarily infantilized, become unstable, and become fearful and avoidant of supervision. Supervision often neuroticizes the therapist, forcing him to lose spontaneity and fixate on hidden value systems (which turn into prescriptions) of Gestalt therapy - expressing feelings, maintaining a therapeutic position, boundaries, desire for contact, etc. If you move within the field of this assumption, a lot of questions arise Perhaps the institution of supervision is not at all suitable for our society, which is prone to internal distrust, condemnation and at the same time protest? May the Gestaltists forgive me once again, perhaps it is precisely in the organization of the educational supervision process that Gestalt looks like a caricature of psychoanalysis, losing its root features. What to do other than remain unsatisfied slaves of the field? In preparation for the workshop “Therapeutic Supervision”, which was held at At the 2016 anniversary Gestalt Conference of the MHI, it was decided to conduct an experiment to change the structure of the supervision process. We abandoned the traditional form - working in threes - respecting the principle of reality, in which this form of work does not exist. The workshop took place in two stages: 1) The group was divided into clients and therapists. The therapeutic session lasted 15 minutes. 2) Then the therapists chose a supervisor from those group members who had previously worked as clients. The obligatory condition was not to repeat the pairs of the first stage. In the second stage, “Therapist-Supervisor,” we asked participants for twenty minutespay attention to the therapist’s therapy, that is, the therapeutic part of the supervision process - feelings in connection with the just ended session, connections with personal history, current state, etc. Theoretically, we assumed that if we make the therapeutic part legal and allocate special time for it, this will help further process analysis. This part of the experiment, as well as a change in the setting (working in twos, not threes) evoked support from the participants - it was the “legalization” of the therapist’s client feelings that made the process more conscious and effective. In feedback, participants reported that the fact that the supervisor was “ fresh, just from a client position,” added “depth” to the supervision. Participants also said that the developed memo for the workshop helped make the work more complex and multi-level. We were convinced that the supervision process is a creative process and needs experimentation, striving for a more convenient, good form. Because supervision does not need punitive or judgmental practices at all. And even the presence of special “experience” of the supervisor, in my opinion, is greatly overestimated and, again, comes from the traditions of psychoanalytic practice. As proof, I will cite the greater popularity of the intervisor format of groups than the supervisor format. For the punishing and controlling functions, there are other institutions - commissions or ethics committees, for example. This prefix “super-” itself spoils a lot. It only stirs up the narcissistically wounded hearts of Russian psychotherapists. This is humor. There is no "super-". Supervision would still have a chance to be “super” if it were free. But it is paid, and at the highest rate. I strongly believe in the power of words and I think that, as often happens in our reality, direct export of supervision in the same string bag with superheroes is not suitable for us. The main real characteristic of a supervisor is simple - he is a therapist for a therapist who wants therapy about his professional activities. This is an equal figure, a colleague - with whom there is an equal relationship. I am sure that not everyone will agree with me in this place; it depends on many reasons - on the philosophy of the therapist, on his experience, personal and professional. But the problem of resistance to supervision exists and ignoring it does not solve anything. I think that the institution of supervision in our community is still in the process of formation and it requires the creative efforts of a variety of therapists and supervisors to ensure that it takes a suitable form. It may be necessary to start at the beginning—identifying the supervision needs of the therapists themselves. Suppose that the mandatory supervision part of the educational process did not exist at all - what would they want from supervision then? Interesting, isn't it? Appendix Booklet “Therapeutic Supervision” Therapeutic Supervision is a form of professional reflection and self-care of a practicing psychotherapist. Therapeutic Supervision is therapy by a psychotherapist regarding his professional activities. Therapeutic part: How do you feel after work? How did the client’s story make you feel? What is the metaphor? comes to mind? Do you have any association with the client or the story he told you? What personality traits of the client caught your attention? Do you have any current personal condition that is somehow related with the client's history? Supervisory (analytical) part: Determining the therapist’s request (request for praise, support, condemnation, punishment, admiration, advice, hint, etc.) is one of the ways to find out the client’s unconscious request. Work on request: process-analysis. To help analytical part of the prompt to the supervisor: Type of client request Is there a hypothesis about the figure of the session, about an experience that is difficult to express in the session (the so-called “avoided experience”) What the therapist did in the session, what actions he took or did not take Was it possible to maintain the therapeutic position Did he use his experiences in. +7(926) 278-28-74.