Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

WHAT’S NEW IN PARALLEL PROCESS? THE EVOLUTION OF SUPERVISION’S SIGNATURE PHENOMENON

  • Published:
The American Journal of Psychoanalysis Aims and scope

Abstract

The concept of parallel process has played a central role in psychoanalytic supervision for the last 60 years, generating continuing interest in the power of the unconscious to create unexpected intersections between the analytic and supervisory relationships. I track the evolution of the concept, starting with its invention by an interpersonalist psychoanalyst, adoption by two ego psychologists, enrichment by object relations theory, and, finally, redefinition as a multi-directional dynamic by relational psychoanalysts. I then further elaborate the relational view of parallel process, illustrating its complex, multidirectional nature with an extended vignette. I discuss the relationship of enactment to parallel process and illustrate the usefulness of supervisory consultation when enactments that parallel into the supervisory relationship lead to impasse. Finally, I point to educational and neuropsychological research that suggests that working with parallel process is good pedagogy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arlow, J. A. (1963). The supervisory situation. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 11, 576–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aron, L. (1996). A meeting of minds: Mutuality in psychoanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baranger, M., Baranger, W., & Mom, J. (1983). Process and non-process in analytic work. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 4, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudry, F. D. (1993). The personal dimension and management of the supervisory situation with a special note on the parallel process. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 62, 588–614.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, E. (2000). Psychoanalytic supervision: The intersubjective development. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 81, 273–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, E. (2004). Impossible training: A relational view of psychoanalytic training. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, J. L. (1999). Issues in teaching and learning time-limited psychodynamic psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(6), 705–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00078-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bion, W. R. (1959). Attacks on linking. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 40, 308–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bion, W. R. (1962). Learning from experience. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, M. (2003). Enactment: analytic musings on energy, language, and personal growth. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 13, 633–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burka, J. B., Sarnat, J. E., & St. John, C. (2007). Learning from experience in case conference: A Bionian approach to teaching and consulting. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 88, 981–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cabaniss, D. L., Cherry, S., Douglas, C. J., & Schwartz, A. R. (2011). Psychodynamic psychotherapy: A clinical manual. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caligor, L. (1981). Parallel and reciprocal processes in psychoanalytic supervision. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 17, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Divino, C. L., & Moore, M. S. (2010). Integrating neurobiological findings into psychodynamic psychotherapy training and practice. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 20, 337–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doehrman, M. (1976). Parallel processes in supervision and psychotherapy. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 40, 3–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekstein, R., & Wallerstein, R. S. (1958). The teaching and learning of psychotherapy. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekstein, R., & Wallerstein, R. S. (1972). The teaching and learning of psychotherapy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkind, S. N. (1992). Resolving impasses in therapeutic relationships. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falender, C., & Shafranske, E. (2004). Clinical supervision: A competency-based approach. Washington, DC: APA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Filho, G. V., & Pires, A. C. J. (2010). Benign and disruptive disturbances of the supervisory field. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 91, 895–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fossage, J. L. (1997). Towards a model of supervision from a self-psychological/intersubjective perspective. In H. R. Rock (Ed.), Psychodynamic supervision: Perspectives of the supervisor and the supervisee (pp. 189–212). Northhvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frawley-O’Dea, M. G. (1997). Supervision amidst abuse: The supervisee’s perspective. In M. H. Rock (Ed.), Psychodynamic supervision: Perspectives of the supervisor and the supervisee (pp. 312–335). Northvale, NJ: Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frawley-O’Dea, M. G., & Sarnat, J. E. (2001). The supervisory relationship: A contemporary psychodynamic approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freud, S. (1914). Remembering, repeating and working-through (Standard ed., Vol. 12, (pp. 145–156). London: Hogarth.

  • Freud, S. (1940). An outline of psychoanalysis (Standard ed., Vol. 23, pp. 139–207). London: Hogarth.

  • Gediman, H. K., & Wolkenfeld, F. (1980). The parallelism phenomenon in psychoanalysis and supervision: It’s reconsideration as a triadic system. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 49, 234–255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, I. (1997). Supervision amidst abuse: The supervisor’s perspective. In M. H. Rock (Ed.), Psychodynamic supervision: Perspectives of the supervisor and the supervisee (pp. 339–360). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inman, A. G., & Kreider, E. D. (2013). Multicultural competence: Psychotherapy practice and supervision. Psychotherapy, 50, 346–350.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Isakower, O. (1992). Chapter two: Preliminary thoughts on the analyzing instrument. Journal of Clinical Psychoanalysis, 1, 184–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, T. J. (1986). On contertransference enactments. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 34, 289–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jarmon, H. (1990). The supervisory experience: An object relations perspective. Psychotherapy, 2, 195–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan-Solms, K., & Solms, M. (2001). Clinical studies in neuro-psychoanalysis: Introduction to depth neuropsychology. New York, NY: Other Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. S., Newton, F. B., & Goodyear, R. K. (1987). Clinical supervision: An intensive case study. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18(3), 225–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, J. T. (1991). Clinical and theoretical aspects of enactment. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 39, 595–614.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, L., & Twomey, J. E. (1999). A parallel without a process: A relational view of a supervisory experience. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 35, 557–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newirth, J. (1990). The mastery of countertransferential anxiety: An object relations view of the supervisory process. In R. C. Lane (Ed.), Psychodynamic approaches to supervision (pp. 157–164). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, T. H. (1977). Projective identification and psychotherapeutic technique. Lanham: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, T. H. (2005). On psychoanalytic supervision. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 86, 1265–1280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Panskepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pegeron, J. (1996). Supervision as an analytic experience. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 65, 693–710.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Renik, O. (1993). Analytic interaction: Conceptualizing technique in light of the analyst’s irreducible subjectivity. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 62, 553–571.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, J. (1976). Countertransference and role-responsiveness. International Review of Psycho-Analysis, 3, 43–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarnat, J. E. (1992). Supervision in relationship: Resolving the teach-treat controversy in psychoanalytic supervision. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 9, 387–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarnat, J. (2012). Supervising psychoanalytic psychotherapy: Present Knowledge, Pressing Needs. Future Possibilities. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42(3), 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarnat, J. (2014). Disruption and Working Through in the Supervisory Process: A Vignette from Supervision of a Psychoanalytic Candidate. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 24, 532–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarnat, J. E. (2016). Supervision essentials for the psychodynamic psychotherapies. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sarnat, J., & Levenson, H. (2015). Relational psychodynamic psychotherapy supervision [DVD]. Washington, DC: American Psychoanalytic Association.

  • Schore, A. N. (2011). The right brain implicit self lies at the core of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 21, 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searles, H. (1955). The information value of the supervisor’s emotional experiences. Psychiatry, 18, 135–146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Soreanu, R. (2019). Supervision for our times: Countertransference and the rich legacy of the Budapest School. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 79(3) [In this issue].

  • Stimmel, B. (1995). Resistance to awareness of the supervisor’s transferences with special reference to the parallel process. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 76, 609–618.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Szönyi, G. (2014). The vicissitudes of the Budapest model of supervision: Can we learn from it today? Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 34(6), 606–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teitelbaum, S. (1990). Supertransference: The role of the supervisor’s blindspots. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 7, 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, T. J. G., Bludworth, J., & Glidden-Tracey, C. E. (2012). Are there parallel processes in psychotherapy supervision? An empirical examination. Psychotherapy, 49, 330–343.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2017). Reconsidering parallel process in psychotherapy supervision: On parsimony, rival hypotheses, and alternate explanations. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 34, 506–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winnicott, D. W. (1986). Holding and interpretation: Fragment of an analysis. In The international psycho-analytical library (Vol. 115, pp. 1–194). London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.

  • Wolkenfeld, F. (1990). The parallel process phenomenon revisited: Some additional thoughts about the supervisory process. In R. C. Lane (Ed.), Psychodynamic approaches to supervision (pp. 95–109). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerushalmi, H. (2018). Loneliness, closeness and shared responsibility in supervision. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 78, 231–246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zetzer, H., Sarnat, J., Hopsicker, R., Montojo, P., Plumb, E., & Goodyear, R. (2018). In H. Zetzer (Chair), Back to the future: Investigating parallel process in psychodynamic supervision. Symposium at the Meetings of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern California, 3030 Ashby Avenue, Suite 109B, Berkeley, CA, 94705, USA

    Joan E. Sarnat

Authors
  1. Joan E. Sarnat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan E. Sarnat.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Joan E. Sarnat, Ph.D., ABPP, Personal and Supervising Analyst and a member of the Faculty at the Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern California. Clinical and supervisory practice in Berkeley, CA.

Address correspondence to Joan E. Sarnat, Ph. D., ABPP; 3030 Ashby Avenue, Suite 109B; Berkeley, CA 94705.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sarnat, J.E. WHAT’S NEW IN PARALLEL PROCESS? THE EVOLUTION OF SUPERVISION’S SIGNATURE PHENOMENON. Am J Psychoanal 79, 304–328 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s11231-019-09202-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s11231-019-09202-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation