Abstract The knowledge culture of psychoanalysis relies heavily on the practical wisdom of competent psychoanalytic clinicians. In order to become competent analysts, analysts in training should not content themselves with trusting in their supervisors’ intuition and expertise. There is a need for supervisors and supervisees to explicate implicit theories of interpretive and supervisory techniques in psychoanalytic supervision by raising the question “Where does it come from?” with regard to three too often neglected issues. First, both the supervisor and the analyst in training should actively and constantly try to make transparent the process of contextualization, that is, the methodology of inferring latent meaning from manifest content through privileging certain pieces of information over others. Second, it should become an ongoing task in supervision that concrete (recommendations about) technical interventions are embedded in and reflect the application of a particular theory of technique. This facilitates an understanding that goes beyond the interpretation in a concrete situation and helps to generalize learning into a gradually expanding, integrated technical framework. Third, we should reflect and explicate the (predominant) supervisory approaches we are using in order to remain flexible with regard to both supervisory material and ways of reacting to it. Discussing these issues will enable analysts in training to develop their own psychoanalytic identity and integrated frame of reference for their practice that they critically and deliberately reflect upon and actively acquire rather than passively and seemingly intuitively absorb and adopt. Examples for illustrating the explication of theories of interpretive and supervisory techniques are provided.

中文翻译：

---

“它从何而来？”：呼吁在精神分析监督中阐明解释和监督技术的隐含理论*

摘要 精神分析的知识文化在很大程度上依赖于称职的精神分析临床医生的实践智慧。为了成为称职的分析师，接受培训的分析师不应该满足于对主管的直觉和专业知识的信任。监督者和被监督者需要通过提出“它从何而来？”的问题来解释精神分析监督中的解释和监督技术的隐含理论。关于三个经常被忽视的问题。首先，培训中的主管和分析师都应该积极并不断地尝试使语境化的过程变得透明，即通过将某些信息置于其他信息之上，从明显的内容中推断出潜在含义的方法论。第二，将具体（关于）技术干预措施嵌入并反映特定技术理论的应用应该成为监督中的一项持续任务。这有助于理解超越具体情况的解释，并有助于将学习推广到一个逐渐扩展的综合技术框架中。第三，我们应该反思和解释我们正在使用的（主要）监管方法，以便在监管材料和应对方式方面保持灵活性。讨论这些问题将使分析师在培训中发展他们自己的精神分析身份和综合参考框架，他们批判性地、有意识地反思和积极地获得，而不是被动地和看似直观地吸收和采用。提供了解释解释和监督技术理论的例子。