IJSP Number 4, 2022

48 the supervision relationship itself – a topic discussed in the literature as „ rupture and rupture repair in clinical supervision“ [20] ? We understand clinical supervision also as a learning field [21]. This includes that we assume that the supervisee in his reflection of the relational events with his clients will in a certain way also make comparisons with his relational experience with his/her supervisor. Part of this experience is also dealing with the power imbalance or power differential that exists in some respects between therapist and client and is found in supervision between supervisor and supervisee. Especially in relationship-centred therapies, the therapist may be particularly uncomfortable talking with her supervisor about relationship problems with her client. Even if she can do so, there is a certain risk that she will try to “save face” and to “prove" that the client is responsible for any relationship problems. This will then show itself, for example, in the fact that a certain “pathology“ of the client is put in the foreground and one ’ s own problems in dealing with the client are not talked about. In such a situation, much will depend on the supervisor ’ s ability and willingness to talk in a very personal way about what difficulties he himself would have in dealing with a client who – for example – first “ lifts him to the skies ” and then completely rejects him. Such behaviour on the part of the supervisor is also quite consistent with what Watkins describes in his discussion of rupture repair in supervision as adopting a certain attitude: „ humility – openness, accurate self- assessment and according action (e.g., recognizing limitations, acknowledging mistakes), and other-orientation – is the foundation for any and all rupture repair ” [20, p. 329). In a very general way, we think the three questions raised can be answered this way: From the very beginning, the supervisor has the task of counteracting (also by his own example) any notions of the supervisee (and her- or himself) that clinical work as well as supervision work is about the realization of any perfectionist or other absolute claims. The phenomenon of tilting presupposes an initial situation in which there are two and only two possibilities of perception. In human life, such cases are extremely rare, if given at all. This insight must be struggled for again and again on both sides of the supervision process. REFERENCES [1] Kriz, J. (1996): Zum Verhältnis von Forschung und Praxis in der Psychotherapie. Psychotherapie Forum 4(3). [2] Eubanks, C.F.; Muran, J.Ch.; Safran, J.D. (2018). Alliance Rupture Repair: A Meta-Analysis. Psychotherapy, 55 (4), 508 – 519. [3] Bordin, E. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice , 16, 252 – 260. [4] Metzger, W. (1962/2022): Schöpferische Freiheit. Frankfurt: Waldemar Kramer. 3. Auflage 2022: Schöpferische Freiheit. Gestalttheorie des Lebendigen. Herausgegeben von Marianne Soff und Gerhard Stemberger . Wien: Krammer. [5] Ness, O.; McNamee, S.; Kvello, Ø (eds., 2021). Relational Processes in Counselling and Psychotherapy Supervision . Palgrave Macmillan.