III. Empowerment in Supervision

Power is intrinsic to the supervisory relationship. As a supervisor I am assigned structural power (‘power over ’ to oversee, evaluate and report). To be an effec-tive supervisor I need to earn social power (‘power to ’ be influential) in the eyes of the woman I supervise. In turn, she has the ‘power to ’ collaborate with or to resist the supervisory process and she can earn social power in my eyes (‘power to ’ influence me). Our journey together is shaped by how we each develop and use, or abuse, these powers. In my experience, the essence of empowering super-vision is mutual social power which generates a positive ‘power between ’ us in which we both explore new possibilities of practice and self-concept. A dominant feminist discourse on power totalizes it as bad and destructive. Positioning themselves within this discourse, some feminist supervisors eschew power and strive for friendly and equal supervisory relationships. However, since the supervisory relationship is not structurally egalitarian, an overtly egalitarian relationship simply submerges the structural power as a covert force. When power is not permitted to be recognized or named, it cannot be negotiated or challenged. This silences the woman seeking supervision and minimizes her potential for resistance. Thus, overt egalitarianism can inadvertently increase the power of the supervisor and create an opening for subtle abuse. The alternative is to openly address structural power and develop productive social power. Structural power can be addressed by: (1) making it transparent; (2) fully negotiating and explicating how external requirements will be met; and (3) maximizing choice within the constraints of external requirements. Social power is the potential to influence another. It is neither a structural power ascribed by a third party nor a personal characteristic, but an interpersonal attribute that is earned by one person in the eyes of another. Of the social power bases propose