Posts Tagged ‘hypnosis’
When asked about James Braid, Ernest Rossi said, “Braid is the true father of hypnosis (personal communication, Dec. 7, 2001). His work forms the basis of what I’m doing today.” This praise becomes understandable after a quick look at Braid’s contributions. He not only popularized the terms hypnosis and hypnotist; he first explained trance states as the interplay of physiology and psychology.
Historians credit Braid (1795-1860) as both the first researcher of psychosomatic medicine and the father of modern theories of hypnotherapy.
Braid’s work marked the end of Mesmerism, which held that a hypnotist emanated magnetic fluids to invoke trance. Mesmer believed he could ‘mesmerize’ trees in order to hypnotize passersby, reasoning that the magnetic fluid would pass from the trees to the subjects.
Braid debunked Mesmer’s theory by utilizing a simple ocular fix as an induction technique. He had subjects stare at common, household objects and within minutes, they entered a trance state. His studies proved that hypnosis occurs naturalistically within the subject and wasn’t dependent on the showmanship of the hypnotist. He wrote, “The whole (of the induction) depended on the physical and psychical condition of the patient… and not at all on the volition, or passes of the operator” (Braid, as cited in Tinterow, 1970, p. 283).
Erickson often echoed this theme, “Once you really know…that you don’t do it, your subject does it, you can have unlimited confidence…that your patient is going to go into a trance” (Argast, Landis & Ruelas, 2000, p. 55).
Braid asserted that everyone can be hypnotized, assuring his contemporaries that, “success is almost certain.” (Braid, as cited in Tinterow, 1970, p. 287). Braid described trance as a “universal phenomenon” and “a law of our species” (p.288). Erickson was later to concur, stating, “As long as your subject is alive, you can expect some developed trance state” (Argast et al., 2000, p. 55).
In 1843, Braid conceptualized trance as a, “shift of the nervous system into a new condition,” (Braid, as cited in Tinterow, 1970, p. 271) marked by excitement and the mind’s fascination with a single idea. “It is this very principle, of over-exciting the attention, by keeping it riveted to one subject or idea which is not of itself of an exciting nature… and (a) general repose which excites in the brain and whole nervous system that peculiar state which I call Hypnotism” (p. 301).
Similarly, Braid characterized psychopathology as a mind fascinated with a single, negative idea.
“Abnormal phenomenon are due entirely to this influence of dominant ideas over physical action, and point to the importance of combining the study of psychology with that of physiology, and vice versa” (p. 369). He added that, “all the natural functions may be either excited or depressed… according to the dominant idea existing in the mind of man… whether that has arisen spontaneously, had been the result of previous associations, or the suggestion of others” (p. 369).
Braid regarded hypnotism as a “valuable addition to our curative means,” describing it as “a powerful and extraordinary agent in the healing art,” while cautioning that it wasn’t a “universal remedy” (p. 272). About hypnotherapy, he believed that “the imagination has never been so much under our control or capable of being made to act in the same beneficial and uniform manner by any other mode of management hitherto known” (p. 272).
Braid also detailed the first list of naturally occurring, hypnotic phenomenon: eye movements, pulse and respiratory changes, and catalepsy. He stated that, “All the (hypnotic) phenomena are consecutive” (p. 307). He reported an “extreme acuteness of hearing during the first stage of hypnotism” and advised “allow(ing) the hearing to disappear, by which time all of the other senses will have gone to rest…I allow all of the senses to become dormant and then rouse only the one I wish to exhibit in the state of exalted function, when operating carefully” (p. 312).Braid wrote poetically about how subjects find a somatic balance so they do not topple over. “They acquire (a) center of gravity, as if by instinct, in the most natural and therefore in the most graceful manner ” (p. 305). He added that because of this “faculty of retaining any position with so much ease, I have hazarded the opinion that the Greeks may have been indebted to hypnotism for the perfection of the sculpture” (p. 305)References:
Argast, T., Landis, R. & Ruelas, G. (2000) Now You Wanted A Trance Demonstrated Today. Laguna Nigel, CA: SCSEPH
Tinterow, Maurice M. (1970) Foundations of Hypnosis: From Mesmer to Freud. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas
TIME, OCTOBER 22, 1973Estimated reading time: 3 minutes, 18 seconds.
A shy, gap-toothed young woman arrives at the simple home of a doctor in Phoenix, Ariz. She says she is embarrassed about her teeth and bashful with men. Then, with sudden force and apparent malice, the doctor commands her to practice spurting water through her teeth until she is sure she can hit the young man who often meets her at the office watercooler. Soon after, the woman carries out her mission. The next day, the young man lies in wait for her with a water pistol. Eventually they marry. Her problem seems to have vanished magically.
This and many other oddly simple cures are credited to the foxy grandpa of American hypnotism, Milton H. Erickson. At 71, Erickson stands in the forefront of a revival of hypnotherapy -in eclipse since Freud rejected it as too superficial and impermanent. “Erickson is the most innovative practitioner of hypnosis since Mesmer,” says Dr. Thomas Hackett, chief of the psychiatric consultation service at Massachusetts General Hospital. Although Erickson sometimes uses deep hypnotic trances to work his will on his psychiatric patients, he often limits himself to straightforward commands. He does not, however, explain the exact cures.
Erickson’s successes have been described in a new and hagiographic book, Uncommon Therapy: the Psychiatric Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. (Norton; $8.95), written by Jay Haley, his longtime colleague and admirer. Haley shows how, out of hypnosis, Erickson has drawn a whole bag of ploys that persuade the patient to change himself rapidly. For example, a 250-lb. woman says she is “a plain, fat slob.” Erickson takes over: “You are not a plain, fat, disgusting slob. You are the fattest, homeliest, most disgustingly horrible bucket of lard I have ever seen, and it is appalling to have to look at you.” He continues insulting her-agreeing with her self-image and exaggerating it. The woman reduces to 140 lbs., finds work as a fashion artist and becomes engaged.
As a hypnotist, Erickson often reinforces his control over his subject by challenging him to wake up. For example, he might say: “I want you to try to open your eyes and find that you cannot.” Similarly, performing therapy without hypnosis, Erickson will say: “I want you to go back and feel as badly as you did when you first came in with the problem, because I want you to see if there is anything from that time that you wish to recover and salvage.” Thus, his directive to the patient to relapse actually prevents a relapse.
True Grit. Los Angeles Psychiatrist William Kroger credits Erickson with being one of the first to develop behavioral therapy, which tries to alter behavior patterns without dealing with the unconscious mind. But in addition to his hypnotic techniques, Erickson seems to affect patients through sheer force of personality. He is a man of true grit, who pulled himself through two attacks of polio (after the second, he hiked on canes in Arizona’s Kofa Mountains).
He obviously had no trouble dominating the patients in the cases reported by Haley. Says one fellow therapist disapprovingly: “I had an ex-patient of his come to me; he had reduced her ego to nothing. He’s a strong, powerful, charismatic man. The older he’s got, the more authoritarian he’s become.” Psychiatrist Ira Glick of the school of medicine at the University of California in San Francisco says, moreover, that Erickson does not have a high standing among many therapists because “he has only described a few cases, and he never, never describes any failures.”
Even though Erickson’s practices and claims are sometimes called into question, many doctors give him credit for sticking with hypnosis at a time when it was considered merely a showman’s trick. “Some types of disorders need a certain kind of therapist. Hypnosis is fine for those it helps,” says Psychiatrist Jack Ewalt of the Harvard Medical School. In today’s more open-minded approach to therapy, hypnosis-and its sister principle of strong suggestion-is again finding a place.
Once Erickson has fixated and focused a patient’s attention with a question or general context of interest (e.g., ideally, the possibility of dealing with the patient’s problem), he then introduces a number of approaches designed to depotentiate conscious sets. By this we do not mean there is a loss of awareness in the sense of going to sleep; we are not confusing trance with the condition of sleep. In trance there is a reduction of the patient’s foci of attention to a few inner realities; consciousness has been fixated and focused to a relatively narrow frame of attention rather than being diffused over a broad area, as in the more typical general reality orientation (Shor, 1959) of our usual everyday awareness. When fixated and focused in such a narrow frame, consciousness is in a state of unstable equilibrium; it can be “depotentiated” by being shifted, transformed, or bypassed with relative ease.
Erickson believes that the purpose of clinical induction is to focus attention inward and to alter some of the individual’s habitual patterns of functioning. Because of the limitations of patients’ habitual frames of reference, their usual everyday consciousness cannot cope with certain inner and/or outer realities, and they recognize that they have a “problem.” Depotentiating patients’ usual everyday consciousness is thus a way of depotentiating facets of their personal limitations; it is a way of deautomatizing (Deikman, 1972) an individual’s habitual modes of functioning so that dissociation and many of its attendant classical hypnotic phenomena (e.g., age regression, amnesia, sensory-perceptual distortions, catalepsies, etc.) are frequently manifest in an entirely spontaneous manner (Erickson and Rossi, I 975). Depotentiating the limitations of the individual’s usual patterns of awareness thus opens up the possibility that new combinations of associations and mental skills may be evolved for creative problem solving within that individual.
Erickson’s approaches to depotentiating conscious sets are so subtle and pervasive in the manner with which they are interwoven with the actual process of induction and suggestion that they are usually unrecognized even when one studies a written transcript of his words. In order to place them in perspective we have outlined the microdynamics of induction and suggestion in Table I as: (I) the Fixation of Attention; (2) Depotentiating Conscious Sets; (3) Unconscious search; (4) Unconscious Processes; and (5) Hypnotic Response. We have also listed a number of Erickson’s approaches to facilitating each stage. Most of these approaches are illustrated in this volume and are discussed in more detail elsewhere (Erickson and Rossi, 1974; Erickson and Rossi, 1975; Haley, I 967; Rossi, 1973). Although we may outline these processes as stages of a sequence in Table I for the purpose of analysis, they usually function as one simultaneous process. Because of this, and in order to distinguish these processes from the broader dynamics of induction and mediating variables previously outlined (Barber and DeMoor, 1972) we designate ours as “microdynamics.” When we succeed in fixating attention, we automatically narrow the focus of attention to the point where one’s usual frames of reference are vulnerable to being depotentiated. At such moments there is an automatic search on the unconscious level for new associations that can restructure a more stable frame of reference through the summation of unconscious processes. There is thus certain arbitrariness to the order and the headings under which we assign some of the approaches Erickson used in Table 1. He could equally well begin with an interesting story or pun as with a shock, surprise, or a formal induction of trance. Once the conditions in the first three columns have been set in motion by the therapist, however, the patient’s own individual unconscious dynamics automatically carries out the processes of the last two columns.
A number of Erickson’s most interesting approaches to facilitate hypnotic response are the hypnotic forms listed in column 3 of table 1. All these approaches are designed to evoke a search on the unconscious level. Allusions, puns, metaphors, implications, and so on are usually not grasped immediately by consciousness. There is a momentary delay before one “gets” a joke, and in part, that is what is funny about it. In that delay period there obviously is a search and processes on an unconscious level (column 4) that finally summate to present a new datum to consciousness so that it gets the joke. All the approaches listed in column 3 are communication devices that initiate a search for new combinations of associations and mental processes that can present consciousness with useful results in everyday life as well as in hypnosis. The hypnotic forms listed in columns 2 and 3 are also the essence of Erickson’s indirect approach to suggestion. The study of these approaches may be regarded as a contribution to the science of pragmatics: the relation between signs and the users of signs (Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson, 1967). Erickson relies upon the skillful utilization of such forms of communication, rather than hyper suggestibility per se, to evoke hypnotic behavior.
As noted in Chapter One, it is important to recognize that while Erickson thinks of therapeutic trance as a special state (of reduced foci of attention), he does not believe hyper suggestibility is a necessary characteristic of such trance (Erickson, 1932). That is, just because patients are experiencing trance, it does not mean they are going to accept and act upon the therapist’s direct suggestions. This is a major misconception that accounts for many of the failures of hypnotherapy; it has frustrated and discouraged many clinical workers in the past and may have impeded the scientific exploration of hypnosis in the laboratory. Therapeutic trance is a special state that intensifies the patient-therapist relationship and focuses the patient’s attention on a few inner realities; trance does not ensure the acceptance of suggestions. Erickson depends upon certain communication devices such as those listed in column 3 to evoke, mobilize, and move a patient’s associative processes and mental skills in certain directions to sometimes achieve certain therapeutic goals. He believes that hypnotic suggestion is actually this process of evoking and utilizing a patient’s own mental processes in ways that are outside his usual range of ego control. This utilization theory of hypnotic suggestion can be validated if it is found that other therapists and researchers can also effect more reliable results by carefully utilizing whatever associations and mental skills a particular patient already has that can be mobilized, extended, displaced, or transformed to achieve specific “hypnotic” phenomena and therapeutic goals.
In the therapeutic trance situation the successful utilization of unconscious processes leads to an autonomous response; patients are surprised to find themselves confronted with a new datum or behavior (column 5). The same situation is in evidence in everyday life, however, whenever attention is fixated with a question or an experience of the amazing, the unusual, or anything that holds a person’s interest. At such moments people experience the common everyday trance; they tend to gaze off (to the right or left, depending upon which cerebral hemisphere is most dominant, (Baken, 1969; Hilgard and Hilgard, 1975) and get that “faraway” or “blank” look; their eyes may actually close, their body tends to become immobile ( a form of catalepsy), certain reflexes (e.g., swallowing, respiration) may be suppressed, and they seem momentarily oblivious to their surroundings until they have completed their inner search on the unconscious level for the new idea, response, or frames of reference that will restabilize their general reality orientation. We hypothesize that in everyday life consciousness is in a continual state of flux between the general reality orientation and the momentary microdynamics of trance as outlined in Table I. The well-trained hypnotherapist is acutely aware of these dynamics and their behavioral manifestations. Trance experience and hypnotherapy are simply the extension and utilization of these normal psychodynamic processes. Altered states of consciousness-wherein attention is fixated and the resulting narrow frame of reference is shattered, shifted, and/or transformed with the help of drugs, sensory deprivation, meditation, biofeedback, or whatever-follow essentially the same pattern but with varying emphasis on the different stages. We may thus understand Table I as a general paradigm for understanding the genesis and microdynamics of altered states and their effects upon behavior.
This excerpt has been extracted from Hypnotic Realities by Milton H. Erickson and Ernest Rossi’s Collected Works, Chapter 6: Facilitating Hypnotic Learning.