In a State about Hypnosis!

Still in a state about defining hypnosis?

Modern theories of hypnosis have drastically changed the way we view this subject. Because the most common popular view of hypnosis is as an altered state of consciousness of some kind (i.e. trance), this will be used as a departure point to explain how hypnosis (1) has been viewed since the 18th century when it was first systematically studied and mass interest first arose, and (2) has been deconstructed as a unitary concept by some modern scientific theorists of the subject.

The most popular traditional view of hypnosis is a sleep-like state induced by a procedure of some kind by an operator and in which certain special behaviors seem to result; particularly extreme responsiveness to suggestions made during the hypnotic process, including physiological responses, and where anomalies of the experience of volition and memory are consistently reported by subjects.

Therapeutic interest in hypnosis results mostly from the fact that response to suggestions apparently includes some increased capacity to access functions which are normally considered outside of conscious control and memory. Popular interest in hypnosis stems from the therapeutic interest, and because of the long associations of hypnosis with spiritual and secular traditions of self-improvement, self-insight, or self-fulfillment. There has also been interest in hypnotic methods in various areas of medical and scientific research.

A truly balanced and comprehensive study of hypnotic phenomena would probably have to include its relationship with neuroscience, cognitive science, models of subjective experience, models of creative thinking processes, theories of psychosocial development, theories of human language and symbol processing, and various philosophical stances that are still of interest today (such as moral and ethical considerations of various conceptions of the human will and responsibility for actions, and such as the legal status of testimony revealed with the help of hypnosis).

Jeffrey K. Zeig is the founder and director of the Milton H. Erickson Foundation and has written around twenty books on the subject of mind matters and comparative methods of psychology and hypnosis.

He put forward this list in 1988, identifying the following frameworks, into which I have inserted my own additions for clarity and demonstration of how we can be thankful to all and recognise the value of each who has gone before us.

1. Hilgard thought of hypnosis as dissociation, meaning splitting off of aspects of consciousness from each other. One of these aspects was thought to assume dominance at particular times though other aspects were able to influence behaviour simultaneously or even could replace the dominant part.
   
   In modern hypnotherapy, this fits with our methods of using part therapy to help our clients. So, for example, the smoking part may seem dominant at one time for the client, when the client explains that nothing they do can stop themselves smoking. They have tried and tried but still the smoking part remains dominant.

The New Behaviour Generator Model befriends the smoking part and sends it into background awareness whilst encouraging the creative part to emerge and have some air time. Whilst the smoking part is never actually replaced, we do coerce it to morph into a more usefully labelled part with more consciously acceptable behaviours, after of course, eliciting what the positive aspects are of that smoking behaviour. So, for part therapy purposes, Hilgard is tops.

2. Sarbin and Coe describe hypnosis in terms of role playing, Following Robert White's radical interpretation of hypnosis in that a subject is merely playing out the role defined by the requirements of the hypnotist, who claimed the hypnotic process thus
   “its most general goal being to behave like a hypnotised person as this is continuously defined by the operator and understood by the client.”
   Sarbin used concepts from his own role theory using empirical research data, and analogies with other socially constructed roles, to argue that hypnotic subjects did not have to achieve some elusive special state of consciousness but could be better understood as identifying with an unusual social role or behaviour, that is acting out the expected role of a hypnotised subject in response to the directions of the hypnotist.
   This is where our Gestalt Therapy Model comes in. We hypnotists rely on this Model, don’t we, in fact for the client to play the role of an individual (such a parent, employer, neighbour etc) causing angst in the subject’s life to prompt a conversation and ultimately a resolution, between warring parts. This has served me so well over the years, encouraging the client to see the other side of the argument and to pick out any usual purpose or mitigating factors. It is particularly useful if the party in question is unavailable to make peace with in the present day, or, in fact, dead.
   
   Of course we open the role playing up to the subject acting on behalf of his pain in the knee, his irritable bowel or high blood pressure condition, you name it, anything goes, and it usually does with the correct handling.
   Spanos is also a leading proponent of this view. Spanos’ findings were to contribute to the view that the hypnotic state did not exist at all, and that the behaviours exhibited by those individuals are in fact due to their being “highly motivated” by the hypnotist. He stated that hypnosis is not an altered state and is actually the trying on for size, so to speak, of suggested behaviours that the participant either chooses to go along with or not.
   
   Enter here our New Behaviour Generator as we request the part in question to try on some alternative new behaviours that are as good as, or ideally, much better than, the old behaviour ever could be. Thank you Spanos.
   
   
3. T.X. Barber defined hypnosis in terms of non-hypnotic behavioural parameters, such as task motivation. Experiments performed door to door, found that researchers could induce sleepiness by suggestion alone, without the swinging watches or formal protocols used by hypnotists. The power of suggestion worked effectively on about 20 percent of the people tested.
   
   Here we have to thank Mr Barber for proving to us the power of suggestion. Never underestimate the power of suggestion and does one even need to be a in a special state for the suggestion to work? Are we lulled into some specific state as we wonder around isle after isle of brightly coloured packaged products in supermarkets, throwing them into the basket when we just came in for milk? State or non state, what’s your theory? How many times have you agreed to stuff you didn’t want to do? Were you in a state? Love, guilt, feelings of responsibility, arousal, fear, what made you respond to the suggestion given by another? Perhaps we should tighten up our unconscious security, though that is just a suggestion.
   
   
   
4. Weitzenhoffer first considered hypnosis a state of enhanced suggestibility, but later a form of influence of one person on another, such as a dominant spouse or parent, or employer or politician perhaps. Does that mean then that we can legitimately say that we are being hypnotised when our favourite or most respected MP or actor or friend asks us to do something? This would really serve us well then if we acquire enough publicity that fame of our intention and efficacy would just be enough and all we would have to do is say to a large group, something like, stop smoking, or stop shooting each other, please.
   
   
5. Gil and Brenman described hypnosis in psychoanalytic terms as regression in service of the ego, with transference (when feelings felt for another are transferred onto the hypnotherapist.
   
   I have certainly noticed this when I have been leading a course, all of a sudden I wonder to myself what on earth did I say wrong? It seems that quite often an outburst would occur in response to my stating something about hypnosis or similar and something I said or how I said it, or indeed something another person said in the group has provoked a heightened response from another participant. I have thought that something in the behavioural set of that individual has reminded the other of some unfinished business which has proved to be entirely useful when followed up with the practising of hypnotherapy together. So, yes, thank you Gil and Brenman too.
   
   
6. Edmonston assessed hypnosis as relaxation (based on a Pavlovian theory of sleep as partial cortical inhibition). Edmonston even offered a new term to represent this state, which he termed ‘anesis’, from the ancient Greek ‘aniesis’, meaning to relax, or let go. Remember that James Braid coined the term hypnosis to distinguish what he and his contemporaries practiced as being distinct from Mesmer’s animal magnetism. Edmonston , in similar vein, proposed that modern-day hypnosis was so distinctly different from Braid’s definition that it was worthy of this new name (Edmonston, 1991). His book concludes with the prediction that the eyes being “the only naturally visible parts of the central nervous system” would prove to be the keys to understanding hypnosis.
   
   This is surely where our eye catalepsy inductions come in and suggestibility tests using such have come from. Thank you Edmonston.
   
   
7. Spiegel and Spiegel implied that hypnosis was a distinct biological capacity, so I thank them for all the arm levitation inductions I have done.
   
   
8. Milton Erickson held that hypnosis was a unique, inner-directed altered state of functioning and our thanks to Erickson is unquestionable. Directing the subject to an inner state of enhanced awareness is a reliable induction in itself. Engaging with metaphoric, indirect language patterns and encouraging the client’s own subjective reasoning is where all our meeting the client where they are and indirect hypnotic suggestions come from, particularly helpful in working with the difficult client.
   
   
9. Various followers of Erickson's lead have proposed that hypnosis is best defined subjectively and phenomenologically as a process between individuals, and a communications strategy for the achievement of therapeutic goals, with or without recourse to 'trance.'
   
   
10. We should also reserve at least one category for the numerous esoteric, non-scientific, or archaic models which view hypnosis in general as a condition of subtle unidentified or unobservable bodily fluids, a unique electromagnetic field phenomenon, or the result of supernatural influences or contacts, or contact with alternate realms of existence (in a non-metaphorical sense). New age enthusiasts and proponents of angelic realms and other worldly