Hypnosis as a Therapeutic Practice - Essay Example

 Hypnotherapy Hypnosis as a therapeutic practice has been studied and debated for centuries. The uninitiated generally consider the term hypnosis to define a trance-like state of consciousness. The subject is transformed into complete submissiveness by the hypnotist who assumes control of the subject’s mind and actions. This presumption is, of course, untrue, however; a comprehensive explanation of hypnotic phenomenon, specifically the altered state theory continues to be debated among scholars and scientists. Disagreements regarding the altered state theory have served to create differing conceptions of hypnosis, most entrenched in hypotheses concerning an individual’s social composition and their anticipation of results. Following a historical perspective of hypnosis, this paper contrasts the differing concepts of the ‘state’ and ‘non-state’ theories. It also considers contemporary theoretical perspectives of hypnotherapy and particular associations with psychotherapy. As a therapeutic technique, hypnotherapy predates psychoanalysis by more than 100 years. Before shelving the technique to pursue his theories of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud used hypnosis therapeutically. Hypnosis is thought to be as old as humankind itself and until recent times, has been cloaked in mystery. It has been associated with witchcraft, Satanism, the supernatural, and practiced by Shamans, Druidic high priests and physicians of Greece. It has been practiced under various descriptions in numerous places throughout the centuries. The art of hypnosis went from being associated with the healing arts to one of witchery and generally thought of as something that possessed sinful supernatural powers during the period that included the Middle Ages. It remained thought of in this way until Franz Mesmer founded the concept of hypnosis in the late 18th Century. He initially placed magnets on the body believing that would produce the hypnotic effect but discovered that it was he who was actually generating this result. He was the first to suggest that, more significant than material introductions, the human imagination was the actual influence producing the hypnotic effect. Hypnotherapy can be even today viewed as the “therapeutic use of a person’s imagination” (Shelp, 2003). After centuries of observation and research, two theories, State and Non-State, have emerged which define both fundamental centralized concepts of hypnosis. At the most basic level, these theories oppose one another principally in regard to the significance that non-state theories place upon associations with cognitive activities. The most prominent of State theories, dissociation, considers hypnosis as a state in which the subject is an inactive party (Spanos & Chaves, 1991). Advocates of the dissociation perspective indicate that suggestions by the hypnotist are transformed by the subjects which in turn facilitate involuntary actions. Hypnotized subjects are in a trance-like state in which multifaceted behaviors can be easily extracted by the hypnotist without the conscious consent of the subject (Spanos & Chaves, 1989). Dissociation refers to a literal dividing of some components of consciousness and hypnosis is seen an example of dissociation as areas of an individual’s behavioral control becomes separated from everyday awareness. Hypnosis eliminates some control from the conscious mind and the individual responds with autonomic, reflexive actions. The supplemental analysis of this theory generated the definition of neo-dissociation hypnosis which theorizes that fractional dissociations of cognitive structures in the brain allows for hypnosis. Although there is no scientific research that positively substantiates the altered state theory of hypnosis, many acknowledged scholars subscribe to the theory. In 1980, Milton Erickson, the most well-known advocate of this viewpoint, suggested that hypnosis was a special state of highly-focused attention. The conviction that hypnosis was chiefly a process of the inner-self was a departure from the more conventional theories. Though the hypnotic response was facilitated by the hypnotist, according to this theory, it occurred only as a result of the subject’s own inner characteristics. “The hypnotic trance belongs only to the subject; the operator can do no more than learn how to proffer stimuli and suggestions to evoke responsive behavior based upon the subject’s own experiential past.” (Erickson, 1980). According to the non-state theory, “the vital functions and behavior of someone in a hypnotic trance are not dissimilar to those of someone who is not in a trance” (Barber, 1969, p. 7). People do many of the same things during normal everyday activities as they do while hypnotized such as imagine themselves as others, acting, concealing and fantasizing. While under the influence of either a hypnotic or an everyday trance, people have the capability to consciously or subconsciously concentrate on a particular motivation and block out all others. Additionally, non-state theorists suggest that what occurs to subjects during hypnosis can be accounted for principally in terms of the rapport between the hypnotist and the subject, based on the subject’s “psychology, motivations, and drives. As children, they try to please their parents; as students, they seek approval from teachers; and as hypnotic subjects, they do the same” (Barber, 1969, p. 7). For the non-state theorist, hypnosis is not at all an extraordinary phenomenon or a method by which to control behavior. According to Barber, the susceptibility to being hypnotized is the result of interpersonal factors. The subject has the innate need to make the hypnotist happy by effectively executing what is requested of them, much of the same sort of relationship that occurs between a subject and therapist in any type of psychotherapy. The many attempts by learned researchers to define hypnosis have involved a never ending argument of ‘chicken and the egg’ style semantics. A person is said to behave a certain way because they are hypnotized but it is hardly sufficient evidence to prove they are hypnotized simply because they behave by a prescribed means. Another definition is that a person is under a trance because they are hypnotized as evidenced by the fact that they are hypnotized so therefore they must be in a trance. According to Barber, “proof that hypnosis is a special state of consciousness requires the discovery of behavior other than that used to describe it” (Barber, 1969, p. 7). The terms ‘hypnosis’ and ‘trance’ are often used interchangeably without knowing precisely the definition of either. Scientific research and instruments should be able to clearly indicate the distinction between an asleep and alert condition if hypnosis is indeed a distinctive state. “For nearly one hundred years, researchers have been trying to delineate an objective physiological index that differentiates the hypnotic state from non-hypnotic states. The attempt to find a physiological index of ‘hypnotic trance per se’ has not succeeded” (Barber cited in Brown, 1991, p. 175). More specifically, physiological procedures such as blood pressure, EEG, pulse rates, etc. do not reveal dissimilarities between the ‘hypnotic’ and ‘normal’ state. According to the state theory, an altered state of consciousness is the central element of hypnosis. Non-state theorists think that more commonplace psychological procedures such as focused attention and expectation satisfactorily explain the hypnotic experience. Hypnotic literature’s most broadly disputed issue is whether hypnosis is an amalgamation of ordinary conscious psychological implementation processes or an altered state of consciousness. “Is hypnosis a state of consciousness (trance), induced via myriads of induction techniques as neo-disassociation theory proposes? Certainly, the majority of practicing clinicians who work with hypnosis within the disassociation model think so” (Oakley, Alden & Mather, 1996). However, the social cognitive proponents would counter questioning the vast variation in subjects’ ability to obtain that ‘trance’ state and then respond to suggestions within this state if the hypnotic condition is simply a state of mind. These points are corroborated by the various attempts to increase the suggestibility level of hypnotic subjects that have failed to demonstrate positive outcomes.  Although non-state theorists challenge the conception of a distinctive state, they do not dispute the experience or subjective reality of subjects who maintain that they were hypnotized. All phenomena produced by suggestion following a hypnotic induction can also be produced without the hypnotic induction. Hypnosis is simply not used in the applied setting as a single process, rather, it is combined with other techniques (task motivation instructions, imagery, mental rehearsal etc.) to produce the desired effects” (Oakley et al, 1996). The majority of hypnotherapy clinicians operate within the disassociation model despite the general disagreements among researchers as to which concept best characterizes hypnosis. From hypnotic suggestions the trance state can influence and change the decision-making functions of the brain. The hypnotist can therefore suppress naturally accessible cognizant occurrences and make processes which are normally repressed, more easily reached. Hypnotherapy, especially when combined with supplementary techniques, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, has been beneficial in the treatment of many types of human conditions which include but are not limited to anxiety, stress, insomnia, pain and issues relating to obesity. Works Cited Barber, Theodore X. Hypnosis: Scientific Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, (1969). Brown, Peter. The Hypnotic Brain: Hypnotherapy and Social Communication. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, (1991). Erickson, Milton H. “Further Experimental Investigations of Hypnosis: Hypnotic and Nonhypnotic Realities.” Collected Papers of Milton H. Erickson on Hypnosis. Vol. 1. Ernest L. Rossi (Ed.). New York: Irvington, (1980), pp. 18-82, Vol. 1. Oakley, D., Alden, & Mather, M.D.  “The Use of Hypnosis in Therapy with Adults.”  The Psychologist. (November, 1996), pp. 502-5. Shelp, Scott, G. “Hypnosis Research and Theory: An Historical Perspective.” Self Growth. (2003). HypnoRN. November 10, 2007 Spanos, N.P. & Chaves, J.F. Hypnosis: The Cognitive- Behavioral Perspective. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, (1989). Spanos, N.P. & Chaves, J.F. “History and Historiography of Hypnosis.” Theories of Hypnosis: Current Models and Perspectives. S.J. Lynn & J.W. Rhue (Eds.). New York: The Guilford Press, (1991), pp. 43-78. Read More