You have some good and some tough questions there. Let's see if I can tackle the 2nd one 1st. Erickson did not define hypnosis the way it is customarily conceived in scientific discussions then and now. As I saw it, he took a view that is broader and more naturalistic and communication oriented. That is, he saw hypnosis as a natural state of heightened internal absorption and concentration. People often reduced external contact to "go internal" in the process of solving problems. Therefore, speaking to them about their natural conduct was a matter of "speaking their language" and helping them was a matter of assisting with such language in getting the resources they needed (enabling their ability to associate to them) into the context in which they needed them.
He did not view hypnosis as something someone did TO another person. He viewed it as a self-hypnosis done in cooperation and allowed by the "subject" as long as the assocations were relevant to the problems they attempted to solve (reduce pain, study without anxiety, etc.).
So the issue of withholding something like that from your friends and loved ones -- that might be unethical. It would certainly be odd to not help them in that way. You know, say you would perhaps hold them while they were scared but not also speak to them in such a manner that helped them concentrate upon their own inner calm, courage, and strength and associate to it. So, yes he did that with others. No - he did not say: "Now I WILL DO THIS TO you and you WILL follow MY commands!" He didn't see hypnosis like that. So the view of trance as naturalistic and cooperative communication to associate to resources means that hypnotic communication is a continuum from everyday talking (when it is occurring with less frequency in internal focus) to clinical trance states (where it is occurring with greater frequency and more concentrated focus). And it is not either "on" or "off". In a sense, one could say Erickson (and anyone) is always doing this and being deliberate and thoughtful about communication is an important part of what determines the occurance of natural trance phenomena.
Question 1 is tougher. It appears to me that he did feel that some folks were in such a tangle that they darn well converted all communication into an example how others could not help them (or would not, or they were too un-somethingable). This is not that they were all ways that way. At least at certain times, we can see this...the same person at other times might not be playing that role so "hard" and they might be in a context that was more condusive to working with another toward change. For some those moments of non-change orientation might be very short and for some, they can be very lasting. The later group, then includes some who are basically not going to change. Not, that is, with the types of interventions one would be able and willing to make.
I hope that helps.
There are no replies to this message.
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.