Reading the chapter on Hypnotism in Frederic W.H. Myers’ Human Personality—which describes the
state of this art or practice at the end of the nineteenth century, the thought
occurred that hypnotism might be classified as a branch of paramedicine. I use
that term in a new way. The word, I just discovered, is already in use in
connection with emergency medical services—in which the paramedics are highly active. But in that usage, the para prefix (meaning “beyond”) is here derived
from parachute, seeing that the
earliest use of “paramedic” was to designate medical corpsmen arriving on the
scene after jumping from airplanes.
In my usage here, the analogue is parapsychology—thus the
extension of psychology into regions where the scientific proof of observations
or diagnoses are difficult-to-measure or difficult-to-replicate, neutrally
described as alternative medicine (much as acupuncture is), aggressively
derided as hokum.
Hypnosis fits this designation because its uses are not as
unfailing (or as close to unfailing) as the dominant mechanical or chemical
approaches; yet when they work, they are rather spectacular. The main variables
in this art are the personalities of the hypnotist and of the patient.
Significantly enough the practice has, from its days of inception under Franz
Mesmer (1734-1815) tended to be associated with unusually charismatic figures—of
which the last I am aware of was Milton H. Erickson (1901-1980). Thus the
practice appears to resist “institutionalization” —much as talents in
parapsychology effectively decay when put to use in, say, trying to play the
stock market, as shown by the parapsychologist, J.E. Kennedy (see papers here).
It appears to me that hypnosis involves that famously
mysterious borderland between mind and body—much as does faith-healing and a
very well-known but not-at-all-understood phenomenon, the placebo effect. The “faith”
part of the placebo effect is indicated by its name; it derives from the Latin
for “I shall please” and comes from doctors giving patients innocuous pills, thought
to have no effect at all, just to please
the patient. Yet, miraculously, the white flour just worked. Somehow.
Two views of hypnosis divide the field today (Wikipedia
tells me). One theory is called the Altered
State, thus it is “an altered state of mind or trance, marked by a level of
awareness different from the ordinary conscious state” (link). The other is called
Non-State and viewed as imaginative
role-playing. If the first theory is correct, the state of mind can be produced
by an individual without the help of a hypnotist: self-hypnosis. The most
famous teacher of that technique was Émile Coué (1857-1926), the French
psychologist, he of that famous “Every day, in every way, I’m getting better
and better.” The field’s second and perhaps most influential practitioner, the
Scot James Braid (1795-1880) thought that hypnotism was induced by concentration;
he also believed, and indeed successfully practiced, self-hypnosis in pain
control.
A state of the mind? A certain level of awareness? Reached
by concentration when fully relaxed with external stimuli maximally muted? We’re
starting to think that meditation has something to do with it. Parameditation
perhaps?
It's certainly true that when parapsychology went under the name 'Psychical Research', hypnosis was one of the things that was regularly studied. Its moving from Para to Plain psychology seems only to have happened very slowly. I've always found it very interesting that the two modern scientific accounts of hypnotism basically boil down to 'There's something really there' and 'There's nothing really there', with neither side being able to get much traction against the other. A sign, perhaps, that there's more mystery here than scientists want to admit.
ReplyDelete