Is Hypnosis The Answer?





Dr. George Estabrooks, professor of psychology at Colgate University and

author of the book, Hypnotism, made the following two statements in a

paper called "The Future of Hypnosis" given as part of a program on "The

Nature of Hypnosis" at the annual meeting of the American Psychological

Association in 1959:



"It would be well to sound a word of caution against certain attitudes

which have become prevalent and which can be well illustrated in the

field of medicine. In this respect, direct suggestion is under the ban.

For example, a dictum, 'Never remove the symptom unless the cause is

understood,' is much emphasized. Its validity is greatly open to

question, since much of medical practice is direct symptom removal, as

only a little thought makes apparent.



"Another dictum generally followed is that the unconscious background of

symptom-complexes must necessarily be made conscious to effect a cure.

Reasonable and thoughtful consideration of the extensive role of the

unconscious in daily living and functioning renders this dictum much

less creditable."



I should like to discuss both of these statements in some detail as they

invariably arise in the mind of the individual seeking help through

hypnosis.



The first thought that comes to mind is that all the religious healings

cited in the Bible involve direct symptom removal. The cures that are

effected by religious devotees traveling to sacred shrines are also in

the realm of direct symptom removal. I have yet to hear a criticism of

this type of treatment directed at religious leaders or condemnation of

the religious shrines. These cures are accepted as evidence of the power

of faith or attributed to the super-natural. In these cases, nothing is

ever done to make the person cured understand the nature of the

unconscious mechanisms which contributed to his problem.



Religious healing cannot be dismissed by merely saying, "It isn't

scientific." A methodology is only scientific when it works. It is of no

value if it doesn't help the individual seeking help. We must face the

fact that not all people can be helped by the same psychological

treatment. We can readily see this in the following extreme example: An

aborigine suffering from a psychological problem certainly wouldn't be a

candidate for psychoanalysis as we know it. He could, no doubt, be

helped much more readily by a witch doctor. It also stands to reason

that the sophisticated Westerner would not be influenced by the

incantations of a tribal medicine man.



Going further, we find there are many schools of psychotherapy and many

approaches to solving man's emotional problems. The cure rate for all of

them, however, is approximately the same. I think we must accept the

fact that there is no one sound, logical, scientific approach. I

believe that so long as the end result is achieved, the methodology was

scientific for that individual's needs. The goal of all therapies is to

help the patient free himself from whatever emotional problems beset

him.



This approach, to some readers, may seem an oversimplification of a very

complex problem, but I think it's time that we had a simple, workable

formula devoid of technical jargon. Too often, complex technical terms

and theories have been glibly used to explain away failures. I believe

we need more and more emphasis on measures to make the patient feel

better rather than spending most of the time trying to find out why he

doesn't feel well. This, of course, is symptom removal again.



I should like to point out an interesting fact pertaining to Biblical

healers. So long as the fame of the healer preceded his arrival in any

country, he was able to heal the sick. However, where his fame as a

healer was either unknown or discredited, he found no faith and

subsequently no cure. The earliest reference to hypnosis is in the

Bible, Genesis ii, 21. "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall

upon Adam, and he slept ..."



Dr. William Malamud, 86th president of the American Psychiatric

Association, in an address delivered at the annual meeting in 1960,

stated the following in a paper called "Psychiatric Research: Setting

and Motivation":



"During the last few years we have witnessed a growing trend of

overemphasizing the value of 'exact' methodology and uniformity of

standards. This trend, which could be characterized as a 'cult of

objectivity,' has already had an important influence on psychiatric

research. It is true that in its emphasis on critical judgment and valid

criteria, it has helped to curb unrestrained flights of imagination and

sloppy methodology. But the overglorification of objectivity and the

insistence on rigidly single standards of acceptable methods have

resulted in a concentration on certain phases of the science of human

behavior at the expense of other very important ones."



I believe that most individuals have a fairly good understanding of how

they came to have the problem that they have. I have yet to encounter

the person who protests he has no idea why he doesn't function as he

would like to in a certain area. From a practical standpoint, not many

have the time nor money required to delve into the unconscious

background of the problem. The high cost of treatment is a very real

objection and cannot be discounted lightly. People suffering from

emotional problems usually suffer financial reverses as well. Who is to

help these people? There are very few places in the country where they

can receive competent psychiatric help at a reasonable fee. Is there

this type of help in your own community? It is only when the individual

is destitute that the state provides whatever help it can. However, at

this point it's a long hard struggle back to good emotional health.



The National Association for Mental Health and its affiliates issue

about 10 million copies of 200 different pamphlets on various aspects of

mental health. To assess the value of these pamphlets, 47 mental hygiene

experts held a conference at Cornell University. A report on this

outstanding conference has been published. It is called "Mental Health

Education: A Critique." A feature by Ernest Havemann in the August 8,

1960 issue of Life contains a very worthwhile article on this

conference called "Who's Normal? Nobody, But We All Keep On Trying. In

Dissent From 'Mental Health' Approach, Experts Decry Futile Search For

An Unreal Goal." The following paragraph is taken from the Life

article:



"What about psychiatry and psychoanalysis? This is a different matter.

Many unhappy and problem-ridden people, though by no means all who have

tried it, have profited from psychotherapy. Indeed, all the mental

health pamphlets, as a postscript to the self-help methods they

advocate, wind up by advising the reader to seek professional care if

his problems are serious enough. But the skeptics at Cornell cited

statistics which to them show that psychiatric treatment is as remote

for the average person as a trip to the moon. Aside from the expense,

which most people would find prohibitive, there simply are not enough

therapists to go around. The U. S. has around 11,000 psychiatrists and

10,000 clinical psychologists--in all, about one for every 8,500

citizens. If everybody with emotional problems decided to see a

psychiatrist, the lines at the doctors' offices would stretch for

miles."



I assume that most readers of this book know that state hospitals are

understaffed and unable to provide proper care for the mentally ill.

Mike Gorman, executive director of the National Mental Health Committee,

has written a crusading report on this very theme called Every Other

Bed. In this book he tells us that every other hospital bed in the

United States is occupied by a mental case. Mental illness costs the

country two and a half billion dollars a year besides the more important

untold human suffering that can never be equated in dollars. The book is

a shocking story of how we have let this happen; are still letting it

happen; and of how little, for the most part, we, the general public as

well as the medical and psychological professions, are doing to correct

this deplorable situation.



It is time that we re-examined the dictums that say a symptom can never

be removed unless the cause is understood and the unconscious background

of symptom-complexes must be made conscious and understood before a

cure is effected.



There are many positive thinking groups functioning in the religious

field. Many of these religious groups are in existence primarily because

of the dynamic philosophy or psychology they offer for every day living.

Couple this with a strong faith in God, and you have a combination which

approaches infallibility. Recently we have had a series of best-selling

books which expound this very theme. Does it work? Of course it does

when used properly.



You can be sure that there has been criticism of this religious

psychology. The criticism is that the basic causes of the problem are

never dealt with and the unconscious conflict is not resolved. It's the

same argument over and over again. What about the people helped? They

seem to have made tremendous strides and are leading lives as well

adjusted as anyone else. Once imbued with this spirit or feeling of

well-being, it permeates every phase of their relationships in a

constructive manner. The only reason that there isn't more criticism is

that this type of psychotherapy is incorporated into the religious

tenets of these groups, and criticizing another man's religion makes the

detractor's entire philosophy unacceptable. I am strongly in favor of

these groups because I would prefer having a religion that keeps

pointing out the positive side of life and that "life can be beautiful"

if you put your faith in God and practice positive thinking. It is

certainly better than the cynical philosophy of its detractors or the

grim religions which stress punishment. Think of the guilt feelings

involved in the latter. No one can live up to such a formidable creed.



Of course, if you suggest to positive thinking, religious individuals

that they are using a form of self-hypnosis, they will emphatically

deny and debate the issue. Since we are primarily interested in mental

hygiene and not in winning a debate, it is well to leave the matter as

it stands. The point to keep in mind is that so long as a person feels

that this methodology is the answer to his needs and so long as no one

is being hurt by his belief, I feel he should cling to his conviction.

He should not allow it to be destroyed by those who are thinking in

different semantic terms.



I would like to bring up another common example pertaining to the two

basic concepts that we have been discussing. It is the example of the

many individuals who have taken public speaking courses to overcome

stage fright. In most cases, the person involved hasn't had too much

opportunity to be a public speaker. Because of this, he suddenly feels

he may not say the right thing or forget what he wants to say. This

anxiety can create the very situation or block that he fears. What is

the solution? Certainly not psychoanalysis to find out why he functions

the way he does. You could use this approach, but I don't think it's the

most constructive one. It is like asking, "What am I doing that's

wrong?" instead of "What can I do that's right?" The most constructive

approach is to take a course of instruction to get the actual practice

and experience in the techniques of public speaking.



Before proceeding further, I believe it is necessary to point out that I

am not just being critical of the convictions of other sincere and

dedicated individuals engaged in the field of mental hygiene. It is

always good to re-evaluate our present thinking on any subject, no

matter how sincere or convinced we may be that what we are doing is

correct. At times, we can become so immersed in our convictions that we

cannot take criticism and respond emotionally to ideas or

interpretations that do not coincide with logical thinking.



What, then, is the answer to mental health problems? There is no single

answer. It is a very complex situation. There are many promising drugs

and treatments which, if adequately developed and widely used, could do

a great deal toward promoting good mental health. Fundamentally, the

problem will always be that of trying to understand human behavior and

helping those in distress with an efficacious formula.



What is that formula? I believe hypnosis can contribute in part to the

answer. Needless to say, hypnosis is contraindicated in many emotional

problems because of the very nature of the problem itself. Some

emotional difficulties must first be worked out on a conscious level.

After this, hypnosis can be instrumental in achieving the final goal.



Dr. Frank S. Caprio, a prominent psychiatrist, in his book, Helping

Yourself with Psychiatry, states the following: "A whole new world of

self-confidence and positive living is open to every person, young and

old, through hypnosis, self-hypnosis and self-suggestion or

auto-hypnosis."





How To Attain Self-hypnosis Practical Applications Of Self-hypnosis facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Feedback