|
The methods by
which hypnosis is induced have been classed as follows:
(1)
physical;
(2) psychical;
(3) those of the
magnetisers.
The modern
operator, whatever his theories may be, borrows his technique from
Mesmer and Liébeault with equal impartiality, and thus renders
classification impossible. The members of the Nancy school, while
asserting that everything is due to suggestion, do not hesitate to use
physical means, and, if these fail, Bernheim has recourse to narcotics.
The following is now my usual method: I
rarely begin treatment the first
time I see a patient, but confine myself to making his acquaintance,
hearing his account of his case, and ascertaining his mental attitude
with regard to suggestion. I usually find, from the failure of other
methods of treatment, that he is more or less sceptical as to the
chance
of being benefited. I endeavour to remove all erroneous ideas, and
refuse to begin treatment until the patient is satisfied of the safety
and desirability of the experiment. I never say I am certain of being
able to influence him, but explain how much depends on his mental
attitude and power of carrying out my directions. I further explain to
the patient that next time he comes to see me I shall ask him to close
his eyes, to concentrate his attention on some drowsy mental picture,
and try to turn it away from me. I then make suggestions of two kinds:
the first refer to the condition I wish to induce while he is actually
in the armchair, thus, "Each time you see me, you will find it easier
to
concentrate your attention on something restful. I do not wish you to
go
to sleep, but if you can get into the drowsy condition preceding
natural
sleep, my suggestions are more likely to be responded to." I explain
that I do not expect this to happen at once, although it does occur in
rare instances, but it is the repetition of the suggestions made in
this
particular way which brings about the result. Thus, from the very first
treatment, the patient is subjected to two distinct processes, the
object of one being to induce the drowsy, suggestible condition, that
of
the other to cure or relieve disease.
I wish particularly to mention that
although I speak of hypnotism and
hypnosis—and it is almost impossible to avoid doing so—I rarely
attempt to induce so-called hypnosis, and find that patients respond to
treatment as readily, and much more quickly, now that I start curative
suggestions and treatment simultaneously, than they did in the days
when
I waited until hypnosis was induced before making curative suggestions.
I have obtained good results in treating
all forms of hysteria,
including grande hysterie, neurasthenia, certain forms of
insanity,
dipsomania and chronic alcoholism, morphinomania and other drug habits,
vicious and degenerate children, obsessions, stammering, chorea,
seasickness, and all other forms of functional nervous disturbances.
It is impossible to discuss the
different theories in detail here, but I
will briefly summarise the more important points,
(1) Hypnotism, as a
science, rests on the recognition of the subjective nature of its phenomena.
(2) The theories of Charcot and the
Salpêtrière school are
practically a reproduction of mesmeric error.
(3) Liébeault and his
followers combated the views of the Salpêtrière school and
successfully
substituted their own, of which the following are the important points:
(a) Hypnosis is a physiological
condition, which can be induced in the
healthy.
(b) In everyone there is a tendency to respond to suggestion,
but in hypnosis this condition is artificially increased.
(c)
Suggestion explains all. Despite the fact that the members of the Nancy
school regard the condition as purely physiological and simply an
exaggeration of the normal, they consider it, in its profound stages at
all events, a form of automatism.
These and other views of the Nancy
school have been questioned by
several observers. As Myers justly pointed out, although suggestion is
the artifice used to excite the phenomena, it does not create the
condition on which they depend. The peculiar state which enables the
phenomena to be evoked is the essential thing, not the signal which
precedes their appearance.
Within recent times another theory has
arisen, which, instead of
explaining hypnotism by the arrested action of some of the brain
centres
which subserve normal life, attempts to do so by the arousing of
certain
powers over which we normally have little or no control. This theory
appears under different names, "Double Consciousness," "Das
Doppel-Ich,"
etc., and the principle on which it depends is largely admitted by
science. William James, for example, says: "In certain persons, at
least, the total possible consciousness may be split into parts which
co-exist, but mutually ignore each other."
The clearest statement of this view was
given by the late Frederic
Myers; he suggested that the stream of consciousness in which we
habitually lived was not our only one. Possibly our habitual
consciousness might be a mere selection
from a multitude of thoughts
and sensations—some, at least, equally conscious with those we
empirically knew. No primacy was granted by this theory to the ordinary
waking self, except that among potential selves it appeared the fittest
to meet the needs of common life. As a rule, the waking life was
remembered in hypnosis, and the hypnotic life forgotten in the waking
state; this destroyed any claim of the primary memory to be the sole
memory. The self below the threshold of ordinary consciousness Myers
termed the "subliminal consciousness," and the empirical self of common
experience the "supraliminal." He held that to the subliminal
consciousness and memory a far wider range, both of physiological and
psychical activity, was open than to the supraliminal. The latter was
inevitably limited by the need of concentration upon recollections
useful in the struggle for existence; while the former included much
that was too rudimentary to be retained in the supraliminal memory of
an
organism so advanced as that of man. The recollection of processes now
performed automatically and needing no supervision, passed out of the
supraliminal memory, but might be retained by the subliminal. The
subliminal, or hypnotic, self could exercise over the vaso-motor and
circulatory systems a degree of control unparalleled in waking life.
Thus, according to the Nancy school, the
deeply hypnotised subject
responds automatically to suggestion before his intellectual centres
have had time to bring their inhibitory action into play; but, on the
other hand, in the subliminal consciousness theory, volition and
consciousness are recognised to be unimpaired in hypnosis.
|
