HYPNOTISM AND PSYCHO-ANALYSIS
While Dr. Albert E. Davis utilizes psycho-analysis as an adjunct
to hypnosis and suggestion, most psycho-analysts are opposed to
the employment of suggestive therapeutics in any case whatever.
The late André Tridon, in particular, in his well-known treatise,
“Psycho-Analysis and Behavior” (1920), points out that hypnotism and
psycho-analysis “have nothing in common but are in fact the exact
opposite of each other: hypnotism introduces something into the
subject’s mind, psycho-analysis takes something out of it.”
The “something” that hypnotism introduces into the subject’s mind is
the suggestion that the cells and organs of the body perform their
functions in a normal manner, thus eliminating diseased conditions,
leading to restoration of the patient’s health, and without the
necessity for drugs. In many cases the same results can be achieved
by psycho-analysis, by digging out the original causes and removing
the complexes or obsessions. But this is not equivalent to saying that
hypnotic suggestion is not in many cases a valuable therapeutic remedy.
Since the ordinary custom, in the case of illness in a family, is to
call in a physician, the question is whether suggestion can do the work
usually thought to be produced only by the taking of medicine.
As a matter of fact, “suggestion can steady a palpitating heart equally
as well as belladonna, or take the place of digitalis in heart disease
by diminishing the number of beats and resting the heart muscles”
(Davis). When a patient has a cold he is ordinarily put to bed and
given drugs to induce perspiration. But he can also be put to bed
and perspiration can be induced by hypnotic suggestion. By hypnotic
suggestion, according to reputable psycho-therapists, constipation
can be cured naturally, without recourse to drugs, by re-establishing
healthy functional activity in the glands secreting the intestinal
juices. By hypnosis a natural sleep can be made to supersede insomnia,
followed by cheerfulness and capacity for hard work the morning
following.
“The real value of hypnotism,” says Dr. Davis, “lies in the fact
that it provides us with an additional weapon, which is enormously
important, in the fight against disease. Through it the subject is
better able to control his organism in his own interest. He cannot
realize too plainly that the force which is exerted comes not from
the hypnotist, but from himself. It is from the inner self the change
arises; the hypnotist simply awakens dormant protective instincts. The
best results are achieved when the patient understands this, for he
will employ in his waking moments the same agency as that resorted to
by the operator under hypnosis.”
What the hypnotist does is to stimulate the subconscious activities of
body and mind. Very interesting and instructive in this connection is
the following statement by Dr. Davis: “The sense of smell is greatly
developed. I have had several subjects who, under hypnotism, could
identify by sense of smell alone the owners of purses, keys and other
articles of personal use. In hearing, it is well known that the subject
can distinguish the faintest whisper of the operator inaudible to
bystanders. Other powers are equally strengthened.... All of these
instances enable one to realize the power of hypnotism to restore the
proper working of bodily functions.”
Granted that psycho-analysis will also cure these same ailments
which are reached by hypnotism or suggestion--may cure some of them
better; but must one spend weeks or months exploring the history of
the subconscious life in order to relieve a toothache or an attack of
constipation?
Tridon seemed to think he was making out a strong case against
suggestive therapeutics by pointing our similarities between neurotic
and hypnotic states. “Every neurose,” he declared, “is a form of
auto-suggestion.” Well, what of it? The business of the hypnotist is to
help the patient to help himself in throwing off the neurose. And in
many cases he does. In some cases he may fail. But as much can be said
also of the psycho-analyst.
“The neurotic who consults a hypnotist is, after all, seeking a
quick escape from reality, from effort, from responsibilities,”
says Tridon (_Op. cit._, Page 275). If the “reality” happens to be
neuralgia, or writer’s cramp, or a desire for alcohol in excess, why
not seek to “escape” from it as soon as possible, with or without
“responsibilities”? Why not seek “the line of least effort”?
The hypnotist reaches the subconscious mind by _suggestion_,
and through the _imagination_--not the will--stimulates its
health-restoring activities.
Tridon triumphantly declares that many experimenters “have come to
the conclusion that we cannot suggest anything to a subject unless he
unconsciously craves to do that very thing. Suggestions of unpleasant
actions are either rejected or very ephemeral. Suggesting murder
or suicide proves effective mainly in the movies. Lombroso saw his
subjects wake up every time he ordered them to perform humiliating
tasks or to assume degrading rôles” (Page 277).
Very good. No psycho-therapist would complain of the foregoing
impeachment. The subject, whether he knows it or not, “unconsciously
craves” to get well, to become strong, to throw off any neurosis which
happens to afflict or disable him. The hypnotist suggests to the
subconscious mind that what the subject unconsciously craves can be
obtained, that it _is being obtained_, through the creative power of
imagination, of auto-suggestion, supplemented and strengthened, if need
be, by the direct suggestions or “commands” of the hypnotist.
No doubt there are cases, especially of deep-seated hysteria and
neurosis, where analysis would be a more satisfactory method of
treatment than hypnosis or suggestive therapeutics. Dr. Davis has tried
both, and still employs either method, according to the diagnosis.
Mr. Tridon was experienced only as an analyst. But he points out that
Freud, who studied hypnotism under Charcot of Salpétrière and Bernheim
and Liébault of Nancy, finally discarded the hypnotic method entirely.
“It was while studying a patient in hypnotic ‘trance’ that Freud
suspected the possibility of a study of the unconscious in the waking
state,” says Tridon. I need merely remark in passing that the methods
(and principles) of Charcot have also been “discarded” by practically
all modern hypnotists, and the methods of Bernheim and Liébault much
improved upon by later students--some of them, like Freud, pupils of
these pioneer psycho-therapists.
But did Freud “discard” suggestion?
As a matter of fact, the patient who applies for treatment at the
clinic of a psycho-analyst is under suggestion before he arrives. He
has been assured by someone that the analyst can relieve him of his
ailment, or that under the analysis his complaint will disappear.
He has _faith_ in the psycho-analytic method; he _imagines_ himself
being cured of his obsessions or complexes. His _subconscious_ is
already at work--stimulated by auto-suggestion--before he has his
first interview. He is already on the road to recovery. Tridon to the
contrary notwithstanding, there _is_ a relationship between suggestion
and psycho-analysis.
Tridon says (Page 280): “Jung says very frankly somewhere that
practitioners who manage to invest themselves with the halo of the
medicine man are wise in every respect. Not only do they have a large
practice but they also obtain the best results. Dealing with neurotics,
the medical exorcist shows to his subjects his full valuation of the
‘psychic’ element when he gives them an opportunity to fasten their
faith to his mysterious personality.”
Realizing that the great psycho-analyst Jung has virtually (if
unconsciously) returned to the basic principles of suggestive
therapeutics, Tridon tells us that he disagrees with Jung “as to the
final, not temporary, results of such cures.” But why this gratuitous
injection of the word “temporary”? If “such cures” were merely
“temporary,” as against proved permanent cures, would Dr. Jung, out of
his wealth of experience, commend the “halo of the medicine man” as
“wise in every respect”? I think not. Years of practical experience
have taught Jung the great value of _faith_--and imagination--as a
creative curative agency, acting by auto-suggestion on the subconscious
personality: and he admits that the “medical exorcist” should show
“to his subjects his full valuation of the ‘psychic’ element” when he
gives them “an opportunity to _fasten their faith_ to his mysterious
personality.”
At the base of all successful psycho-therapeutic treatment lies faith,
a form of creative imagination. So long as the “fame” of Jesus reached
the ears of the sick and “tormented” “throughout all Syria,” “he
healed them” (Matt. ix, 23, 24). But when he returned to his native
countryside, where his “fame” as a healer was either unknown or
discredited in advance, where he found no faith, “he could do no mighty
work” (Mark, VI).[6]
[6] The reader who desires full information--full data--on all the
points merely touched upon in this little book, would do well to
consult Louis Satow’s “Hypnotism and Suggestion”, previously referred
to--by far the most scholarly work so far published in English on this
important subject.