TRANCE SERVILITY
Dr. C., a known psychoanalyst, on whom I carried on a series of
experiments, goes into a deep somnambulistic state. He is an
excellent visualizer and takes readily visual hallucinations. Being
a physician and psychiatrist the subject’s account is all the
more valuable. Now Dr. C. describes his hypnotic hallucinations
as “mental pictures,” as “auditory memories,” which “lack
exteriority, are not located in space.” He aptly characterizes his
hallucinations, visual, auditory, and others, as “_fixed ideas_.”
Mr. M. goes into deep hypnosis. When in one of the deep
trance-states a suggestion is given to him that on awakening he
shall see a watch. When awake he claims he sees a watch. He was
asked: “Do you really see it?” He replied, “Yes.” The interesting
point here was the fact that the subject did not even look in the
direction where the suggested hallucinatory watch was supposed to
be placed and where he himself claimed that the watch was located.
When tested by automatic writing the hand wrote: “Yes, I see the
watch.” The subconscious then was also under the influence of the
suggested hallucination. It is well to bear in mind this point.
Re-hypnotized, and suggested that on awakening he would see _two_
watches. One was a real silver watch and the other was suggested
hallucinatory. The subject claimed he saw both, but he only handled
the hallucinatory one, and when asked which of the two he would
prefer he pointed to the hallucinatory watch. When asked why,
he replied that the suggested watch was bigger. He was really
indifferent to the chosen watch and paid no further attention to
it, as if it did not exist for him. He tried to please the master
hypnotizer of whom he was subconsciously in awe.
He was again put into the hypnotic state and was suggested to see
a flower. On awakening he claimed he saw a flower and smelled it
in an indifferent, perfunctory fashion. The subconscious was then
tested by automatic writing and the writing was to the effect that
he saw it. “I see a flower.” The subconscious then had also the
same hallucination. A series of similar experiments was carried
out with the same results. _The subconscious claimed in automatic
writing that the suggested hallucination was real._
The subject was again put into hypnosis and was given the
suggestion that he would see a watch on awakening, but here I made
some modification. “When you wake up you will be sure to see a
watch,” I said, emphatically. “Look here; I want you to write what
you really see and not what you do not see.” When awake he saw a
watch, but he immediately wrote: “I do not see anything.” _Here the
subconscious disclaimed the suggested hallucinations which it had
claimed and insisted on before._
Re-hypnotized, and was given the suggestion that on awakening he
would see three watches. He was awakened and a real silver watch
was put before him; the other two were suggested hallucinatory. He
claimed he saw all three. Meanwhile, in automatic writing he wrote:
“One silver watch, real, the others golden, not real; nothing
there.” A series of similar experiments was made and with the same
results. _The automatic writing disclaimed the hallucinations,
although before, under the same conditions, it most emphatically
insisted on their reality._
The subject was put into hypnosis and a post-hypnotic suggestion
was given to him that he would see his wife and child. When awake,
he began to smile. When asked why he smiled he said: “I see my wife
and child”; but he wrote “I see nobody.” When put again in hypnosis
he still continued to smile and said: “I see my wife and child”;
but he wrote (in hypnotic state): “I really do not see them; I see
nothing; I see my child, but I really see nothing.” That was when
the psychopathic patient got the inkling that I wished to know the
truth rather than to be misled by his slavish obedience and fears
by complying with my orders. “What do you mean,” I asked, “by ‘I
see my child, but I really see nothing?’” To which he replied in
automatic writing: “I mean that I see my child in my mind only, but
I don’t see anything.”
I then gave him a post-hypnotic suggestion to see a snake. He
claimed on awaking that he saw a snake. He manifested little
fear. He certainly did not behave as if he really saw a snake
and instead wrote “I see a snake. I see it in my mind.” A great
number of similar experiments were carried out by me, varying the
suggestions, and all with the same results. I shall not burden the
reader with a detailed account, as they all gave identical results.
At first the automatic writing claimed emphatically the presence
of the hallucinatory object and when the truth of the automatic
writing was insisted on, the writing disclaimed fully the
perception of the hallucinatory object. Finally we came on the real
character of the suggested hallucination; “I see my child, but
_honestly_, I do not see anything; I see my child in my mind only,
I don’t see anything.” In other words, if we take the facts plainly
and do not play hide and seek with the subconscious, we come to the
conclusion that in the suggested hallucinations the subject does
not perceive anything as is the case in an actual hallucination.
He does not _perceive_, but he simply _thinks_ of the suggested
hallucination.
As long then as the automatic writing was regarded by the subject
as independent, for which he was not responsible, as long as the
suggestion of the hallucination was not taken as directly addressed
to it, the subject himself frankly acknowledged the fact that he
did not see anything. When this truth of automatic writing was
brought home to the subject he was bound by suggestion to claim
that he actually saw the suggested hallucination, although he
really did not see anything at all.
This clearly shows that the hypnotic consciousness, from the very
nature of its heightened suggestibility, clings most anxiously
to the given suggestion, and insists on the reality of its
fulfillment. We must, therefore, be on our guard and not trust
the subject’s introspective account, unless it is well sifted by
good circumstantial evidence. It is because such precautions have
not been taken in the close interrogation of the subject’s actual
state of mind, and because of the deep-rooted psychological fallacy
as to the relation of ideational and perceptual activities, that
the prevalent belief in the validity of suggested hallucinations
has passed unchallenged. If not for those factors, it would have
been quite evident that the _hypnotic and post-hypnotic suggested
hallucinations are not genuine, but are essentially spurious.
Hypnotic hallucinations, unlike actual hallucinations, are not
really experienced. Hypnotically suggested hallucinations are only
forms of delusions_, attempts to appease the master hypnotizer of
whom the subconscious stands in awe and fear.
The state of hypnotic subconsciousness is a state based on the
will to conform to the master hypnotizer’s commands. At bottom
the subconscious trance-will is one of slavish obedience to the
authoritative, fear-inspiring will of the master hypnotizer, whom
the hypnotic subconscious attempts to please and obey slavishly.
The hypnotic state is a fear state of a primitive type. It is the
fear state of the Damara ox obeying the herd, or the leader of the
herd.
Man is hypnotizable, because he is gregarious, because he is
easily controlled by _self-fear_, because he easily falls into a
_self-less_ state of complacent servility. Man, subconscious man,
is servile, in fear of his Lord. The independent, free man is yet
to come.
FOOTNOTE:
[13] I use the term “suggested hallucination” to indicate the
character and origin of the latter. The term seems to me convenient
and may prove acceptable.