A Personal Statement

I was introduced to hypnosis when I was about 14 years old in 1960. I was browsing a book, while my mother was talking to her friend, called The Healing Voice by Dr A. Philip Magonet, which my mother’s friend gave me since I expressed such an interest in it. I still have it on my bookshelf. I have studied the subject ever since, largely alongside pursing an academic career as a lecturer in economics. The search led to a lot of disappointment in much of the existing books on hypnosis. Many simply involved superficial speculation; and certainly lacked scientific justification. My first attempt to go beyond this was my book on Autohypnosis and later Advanced Autohypnosis, the latter providing some of the more scientific analysis of hypnosis. Calling hypnosis, as I did myself for many years, an altered state of consciousness is totally uninformative – since drunkenness and other states fall into the same category.  Researching the history of hypnosis partly explains the dilemma. People could hypnotise without knowing how or why it worked. It was like being able to drive a car without knowing anything about how the car works. So many books were how to hypnotise and not about why it works the way it does. This is fine so long as all that is involved is hypnosis. The moment, however, hypnotherapy is involved then it is necessary to know how and why it works. I have always argued that inducing hypnosis is the easy part; knowing what to do with it – the therapy – is much more difficult. So for the past 50 years I have researched the therapeutic side of hypnosis.

An early avenue of research was that of creative visualisation, which led to my book on Creative Visualisation. I still think this is very important; and modern research into cognitive psychology gives considerable insight into why creative visualisation is important. The spread of NLP in the UK, which some argue took off more in the UK than in its birthplace (the US), also stressed the importance of visualisation. NLP also introduced the UK to the work and practices of Milton Erickson. This led to indirect hypnosis, which helped in many therapeutic situations than the more direct method. But in my opinion it was taken up by a number of training courses as if it was the only right way to do hypnotherapy. In terms of scientific analysis, it became a major paradigm – possibly the main paradigm in the UK. A good example of this is the organisation I myself trained with for a diploma in clinical hypnosis. The course, in my opinion, was very good, and I enjoyed it thoroughly, but it was steeped in the Ericksonian paradigm. This is not surprising since Ericksonian hypnosis was the ‘in method’ – and still is.

Ericksonian hypnosis is part of person-centred psychology. Person centred psychology is important, but has the downside of being simply a case study approach. It cannot be generalised: no two people have the same personality and certainly not the same history. In terms of therapy it teaches that the therapist has to become acquainted with the thinking, history and emotions of the client. These are unique. But problems must involve different approaches. Dealing with smoking requires a different approach than dealing with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This is true regardless of the person or their history. Approaches require generalisations and general principles. This is where the scientific approach becomes important. Unfortunately, the scientific research into hypnosis is still in its infancy. But event the scientific investigations too are setting up their own paradigm. They are embedded in the ‘scientific method’, the method that involves experimentation, of limiting the investigation in order to create independent (control) variables and readily measurable dependent variables. This work is important, but it is more designed to satisfy research practices that gain research grants and journal publications.

My own scientific research has led me to undertake a degree in psychology. This was in part to ensure I could practice in hypnotherapy if the government decided to regulate (which they have not and decided on self-regulation instead). More importantly, the degree in psychology was an attempt to find out what psychology had to offer to the therapy side of hypnosis. Psychology in recent years has been dominated by cognitive psychology. At the very least it has re-introduced the study of consciousness. But it has also provided considerably insight into unconscious processes. Unfortunately, it provides only a small insight into hypnosis and how and why it works. The reason for this is because cognitive psychology, almost more than any other branch of psychology, wants to be ‘scientific’ and so has almost demanded research be based on the ‘scientific method’.

The personal statement so far emphasises my research into hypnosis, but these must be taken in relation to a desire for personal growth. A desire that Aldous Huxley argues burns within all of us. The two go hand-in-hand. One aspect of my personal growth was a research into the third way. This was a philosophy based on the ideas of Gurjieff and expounded in particular by Ouspensky. The aspect of this philosophy that attracted me most was that of non-attachment. On researching this I was struck by its emphasis by Christian mystics, such as St John of the Cross and St Teresa of Avila. I am not a follower of organised religion, and on reading these mystics and others, I was even more convinced about the ‘god within’ and the concept of ‘know thyself’. All this culminated in my book, First Steps to Freedom – a title chosen by the publishers, since I wanted to call it Non-Attachment. The mystics were great users of metaphors – and Christ’s parables were full of metaphors. From the allegorical pronouncements of St John of the Cross to the practical statements of St Teresa of Avila, the mystics were appealing to the unconscious mind.

What all this research to me emphasised was that a therapist must communicate with people’s unconscious mind in a ‘language’ that the unconscious mind can understand. To communicate effectively with a person from China it is no point talking in English. Similarly if one wishes to communicate effectively with the unconscious mind, then it is necessary to ‘talk’ in terms that appeal to the unconscious mind. I consider that is the great mistake of cognitive behaviour therapy. This approach appeals to reason: it is a left brain perspective. The unconscious, although not attributable to the right brain, is a right-brain perspective. The unconscious works like dreams: it works in terms of images, metaphors, relationships, etc. This is why parables were so significant and why Ericksonian indirect hypnosis is so successful.

All this brought me back to person-centred therapy – but with a difference. There are general principles in terms of parables, stories, metaphors that allow a therapist to choose the language most appropriate to communicate with the client’s unconscious mind.

What I have said so far, however, emphasises therapy. Even the word ‘hypnotherapy’ implies there is a problem for which the person is seeking help. But I have always been interested in personal self development. This does not mean a person has a problem; on the contrary, they wish to be better than they presently are. They wish to achieve some form of self-fulfilment. It may simply be a better rugby player or to improve their golf; it may be to become calmer and more relaxed; and with others simply to achieve their full potential in whatever they are pursuing. These are not problems; they are simply a desire for self-fulfilment. They are a desire to reach one’s full potential. To do this requires an understanding of what hold’s us back. To understand, or overcome, that voice within that says something like, ‘I can’t possibly do that’. The emphasis on positive thinking tries to overcome this, but positive thinking is only part of the approach. NLP realises this. You can say to yourself, ‘be confident’ but this generally does not work. It does not communicate with the unconscious mind in a language that the unconscious mind understands – and lack of confidence resides in the unconscious mind! Imagining yourself in situations displaying confidence does ‘talk’ to the unconscious in a language it can understand. But you need to believe such images. Belief, however, does not sit well with the more scientifically minded, and so one needs to expect such images will occur. Both belief and expectation provide the unknown ingredient, as it were. The therapist cannot provide these: only the person themselves can do it. However, it is possible for the therapist to stimulate such belief/expectation in the individual.

And so my journey is not yet over. The scientific basis for hypnosis has not yet been established. Brain imaging techniques are providing some valuable insight that hypnosis is a real phenomenon, but these are in their infancy. All we can do for the present is utilise what science does have to offer, combine it with person-centred therapy and ‘talk’ as much as possible in a language that the unconscious mind can understand and respond to.