Theories of hypnosis

To anyone interested in how to hypnotize, whether this is hypnotizing someone else or self-hypnosis, it may be thought that an account of alternative theories is unnecessary. After all, to drive a car does not require you to know the theory of combustion or the theory of motion. Since we do not know exactly what hypnosis is, then why attempt to define it? But to talk of ‘hypnosis’ does imply some idea of what it is and why it is different from other observed phenomena. More importantly, however, is the tendency to view hypnosis from a particular point of view. This either means that the person has an explicit theory of hypnosis or, more likely, has an implicit one. Facts cannot be interpreted without some theory: heuristic or otherwise. Is hypnosis just an altered state of consciousness? Is hypnosis brought about by chemical changes in the brain? Is hypnosis just a particular form of suggestion? Is hypnosis regressing to a more primitive consciousness? The list could be extended, but it does highlight that there are alternative views about the subject.

Of course, one reason why hypnosis cannot be defined is because there is no generally accepted theory of it. In outlining alternative theories we shall come to appreciate different aspects of the hypnotic phenomenon. But there is a famous Sufi story, recounted by Idries Shah, which acts as a warning. The story goes as follows.

Story #1 The Elephant

There was a city whose inhabitants were all blind. One day, the king arrived with his entourage and camped outside of the city. The king had a huge elephant that he used in battle and as a symbol of his authority. The villages were keen to know about the elephant and some went running out to the encampment to seek it, even though they had no idea what they were hoping to find. When this group came on the elephant they began to feel a part of it – and a different part. Each considered that he had knowledge of what the elephant was. When they returned to the village the inhabitants were eager to hear exactly what an elephant was. From those feeling it they heard:

“It is a large, rough, thing, wide and broad, like a rug”

(from the one who had felt its ear).

“It is like a straight and hollow pipe, awful and destructive”

(from the one who had felt its trunk).

“It is mighty and firm, like a pillar”

(from the one who had felt its feet and legs).

Of course, each had felt only one part and had no true picture of the whole.

So, like the alternative descriptions of the elephant, we have alternative views about hypnosis. None are likely to be wholly true, but each will give us some insight into hypnosis.

The Salpêtrière had a theory of hypnosis that looked at it from the point of view of the sympathetic nervous system and considered it to be hystero-epilepsy. On the other hand, the Nancy school saw hypnosis from the point of view of the parasympathetic nervous system and based on suggestion. Both probably had an element of truth, just like each villager who had touched a different part of the elephant had an element of truth about what an elephant was. This is not always so. A theory can be totally mistaken. We have already met this too. Animal magnetism has nothing to do with hypnosis. This was a mistaken theory. Hypnosis is not alone in holding to a mistaken theory for many years. In theorising about the movement of planets (the subject of cosmology) it was long held that the earth was the centre of the universe and that the planets moved around the earth. Planets were assumed to move in circles around the earth. When the facts did not fit, another circle was ‘invented’ to account for the ‘irregular’ movement. We now know this Ptolemaic theory was totally false. Planets revolve around the sun, and generally in elliptic orbits – the orbits of which are accounted for by gravitational force and the relationship of one body to another.

In presenting the alternative theories of hypnosis we shall highlight not only what the theory attempts to explain, but also what it does not explain. We often gain more knowledge about a phenomenon when we consider what the theory does not explain. Table 1 presents a list of theories we are about to discuss and also in brief form the features that each theory emphasizes.

Table 1 Features of alternative theories of hypnosis

Theory	Brief summary
State of hysteria	Charcot’s view of hypnosis. Believed the only people who could be hypnotized where those suffering from hysteria. Hypnosis is an abnormality of the nervous system.
No more than suggestion	Nancy school view. Hypnosis is merely a form of suggestion. Not a feature of the nervous system and possessed by everyone. All suggestion is autosuggestion and takes place at the unconscious level.
Form of sleep	View held by Pavlov. The world ‘sleep’ is a secondary stimuli and leads to a conditioned reflex that leads in turn to a physiological response we call hypnosis. “Go to sleep” continues to be used in hypnotic inductions.
Multiple selves and dissociation	Individuals are composed of multiple personalities and during hypnosis an individual splits off (dissociates) and takes on one or other of these personalities losing volitional control in the process.
Role-playing	In hypnosis people behave as they are expected to behave, i.e., they role-play. This role-playing depends on the attitude towards hypnosis, motivation, expectation and a willingness to cooperate.
Altered state of consciousness	A state different from being awake, different from being asleep and different from other states – such as meditation. The most characteristic feature is being in a state of focussed relaxation.
Regression	Hypnosis is assumed to be a situation of reverting back to an infantile state in which the parent (hypnotist) provides guidance. An alternative regressionist theory does not involve transference but assumes reversion is to the more primitive brain structures.
REM Theory	We all dream when in a REM state. Hypnosis partially recreates the REM state and so all the characteristics of the REM state are the same characteristics we observe in hypnosis. Dreaming is natural to us and so therefore is hypnosis. Different induction techniques simply involve different methods of inducing a REM state.
Hologram	The brain is a hologram in which memory, vision amongst other things, are not localised but are generalised throughout the brain. Hypnosis is a way of tapping into the interference pattern that exists in a holographic universe.

1 State of hysteria

We noted from our history that Charcot’s view about hypnosis being a state of hysteria was held quite widely for some time. The Salpêtrière hospital involved many patients who were either suffering from hysteria or from epilepsy. It was these patients that Charcot began to investigate by means of hypnosis in 1878. His investigations led him to conclude (to theorize) that the only persons who could be hypnotized were those suffering from hysteria and that hypnosis itself was simply a form of hysteria. This theory of hypnosis asserts that it is a physical phenomenon and an abnormality of the nervous system. But it had to account for the physical change. Charcot believed in animal magnetism. It was the stroking by means of magnets, or another external medium, that brought about the altered state. But the theory went further. Only individuals who were suffering from a hysterical disposition (known or otherwise) would respond to such magnetic stroking. All these conclusions, of course, were based on his experiments at the Salpêtrière, whose patients were not representative of the population at large.

If one accepts such a theory, then the problem is that if most of the population can be hypnotized (which is now readily accepted), then most of the population are potentially or actually hysteric! This seems unlikely, or stretching the definition of hysterical too far. Furthermore, hysterical patients are harder to hypnotize than ‘normal’ individuals and it is often very difficult to hypnotize a hysterical patient. What appears to be the case is that most of the general population can be hypnotized. This would reject the hypothesis that only hysterical individuals can be hypnotized and that hypnosis is a form of hysteria.

But before leaving this particular theory it is worth noting a few observations. First, the hypnotic state induced by the Salpêtrière was one of catatonic states and convulsions. It was negative hypnosis with a very active sympathetic nervous system. Second, if hysterical patients are not good subjects of hypnosis relative to the general population, what is the difference? The difference is the degree of suggestibility. There is, as we shall reveal later, a high degree of correlation between suggestibility and hypnosis. Hysterical patients are not highly suggestible individuals. Third, the work of the Nancy School, which used quiet suggestion, not only indicated that suggestion was a main element in the hypnotic induction, but that language played an important role. Although language appears a left brain function, this is only a superficial view. Language is vital in coming to a view of ‘self’. The concept of ‘self’ appears to be a left brain feature, as we shall develop later. But language has been subdivided into superficial language and deep language. Although superficial language is a left brain feature, deep language appears to be a right brain feature. Superficial language attracts the attention of the left brain, but then deep language, in the form of images, activates the right brain. Fourth, if self-hypnosis is possible, which it is, then for this theory to be true would imply that all individuals who could hypnotize themselves were potential or actual hysterics.

Hysterical patients have only a tenuous view of ‘self’. Furthermore, their attention span is what makes it difficult to hypnotize them. Suggestion is made by means of language, and for this to happen, the subject must pay attention to the suggestions. If either the suggestions cannot be understood, or if attention cannot be paid to the suggestions, then hypnosis is difficult or impossible. At the same time, this may account for why ‘normal’ individuals could be hypnotized, contrary to Charcot’s view!

The theory that hypnosis is a hysterical phenomenon does not, therefore, seem to hold up to scrutiny.

2 No more than suggestion

The main alternative theory to Charcot’s was that put forward by the Nancy School. This theory of hypnosis, in its extreme form, asserts that hypnosis is a result of suggestion. That hypnosis was no more than a result of suggestion was asserted most strongly by Liébeault and Bernheim of the Nancy School. Bernheim, in his De la suggestion, argued that hypnosis was a form of sleep brought on by heightened suggestibility, most specifically established by verbal suggestions. This theory asserts, therefore, that hypnosis is not an abnormal feature of the nervous system (e.g., hysteria) but rather a feature that is possessed by everyone, and so almost everyone is capable of being hypnotized. A similar view was later asserted by the New Nancy School under the work of Coué and Baudouin (see History). The main difference between the view of the New Nancy School and that of the earlier one was that the main factor in hypnosis was autosuggestion. Another important feature was that the main aspects of autosuggestion took place at the unconscious level.

The continued investigation into hypnosis and suggestibility, especially in terms of suggestibility scales, would further support this theory. However, its extreme form, that hypnosis is a result of suggestion, does not hold up to scrutiny. In the first instance we need to be clear what is meant by suggestion. It may be that we are simply replacing the word ‘hypnosis’ by the word ‘suggestion’, neither of which are clearly understood. The Oxford Companion to the Mind does not even have a separate entry on ‘Suggestion’. Furthermore, the assertion by the New Nancy School that autosuggestions take place at the unconscious level means that their investigation is almost impossible. As such, the assertion can neither be proved nor disproved. Third, it is well known that some animals go into a state akin to hypnosis when fixated (e.g., the fixation carried out by a snake). Even in humans, a trance-like state can arise from fixating on a repeated pattern, especially flashing lights. If this is a state of hypnosis, then it can hardly be a result of suggestion. Lastly, we noted that Mesmer and other hypnotists could hypnotize subjects at a distance without them being conscious of the act. Whether they were unconscious of the act we shall consider later, but what matters here is that no direct verbal suggestions were involved.

As a complete theory of hypnosis, the suggestion theory is flawed. That suggestion is an important element in many forms of hypnosis is not being denied. What we have in fact established is that suggestion is neither necessary nor sufficient for hypnosis to occur. This is an important observation. What the theories are trying to establish is the main ingredient of hypnosis: what is it that distinguishes this state from any other state? This may be some phenomenon, such as suggestion as argued by the two Nancy Schools, or some particular organ or location of the body. It may be none of these things!

What the history of hypnosis reveals is that suggestion has played a vital role in most hypnotic states, especially the positive form of hypnosis. One possible conjecture that may be made is that suggestion is a vital ingredient of positive hypnosis but not necessarily a vital ingredient in negative hypnosis. The fixation response we referred to above is a reflex action on the part of the subject being fixated. The subject responds automatically and with no conscious control. At the same time the sympathetic nervous system is highly activated, with the subject in a ‘fight-or-flight’ state. Although suggestions are not necessary in this state, if such suggestions are made then they tend to be acted on without conscious volition. On the other hand, when the ‘relaxation response’ is invoked then a main, but by no means essential, ingredient is verbal suggestions. It is through the verbal suggestions that the individual brings about the ‘relaxation response’ so necessary for positive hypnosis.

3 Hypnosis is a form of sleep

“Go to sleep” is probably one of the most used phrases when inducing hypnosis. Does this mean that hypnosis is a form of sleep? It is not ‘sleep’ in the normal sense of the word because the individual can talk and respond to the hypnotist. When in self-hypnosis the individual knows that they are not in the same state as when they go to sleep at night. Why, then, would anyone hypothesize that hypnosis was a form of sleep? The crucial word here is ‘form’, since we need to define exactly what form we are referring to. In order to explain this it is worth emphasising that the strongest exponent of hypnosis being a form of sleep is Pavlov. Pavlov classifies stimuli into two types: primary and secondary. Primary stimuli are those that directly affect the sense organs; while secondary stimuli are those that affect first the primary stimuli and which in turn affect the sense organs. Words are one of the main secondary stimuli and are particular to man. Thus, a word such as ‘sleep’ leads to a conditioned reflex that leads in turn to a physiological response (see BOX 1). This conditioned reflex is set up early in life and so the word ‘sleep’ is a very strong secondary stimulus.

BOX 1 Pavlov and classical conditioning

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936) was a Russian psychologist whose main fame was as a result of his work on conditioned reflexes. There are two types of conditioning discussed in the literature: classical (or Pavlovian) conditioning and instrumental (or operant) conditioning. Here we are concerned only with classical conditioning.

While working on digestion, and using dogs as his subjects, he noticed that if a sound was made just before a dog was fed, and since the anticipation of food led to salivation, he found the same salivation occurred when the bell was sounded but no food was given. He also found that it did not have to be a bell. ‘Psychic salivation’ could occur with the production of the usual tin can that normally contained food, or with the attendance of a person who usually fed the animal. His most famous experiment involved sounding a bell just before the dog is fed. Once the dog was familiar with the bell and the production of food, then the bell was sounded without any food being presented. He found that the dog still salivated even though no food was forthcoming. He referred to the food as an unconditional stimulus and to the bell as a conditional stimulus; in addition, he referred to the salivation as an unconditional reflex. In the case of just the bell and the salivation, however, he referred to the salivation as the conditional reflex. The usual order of events is therefore:

conditional stimulus -> unconditional stimulus -> unconditional reflex

(bell) (food) (salivation)

i.e. the conditional stimulus is a signal that the unconditional stimulus is about to appear.

Pavlov undertook a detailed study of the response. Here we shall concentrate only on those observations important for hypnosis. One observation he made was that it was much easier to form a conditional reflex if the unconditional stimulus (food) followed the conditional stimulus (the bell) rather than if they were simultaneous or if the conditional stimulus followed the unconditional stimulus. This has led to much research into the best way to learn. It has, for example, been found that learning is fastest if the conditional stimulus is presented about 0.5 seconds before the unconditional stimulus. Second, it is important for the unconditional stimulus to occur soon after the conditional stimulus. In other words, the dog learns to expect the food soon after the bell is rung. The two stimuli form a strong bond with each other. This same bond will arise, however, if the conditional stimulus comes a fair time before the unconditional stimulus, so long as it continues up to the time the unconditional stimulus is presented. Third, the stronger the conditional stimulus the more intense the conditioned reflex, i.e., the louder the bell the more the dog salivates. Fourth, once a conditioned response to a stimulus has been acquired, then similar stimuli will invoke the same response. For example, a bell with a different pitch will also illicit salivation. This he called the generalization of the conditional stimulus. The more alike the new stimulus is to the original, the more the second will substitute for the first. It has been found that generalization falls off the more unlike the new stimulus is in comparison with the original one.

His investigations went further still. Suppose a dog develops a conditioned reflex based on the sound of a bell. What would happen if the same dog were exposed to a whistle in place of a bell? What Pavlov discovered was that the initial conditioned reflex was lost and replaced by a new one. This he referred to as external inhibition of the original conditional reflex. He further raised the question of what would happen if the food (the unconditional stimulus) were repeatedly absent, would the dog continue to salivate when he heard the sound of the bell? The answer was no. Salivation in response to a bell would only continue if the food were presented soon after the bell was sounded. In other words, the conditioned reflex required continual reinforcement by the unconditional stimulus. However, he also found that although reinforcement was required initially, continued learning levels off. The learning curve (as has been well established elsewhere) has an asymptote where learning levels off. Without the reinforcement of the unconditional stimulus there was internal inhibition of the conditioned reflex, i.e., the situation led to the extinction of the conditioned reflex.

Although most of Pavlov's work was on dogs, he did experiment on other animals. Furthermore, he asserted that the same conditioning occurred in man. Certainly, the conditioned reflex is observed in babies.

Before being too dismissive of this theory let us look at it in more detail. First, hypnotists inducing hypnosis often suggest to the subject to “go to sleep”. Certainly this was the basis of Braid’s method, and was used by the Abbé Faria and by the Nancy School. It is still used to this day in many induction procedures and by stage hypnotistis. Second, to the casual observer, looking at a person who is hypnotized is like looking at someone asleep in the normal sense. Their eyes are closed, they are relaxed, and they do not respond unless spoken to. In deep hypnosis the individual does not remember what transpires when in the hypnotic state. Finally, the individual is asked to “awaken” in order to return him or her to a normal waking state. In all outward appearances, then, normal sleep and hypnosis look alike. Also, since hypnosis is induced by instructing the individual to “go to sleep” and to come out of hypnosis by “awakening”, then it seems reasonable to conclude that the two states are very similar. It is not surprising that ‘hypnosis’ is from the Greek word hypnos, meaning ‘sleep’, and that ‘somnambulism’ is from the Latin somnus (sleep) and ambulae (walk), which is used to describe a deeply hypnotized person.

Returning to Pavlov’s theory, he considered sleep as being a state of reduced cortical stimulation and that hypnosis was half way between wakefulness and sleep. In other words, hypnosis was a partially reduced state of cortical stimulation. If an individual was exposed to prolonged monotonous environmental stimulation, then cortical inhibition takes place. This in turn reduces the motor activity of an individual, i.e., they become listless and lacking in movement. But Pavlov went further. He argued that under hypnosis, not only are motor components lost, but that they are lost in a progressive fashion. We immediately see from this that Pavlov sees hypnosis as being a characteristic of the cortex. More of the cortex is inhibited as hypnosis progresses and deepens. As more of the cortex is inhibited then movements of the hypnotized individual become more difficult and slower until there is no motor response at all. To different degrees, we do observe this phenomenon in hypnotized subjects.

There are two aspects here we need to distinguish. First, is the superficial similarity between sleep and hypnosis. Second, is the hypothesis of cortical inhibition that occurs under hypnosis. The similarity between sleep and hypnosis has been fairly convincingly disproved: there is very little similarity between sleep and hypnosis – except at the most superficial level. When we consider such things as EEG, blood pressure, and physiological responses we find that the two phenomena differ significantly. For example, the basic EEG patterns of sleep in stages 2, 3 and 4 are quite different from those of an individual in hypnosis. Furthermore, deep hypnosis (somnambulism) and ‘sleep somnambulism’ also appear to be different. For instance, sleep somnambulism occurs in stage 4 of sleep, with characteristic delta waves, whereas delta waves do not occur in deeply hypnotized subjects. It has also been found that there is little relationship between hypnotic susceptibility and alpha waves – although this is not a universal empirical result. Given the present interest in alpha waves, Evans concludes that alpha activity does not appear to vary during hypnosis.

But what about cortical inhibition in both sleep and hypnosis? There is no doubt that cortical inhibition takes place in normal sleep. Eventually, the individual is immobile, there is little or no response to outside stimuli, and there is no rapport whatsoever with the hypnotist. As hypnosis is deepened and suggestions of “deep sleep” are repeated, then similar lack of motor control seems to occur. This may, as Pavlov suggested, be a conditioned response. But the word “sleep” need never be used in the hypnotic induction and deepening. Furthermore, a responsive individual can be instructed to feel quite alert, have their eyes open yet still be hypnotized, appear quite normal, but at all times responsive to the suggestions of the hypnotist. In this situation there is absolutely no correlation between normal sleep and hypnosis, or even between sleep somnambulism and deep hypnosis. What we are in danger of doing here is having an (incorrect) expectation about what the hypnotic state is. If we expect an individual to have the appearance and characteristics of sleep, if we reinforce this expectation with the constant repetition of the phrase “you are going to sleep... a deep, deep, sleep” then it is not surprising that for susceptible individuals they will respond as we and they are expected to respond. This was true in the time of Mesmer, and it is equally true today!

The association between hypnosis and sleep is a very unfortunate one. The work of Erickson, and that of neuro-linguistic programmers (who base their work on Erickson), avoid the association with sleep and still hypnotize individuals very effectively. “Sleep” as a conditioned response appears neither necessary nor sufficient for hypnosis. But having said this, we should not dispense with all that we have learnt about why individuals go into hypnosis when “sleep” is suggested. When we go into a normal sleep, we shut down to a large extent the left brain. It is the left brain that houses our consciousness. Hence, when we go into a natural sleep we ‘lose consciousness’. At night, the right brain gains prominence and we dream. Let us make a conjecture. Let us suppose that an essential element of hypnosis is a reduced activation of the left brain and a very active right brain. We have yet to establish whether there is any truth in this, but let us assume for the moment that it is true. Then the induction procedure that emphasises sleep is a conditioned response that quickly and easily elicits the shift from left brain to right brain activity. Still assuming our conjecture, if we do not use this particular conditioned response, then how do we bring about the shift from left to right brain activity? Erickson and his followers have devised a quite different approach which can be categorised as a combination of metaphor and story-telling. In this approach there is no reference to sleep, and can even involve waking hypnosis. Furthermore, spinning disks, flashing lights, repetitive sounds can all induce hypnosis. It seems implausible to argue that these are intimately connected with conditioned responses – and none involve language, which is required for Pavlov’s secondary stimulus particular to man.

The conclusion we draw from this conjecture, if it is correct, is that we need to establish ways of shifting from the left brain to right brain activity. A hypnotist can bring this about – where the hypnotist may be someone else, as in heterohypnosis, or by oneself, as in self-hypnosis. It may be established by means of suggesting “sleep” but it can equally be established by other means. It is the other means that have been little investigated.

4 Hypnosis, multiple self and dissociation

In the history of hypnosis, we noted that Chastenet de Puységur had hypnotized Victor, a somnambulist. When Victor was hypnotized he appeared to be under the direct control of Puységur. But two other features are worth noting. First, Victor did not remember what transpired during his hypnotic states. Second, he seemed to be a different person – no longer the village simpleton, but a rather profound young man and knowledgeable about other people’s illnesses. Did Victor have two personalities? Did Victor simply dissociate when he went into hypnosis? Is hypnosis associated with multiple personality? These are not easy questions to answer.

The dissociationist theory of hypnosis is that during a trance state an individual dissociates and splits off part of his or her consciousness. Dissociation is not an uncommon phenomenon. We all at times have been in situations were we are doing something very intensively and then dissociate into two were we become the observer of what is doing the intensive work: we become an observer of ourselves! In terms of this theory, when a person is hypnotized they split into two and lose volitional control. They respond to suggestions as a reflex. Since the reflex occurs purely in the spine, then it does not involve awareness, which requires an activation of the cortex.

For this theory to be correct then dissociation must be the necessary characteristic of the hypnotic state. However, this is far from true. Individuals, as pointed out above, can dissociate when working intensively. Furthermore, dissociation occurs in a number of altered states of consciousness – not least in religious reverie. The dissociationist theory concentrates too much on somnambulism. The non-awareness occurs in deeply hypnotized subjects. But what about subjects who are not deeply hypnotized, but are hypnotized nonetheless? In a number of such individuals awareness, far from diminishing, is actually heightened: heightened but focused at the same time. But even for the deeply hypnotized subject who is amnesic about the hypnotic state, they can recall what occurs if they are instructed to do so. So although amnesia is necessary for dissociation, it is not necessary for a state of hypnosis.

There may be an element of truth in the dissociationist theory of hypnosis. If, as I shall argue in detail later, consciousness resides in the left brain, and if hypnosis largely shuts off the left brain and activates the right brain, then a hypnotized subject will experience some degree of dissociation. If we suppose for a moment that the unconscious mind resides in the right brain, then we have the conscious self and the unconscious self. In terms of the dissociationist theory it is the unconscious self that is responding to the hypnotist, and the conscious self is unaware of the process. But this treats the activity of the two brains as absolutes. They are either ‘on’ or ‘off’. But there is no reason to suppose this is true either in hypnosis or any other state. Cortical activity will vary both in each half of the brain and in relation to each other. However, the less the cortical activity, especially in the left brain, then the less awareness there is and the greater the dissociation. If this conjecture is correct, then the dissociationist theory is partly a theory about the two halves of the brain and their relationship with each other. It cannot, however, be a complete theory because it does not explain what is happening with the two halves of the brain. Also, to the extent that the theory requires amnesia, and amnesia is not a necessary element of hypnosis, means that it cannot explain those hypnotic situations where no amnesia takes place.

5 Hypnosis is just role-playing

We distinguished negative hypnosis that was typical of hypnotic states at the time of Mesmer from positive hypnosis that tends to be the norm today. In making this distinction we argued that subjects behaved as they were expected to behave. Thus, patients hypnotized by Mesmer went into convulsions and catatonic states because magnetised individuals were supposed to do that; today subjects appear in a relaxed sleep-like state because they are told to "go to sleep" and that is what such a person would be like. In other words, hypnotized subjects play the role they are expected to play: hypnosis is simply a form of role-playing.

The role-playing theory of hypnosis asserts that the performance of a subject when being hypnotized depends on four factors:

attitude towards hypnosis
motivation
expectation
willingness to cooperate

and that the willingness of the subject to cooperate is the most important element in the whole process. The degree of this cooperation will also depend on the rapport between the subject and the hypnotist. So long as a subject wants to be hypnotized, and has some idea of what role a hypnotized person should take, and is cooperative, then they will not only be hypnotized, but will react as expected.

Like the other theories we have discussed, there is some element of truth in this theory; but just like the other theories, it cannot be a complete explanation. In the first instance it assumes that the hypnotized individual is aware of the role he or she is playing. In the case of a deeply hypnotized person who does not recall what he or she did under hypnosis, then this makes sense only if we argue that the unconscious self is role-playing. But this is stretching theory into the realm of the unknown. Second, we noted in the history of hypnosis that Esdaile, when in India, undertook many operations on patients who were under hypnosis. These often involved amputations. It is stretching credibility to assume that such individuals were simply role-playing. Indeed, if they were, then it is role-playing which needs to be thoroughly investigated! But the same has been shown to be the case with anaesthesia. Under hypnosis the degree of anaesthesia that can be tolerated is much higher for a hypnotized subject than for a normal individual who is role-playing.

What this theory does direct our attention to is the degree to which an individual is willing to be hypnotized and is cooperative in the hypnotic session. Furthermore, that the degree of success is partly dependent on the subject’s motivation and partly on the rapport with the hypnotist. All these are, however, secondary factors that aid the hypnosis, but they do not account for it.

6 Hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness

We have often, in passing, mentioned that hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness. It must be appreciated that this too is a theory, a theory that views hypnosis from a particular vantage point. Altered states of consciousness (ASC) are now in vogue. In the past it was accepted that sleep and wakefulness were different. It was accepted that hysteria was some form of abnormality and it too was different from normal consciousness and from sleep. A person in hypnosis appears different from someone in natural sleep, certainly different from someone in the normal waking state, and different yet again from someone in meditation. The point is that you are not conscious or unconscious. These are absolutes. Consider the following analogy. There is a table that is full of lights. Half of the table (the left half) has plain lights and the other half (the right half) has red lights. One situation is that all the plain lights are on (all the left half is alight) but the red lights are off. A second possibility is that all the red lights are on (all the right half is alight) and the plain lights are off. These states, of course, only represent two of the four extreme possibilities. But it is quite possible for only some of the lights on the left side of the table to be on and others to be off; and at the same time, only some of the lights on the right side of the table to be on and others to be off. Each different combination of on/off lights would represent a different state of the over-all table. Each right-left and on-off combination would represent a different state of consciousness. This analogy is, of course, too simplistic. What it does illustrate, however, is that the brain can be in different states throughout the day.

But to say hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness, we must explain what it is different from. This is probably best explained by listing different states of the mind (which are here simply listed in alphabetically order):

dissociation

drunkenness

hypnosis

meditation

religious ecstasy

sleep

wakefulness

Hypnosis, as a state, is assumed to be one of focussed relaxation. The body is relaxed and the mind is focussed on the suggestions of the hypnotist – whether the hypnotist is someone else of oneself.

7 Regression theory

There are two variants of this theory. In one, hypnosis is assumed to be a situation where the subject regresses to an infantile state. In this state the infant is dependent on the parents for guidance; and so the hypnotist takes on this role. What is upper-most in this version is that a subject is compliant to the hypnotist and this arises because the subject has undergone an infantile regression and the hypnotist has taken on the parental role. But why does regression take place? An individual as he or she develops, develops an ego which is a subject’s conception of ‘self’. Regression suppresses the ego and puts the subject in the situation before a well-developed ego has formed. Compliance is a necessary ingredient in order to allow this to take place. So is motivation. Only if a subject wishes to be hypnotized will they allow such regression to take place.

This theory, at least this version of the theory, places strong emphasis on transference and the role of the hypnotist taking on the role of the parent. But this cannot account for self-hypnosis, were no transference takes place. This does not, however, mean that regression does not occur in hypnosis. A second variant does not require transference and the hypnotist taking on the role of the parent. What it does assume is that during hypnosis a subject reverts to the more primitive brain structures. In other words, during hypnosis the reptilian brain is activated in which more reflex actions take place. It is this part of the brain which is operative when a subject is young and before their ego has had time to develop. So long as a subject can activate their reptilian brain structure, then self-hypnosis and heterohypnosis is possible according to this theory.

Regardless of what hypnosis is, regression can and does occur. A subject can be regressed under suggestion. Does this mean a subject acts like he or she thinks a younger person behaves and speaks, or do they regress? The evidence is that they do indeed regress. Their brain waves change, their digestion changes, and they can, when regressed far enough, instinctively perform the Babinski reflex. Compliance alone cannot account for these changes. As with other theories, however, regression is neither necessary nor sufficient for hypnosis to occur.

Although the parent-transference version of this theory may be rejected, the possibility that hypnosis involves regressing to the extent of activating the reptilian brain cannot be discounted. Even in the case of self-hypnosis, this is possible so long as dissociation occurs. The subject can hypnotize himself or herself, regress themselves, and behave childishly and yet still give themselves ‘sensible’ suggestions. This dissociation would imply dissociation between the various brain structures in which the cortex sends messages to the relevant sections of the core brain.

8 REM theory of hypnosis

Psychologists have analyzed the characteristics of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. This is the period in which we dream. Although there are various theories about why we dream, what is not in dispute are the characteristic features of dreams while in the REM state. Even so, facts are inevitably embedded in theories. For example, although we know that the greatest proportion of REM sleep occurs in the womb, it has been argued that this is when instincts are laid down. From this hypothesis comes the additional hypothesis that if you want to change (faulty) instinctive behaviour then the most suitable state to be in to do this is a REM state. The third hypothesis is that hypnosis is such a REM state. This hypothesis itself presupposes another: REM states can occur outside of sleep. This theory has two further hypotheses. First, quick inductions bring about REM states by producing the brains natural reorientation response (involving the ponto-geniculo-occipital spike - the sudden jerky movement as the brain enters the REM state). Second, relaxation inductions mirror the body's means of entering the REM state by withdrawing from outside stimuli and focusing on bodily sensations.

When considering the many characteristics of hypnosis we note that they all occur in our state of dreaming, i.e. in the REM state. When asleep the body is cataleptic so that we do not act out our dreams. Dreams involve dissociation and time distortion. The imagery of dreams involve emotion, patterns and metaphors. From this perspective the different approaches to hypnosis are how best to induce a REM state when not asleep; and the depth and characteristics of hypnosis are simply what is possible when a person is in a REM state.

The REM theory of dreaming and hypnosis has been stressed by Joe Griffin and Ivan Tyrrell of Human Givens and by Mark Tyrrell and Roger Elliott of Unknown Knowledge (see web links for these two organisations).

9 Holographic theory of hypnosis

The early view of memory was that each memory was localised somewhere in the brain, and the traces of such memories were called engrams (although no one knew what an engram actually was). This view seemed to be substantiated by Penfield’s work on the brain of epileptics. When stimulating certain areas of the brain, the subjects re-experienced past memories. More specifically, when the same spot was stimulated so was the same memory. It was on the basis of this research that Penfield and others concluded that everything that has ever happened to us is recorded somewhere in the brain. Such a view continues to be held by many hypnotherapists. Since, it is thought, that memories are localised in the brain, then under hypnosis these memories can be recalled. Although this view helps to explain the phenomenon of age regression, it is not so helpful in explaining age progression.

Pribram later cut out the part of a rat’s brains that contained the location of a memory (for a maze); however, the rat recalled the maze. Pribram’s conclusion was that memories were not localised, as Penfiled had asserted, but were located (distributed) throughout the brain – which is why removing part could not remove the memory. Furthermore, duplication of Penfield’s work did not appear possible on patients other than epileptics – even by Penfeld himself. The ability to duplicate scientific results has always been an essential feature of the scientific method of research. At the time of Pimbram’s research there was no scientific way to account for memories being distributed throughout the brain. But in the mid-1960s there was the first construction of a hologram, and it was this that supplied the basis for a new theory of memories – and a new theory of hypnosis.

We can explain a hologram briefly as follows. Central to the construction of a hologram is interference. When a pebble is dropped in a pond it makes a set of concentric ripples. A second pebble will do the same. How one set of ripples interacts (interfers) with the other is called an interference pattern. The same idea is used in constructing a hologram.

A hologram is created by bouncing a laser beam off on object and then having a second laser beam interact with the first to create an interference pattern of the object, which is then recorded on a holographic plate. This recording looks like a series of concentric patterns and nothing like a photographic image. However, when a laser (or bright light) is shone on the plate a three-dimensional image of the object is recreated. You can see the object from all sides just as if you were walking around it and viewing it from different angles. But it does not exist in material form – as evidenced by the fact that you can put your hand through it. More significant is the fact that each part of the holographic plate contains the whole image. The more parts of the plate one has for viewing the image, the sharper the image becomes. So for Pribram, each part of the brain contains the memory. Put another way, if the holographic plate is cut into two, then you have two images each complete. If you cut the holographic plate into four, then you have four images each complete. And so on. In other words, each part contains the whole. Because each part contains the whole then the way information is stored holographically is fundamentally different from other ways of storing information, especially photographs. This has led to the view that a holographic image has ‘field properties’ because such a field property is like, but not the same as, a magnetic field.

It is not only memory that is now considered to be holographic in nature. Until quite recently, vision was thought to produce an (inverted) image on the retina that was then interpreted by the brain. However, removing large portions of the visual cortex (the part of the brain that interprets what the eye ‘sees’) does not totally remove the ability to do visual tasks. Rather than being localised, vision, like memory, is now considered to be distributed throughout the whole brain. But how is this possible? Neurons have branches that radiate outwards. It is now thought that these create electrical patterns that act like ripples on a pond, so creating interference patterns. The whole brain can then be considered as a hologram. The essential features of holograms are that they can process vast amounts of information quickly and information can be cross-correlated instantaneously. Think for a moment about a rose. You do not think of the last rose you saw, its colour and then the previous rose, etc. A whole spectrum of thoughts comes into your head almost simultaneously, which you then sift through.

In a holographic universe a quantum can be a particle or a wave. As a particle it has dimension but as a wave it does not. As a particle it has space-time dimension but as a wave it does not. As a wave it can create an interference pattern. Consciousness is like the particle and has a space-time dimension. On the other hand, unconsciousness is like the wave and has no space-time dimension. As a waveform the unconscious has access to the whole: it is part of the whole and the whole simultaneously. There is no past, present or future in this waveform: space and time simply do not exist.

To the extent that consciousness is involved in the hypnotic process, then space and time have meaning to the individual. However, the more the unconscious process is activated, then the less meaning there is to time and space. In a deep trance state the individual becomes part of the interference patter of the holographic universe, and so becomes part of the whole with access to knowledge of the whole. In this holographic universe we are not separate but interconnected with everything. It is in this interconnectedness that mind and matter come together: that mind can influence matter.

In such a holographic universe, individuals such as Victor can access knowledge beyond what he possesses, and can ‘know’ the ailments of others. He is not separate from others and his knowledge is not limited by time and space. In the same way, ESP, dissociation, trance logic – so often found in hypnosis – may just be manifestations of the holographic universe.

Any new theory, and this is a new theory, must explain things that previous theories could not. From our history, one puzzling phenomenon is that of hypnosis at a distance. Some believe this is simply not possible. But it does occur, and if it does occur what is the explanation for it. Early theories argued that it was magnetism, but this is now discredited. But if it is not magnetism, then what is it that allows hypnosis at a distance? If individuals belong to a holographic universe, then (at some level) they create an interference pattern with each other. The two individuals, rather than being separate are part of the whole. There is not a magnetic flow between them, but rather they are connected – as they always were. The holographic interference pattern created between them allows the two individuals to be part of the whole at the unconscious level. Some scientists have gone further in their speculations. They argue that thought (or what they refer to as consciousness) acts like a field. While the gravitational field links all matter, and this is purported to be done by means of a particle called a ‘graviton’, so all living organisms are connected by means of ‘biogravitons’. Thought, and one might speculate hypnosis, influence these biogravitons, which in turn interact with other fields (like gravitation) and so influence matter.

There is a striking similarity in these speculations about fields and biogravitons to Mesmer’s hypothesis (now discredited) that hypnosis involved animal magnetism – also a field concept. We may have come full circle and simply replaced animal magnetism with the term ‘biogravitational field’!