To Pr. Cliff Joslyn
Dear Sir,
This is my subscription form to PRNCYB-L mailing list.
Regards,
Th. Melchior
Name: =
Thierry MELCHIOR
Email address: =
URL of home page:
none
Postal address:
17 Avenue Constant Montald B-1200 BRUSSELS (Belgium)
Phone:++ 32-2-763 11 33
Affiliations:
Psychologist at the mental Health Service of the Free University of =
Brussels (U.L.B.); Founding president of the Belgian Society of Hypnosis =
(french-speaking); President of the Milton H. Erickson Institute of =
Belgium.
How did you hear about PCP?
Searching links related with constructivism, =
reality-imagination-language issues, Maturana-Varela work (...) through =
Infoseek.
Please take at least one page to describe your work
and how it might relate to PCP:
I am Licenci=E9 en Philosophie and Licenci=E9 en Psychologie. I work as a =
psychotherapist and hypnotherapist. I am doing research in hypnosis and =
psychotherapy. I am particularly interested by the problem of the =
relationships between language, imagination and reality. I have started =
to develop a communicational approach of hypnosis and psychotherapy. =
This approach has been already presented to some Congresses of Hypnosis =
(European Congress of Hypnosis in M=FCnchen, October 1995; European =
Congress of Hypnosis, Budapest, August 1996).
Here below is the paper I have presented at this last Congress. I =
suppose it will give a fair idea of the kind of questions I am dealing =
with.
SOME COMMUNICATIONAL ASPECTS OF HYPNOSIS
Thierry MELCHIOR, Dipl. Phil., Dipl Psych., works in the Mental Health =
Service of The Free University of Brussels. He has been the founding =
President of the Belgian Society of Hypnosis (French-speaking). He also =
is the President of the Milton H. Erickson Institute of Belgium and =
Member of the Board of the Milton H. Erickson Institute of the North of =
France.
KEY-WORDS : =
Pragmatics, Reframing operator, Void sign, =
ABSTRACT :
Is hypnosis a true state or is it only a kind of role-playing ? This =
controversy is, in our culture as ancient as hypnosis itself. Getting =
back to the facts, and with special emphasis on communicational facts, =
it is possible to show that this controversy probably does not exist by =
accident, but is significant of the nature of hypnosis itself. Hypnosis =
may be considered, in a perspective which was open one century ago by =
Janet, as the result of the utilization of a nearly empty sign =
("hypnosis" or its synonyms) which functions as a reframing operator of =
the subject's global behavior. Hypnosis appears, in this communicational =
model, as a (necessarily) ill-defined concept used in the production of =
a (relatively) well-defined phenomenon.
SOME COMMUNICATIONAL ASPECTS OF HYPNOSIS
Many theories of hypnosis have focused on what was supposed to happen =
inside the subject's mind. The problem with these theories is, first, =
that they deal with non-observable realities and, second, that they do =
not take into account the interaction between subject and operator.
This interaction has two aspects : the ethological, non-verbal dimension =
and the communicational verbal dimension. This paper will mostly focus =
on the communicational verbal aspects of the hypnotic interaction.
Two levels of communication will be distinguished :
The first level, is what we will call suggestive communication. At this =
level the question is : What are the characteristics of the sentences =
sent by the hypnotist to the subject.
The second level deals with the use of the word "hypnosis" or of its =
synonyms. At this level the question is : What is the function of the =
word "hypnosis" in hypnosis ? =
Suggestive communication
Let's start with the first level.
Let's consider a common direct suggestion. A says to B :
"Your eyes are closing." (S) =
Any hypnotist will probably accept this sentence S as an example of what =
is usually called a suggestion in the field of hypnosis. Nevertheless =
one condition is required for S to work as a suggestion : S may not be =
uttered when the eyes of B have already begin to close. If they have, S =
will obviously not be a suggestion; it would only be a simple =
description.
sends to B in which A describes a behavior that B does not exhibit, or =
does not exhibit yet. =
This false description obviously does not belong to the category of =
error. It could then belong to the category of fiction. So, suggestions =
are fictitious descriptions. As fictions do, they lead the receiver into =
a world different of the usual commonly agreed world.
Yet, since it is usual to say that a suggestion is "obeyed", "followed", =
or "accepted", we may also consider that if suggestions have the form of =
descriptions, they have a use akin to orders, commands or demands. And =
it is no secret that when an hypnotist sends a suggestion, he wishes =
this suggestion to be obeyed or followed.
Suggestions may thus be considered as fictitious descriptions or =
injunctive descriptions.
Being altogether fictitious and injunctive descriptions, they can also =
be considered as a kind of what the British philosopher John L. Austin =
(1962) and his followers call "performatives". While "constatives" are =
only mere descriptions ("This table is brown"), "performatives" are =
expressions which do not denote an existing reality but tend to create =
it. For instance, if Jones says to Smith "I am walking", he is just =
describing what he is doing, and his description may be true or false. =
But when he says "I promise to come", he does not describe a promise; he =
is making a promise, he is creating his promise, he is promising. When =
the president says "The meeting is open", it is a fiction which =
immediately becomes an effective reality (if there is enough consensus =
about the legitimacy of the operation). =
But the fact of sending to the receiver descriptions of his own behavior =
do create a very peculiar kind of communication. =
First, it is worth while to note that in a "normal" communication the =
speaker speaks about something (what is denoted, the denotatum, the =
referent) to the receiver and most of the time the receiver and the =
referent are different.
Speaker -----> Receiver
=
Referent
Main structure of "normal" communication
In the suggestive communication, most of the time the receiver is both =
the receiver and the referent i.e. the subject-matter of the messages =
sent to him.
Speaker --------> Receiver & referent
Main structure of suggestive communication
Second, being himself the subject-matter of the descriptions he =
receives, he is obliged (if he listens) to split into an observing part =
and an observed part of himself. This evokes what hypnotists call, since =
Pierre Janet, "dissociation".
Third, the originator of these messages becomes the definer of the =
subject's behavior . =
Four, when the originator sends messages describing non-observable =
behaviors such as feelings, emotions, thoughts, perceptions, something =
very peculiar happens. A speaks as if he knew as well as B what is going =
on inside the latter . Doing this, he violates a fundamental principle =
of human communication. =
This principle, although implicit, is an essential condition for normal =
communication to take place. It could be called "principle of difference =
between interlocutors" (Melchior 1990,1991). It states that each =
interlocutor has his own position in the communicational network. That =
is to say that if A and B want to communicate, each of them has to be =
different, well defined and separate from each other. Each one must be =
able to know who is who, that is, who is "I" and who is "you". This =
principle can thus be considered as fundamental for the constitution of =
personal identity.
If there is a confusion in this respect, the symbolic exchange cannot =
take place on a normal basis. The communication is distorted. The =
process of inter-locution becomes what could be called a process of =
intra-locution, in which the receiver accepts (to a certain degree) to =
be spoken, to be stated, to be defined by the speaker.
Far too little attention has been borne on all these aspects of =
intralocutive communication. A closer examination seems necessary, but =
what can already be asserted is that the receiver of this abnormal =
communication is likely to experience and display a variety of bizarre =
(overt and covert) behaviors. The nature of these behaviors will partly =
depend on the content of the messages sent and on the nature of the =
initial reactions of the receiver, reactions which in turn will be =
subject-matter of new statements, fostering in that way a feed-back =
loop. Yet common components of these bizarre behaviors are often of the =
same kind as those experienced in hypnosis. And any experienced =
hypnotist knows that it is not necessary to pronounce the word =
"hypnosis" or any of its synonyms to induce hypnotic-like behaviors. =
With many subjects it will suffice to send a succession of descriptive, =
predictive and injunctive-descriptive statements about their behavior to =
favor such a result. This is what is sometimes refered as "hypnosis =
without hypnosis" or "hypnosis without trance". We have tried to sum up =
some links between formal aspects of suggestive communication and its =
pragmatical effects in this transparency.
We will say that suggestive communication is potentially hypnogenic.
We will now examine what specifically is added to this first level of =
communication (suggestive communication) and the phenomena it favors =
when the word "hypnosis" (or its synonyms) is used.
Hypnosis as a reframing operator
Since we don't really know what hypnosis is, maybe one way of =
understanding more about it is to start, again, with the observation of =
the facts, and specifically with the observation of communicational =
facts : how, when, in what contexts is the word "hypnosis" used ?
The answer is : mostly in two contexts.
In the first one, we find all the communications exchanged, between =
individuals, about hypnosis, whether these individuals are specialists, =
scientists or lay people. In this context there is no (explicit) =
intention to hypnotize anyone, but only to share ideas, to debate or to =
quarrel about hypnosis. For convenience, we will call this kind of =
communication "communication about hypnosis". Belonging to this context =
are sentences like those exchanged here.
It is within this larger context that a second context takes place. In =
this latter, A sends to B suggestive messages including the word =
"hypnosis" or synonyms, and B (at least in some cases) exhibits =
hypnotic-like behaviors. Generally, in these contexts, A admits openly =
that his intention is to hypnotize B. For convenience, will call these =
kinds of contexts "hypnotic communication".
During the process of a typical hypnotic communication, there are mainly =
three kinds of occurrence of the word "hypnosis" (or of its synonyms).
1. In a first type of use, A uses "hypnosis" in relation with various =
items of behavior exhibited by B. These items of behavior may belong to =
the lists known as "trance indicators" or not. These items often are the =
kind of bizarre behavior that intra-locution is likely to induce, but in =
fact any item of behavior could be used.
Typically these items of behavior are said to be signs of hypnosis or =
means of achieving hypnosis. For instance :
"You may notice this fluttering of your eyelids so typical of the trance =
state..."
"And the more your arm feels heavy, the deeper you go into this hypnotic =
sleep..."
In this kind of sentences, some items of behavior are singled out and =
they are reframed. Whatever the meaning of these items of behavior was, =
and probably in most of the case they were meaningless because they were =
unnoticed, a (new) meaning is attributed to them : the meaning "sign of =
hypnosis" or "means of hypnosis".
In this first type of occurrence, "hypnosis" appears to work as a =
reframing operator. It reframes elements of the receiver's ongoing =
behavior as signs or means of hypnosis, i.e. parts of his behavior are =
becoming part of the hypnotic process.
2. A second use of "hypnosis" is logically separated from the preceding =
one, even if, in practice, they are often combined. Examples of this use =
are :
"You are now deeply asleep."
"Now that you are in this hypnotic state..."
In this use of "hypnosis", the speaker asserts that the receiver indeed =
is in another state called "hypnosis" (or "sleep" or "trance"...). =
In doing so, the speaker is not only describing what is going on. He is =
making what can be called a Declaration of Hypnosis (expression which =
sounds as "declaration of love", "declaration of war", "declaration of =
independence"). =
In other words he is not only using the constative function of language, =
but its performative function, as when the president declares "The =
meeting is now open". The operation of declaring the subject "in =
hypnosis" (clearly or in an allusive way) contributes to create, by =
common agreement, the state of hypnosis in which he is now .
We are discovering here is a second reframing operation (or the second =
logical time of the reframing operation).
The first reframing was dealing with circumscribed items of behavior to =
which was attributed the meaning "hypnotic".
This second reframing, now, bears on the subject's behavior taken as a =
whole. He has now "entered" trance, he is "in" a trance, he is still =
"going deeper into it", and in a moment he will "awake", get "out" of =
the hypnotic state and "return" to the outside world, the normal world.
These spatial metaphors used in hypnosis are intended to denote the =
dramatic changes of the totality of the subject's way of being and of =
behaving. =
Since "He is in hypnosis" means that there is something radically =
altered in the wholeness of his (overt and covert) behavior, this second =
reframing is of a broader kind, it is of a different logical level than =
the first one. For this reason, it is not a mere reframing, but it is a =
meta-reframing, and hypnosis works as a meta-reframing operator of the =
subject's whole behavior (Melchior 1994, 1995). It reframes this =
behavior as totally different.
Different in which sense ? =
In the process of an induction, the nature of this difference may first =
remain vague.
"To be in hypnosis" may first mean something rather indefinite for the =
listener. And as a matter of fact, the way different persons will go in =
hypnosis will be different, a difference which obviously is not only a =
matter of "depth". This multiplicity of hypnotic behaviors is still =
greater if one takes hypnosis in a very broad sense, including Mesmeric =
convulsions or Eva Banyai's active-alert hypnosis (1991) or the kind of =
behaviors appearing in voodoo or shamanistic rituals. Since there is =
some vagueness in what is supposed to be "hypnotic" , we will say that, =
in a sense, "hypnosis" (or its synonyms) is a void sign, a term with an =
empty meaning. =
And it is possible to make very effective inductions using only very =
vague expressions such as : "this special state", or "this unusual mode =
of functioning", "this special kind of relationship to yourself".
It is also possible to use rather nonsensical (but very effective) =
expressions as "this way of getting closer to yourself ", "this kind of =
sleep which is different from normal sleep" and so on. =
We submit that it is not by accident that "hypnosis" and all the =
expressions which can be used as synonyms of this word are rather =
nonsensical or void of meaning. =
They probably have to be void of meaning, because they are used less in =
order to denote certain behaviors than to reframe any behavior.
This is probably the reason why the usual definitions of hypnosis use =
very vague terms as "state of consciousness", "mode of functioning". =
"State", "condition", "way", "manner", "mode", "type", "kind" are =
amongst the most indefinite words of language. And the difficulties of =
defining hypnosis are probably due to the fact that "hypnosis" has to =
have an empty meaning in order to work as a reframing operator. If a =
concept has a rich definition, it has necessarily a limited extension; =
if the definition is poor, vague, general, empty, its extension becomes =
much larger. If we want the word "hypnosis" to have the property of =
reframing a broad range of behaviors, it has to remain very poorly =
defined. The power of this nearly empty word is somewhat akin to the =
power of zero in arithmetic. =
Nevertheless it is probably exaggerate to say that "hypnosis" has no =
meaning at all. Any word must have some meaning. =
We have said that this word is used to reframe the subject's behavior as =
altered. =
"In hypnosis", the subject's behavior is, or is supposed to be, =
different from what is agreed to be, in our culture, the "normal", =
"usual", "natural", "ordinary" behavior. =
Accordingly, "hypnotic" first means "different" : "different from (what =
is agreed to be) normal and usual". =
This appears very clearly in an experiment made by Pierre Janet which =
has never received enough attention. He explains, in L'Automatisme =
psychologique (1889), that when he began anew an induction with already =
hypnotized subjects, these started to exhibit a new trance behavior, =
that is, different from the preceding one. And when, in this "second =
trance", he began a third induction, they exhibited a third type of =
trance, still different from the two others.
These facts show that the main meaning of "hypnosis" in an hypnotic =
communication is : "Be and act in a totally different way than in the =
preceding state" (which ordinarily is the "normal state"). An hypnotic =
induction is an invitation to differ.
"Hypnosis" is not, thus, a totally void sign. It is a sign of a =
difference. As we see, if it is not an empty word, it is not a very full =
one neither.
This conception of hypnosis was already expressed by Janet when he =
stated : "The somnambular state (...) does not exhibit any specific =
character. If one examines a subject in one only moment of his =
existence, it is impossible to ascertain in which state he is. The =
somnambular state has only relative characteristics, and it can only be =
determined with regard to another moment of the subject's life, the =
normal state or the waking state. (...) Somnambulism is a second =
existence which has no other characteristic than the fact of being =
second." (L'Automatisme psychologique, 1889, our translation)
A way of grasping this conception of hypnosis would be to organize a =
kind of brainstorming (preferably with people knowing nothing about =
hypnosis) in which the question to solve would be : "What are the =
various ways, for someone to act in a totally different way than the =
"ordinary", "usual", "normal" way ?"
The various answers to this question would probably be "moving in an =
uncoordinated manner", "acting as if being someone else", "being totally =
immobile as a statue", "screaming and having convulsions", all kinds of =
behavior which would, in fact, be trance-like (or "mad", "insane"). =
That is to say that, for the hypnotic subject, to respond to the =
invitation to differ, implies to produce (as the word is used in =
showbiz), to show, to exhibit, for the hypnotist and for himself, =
various ways of being and acting different from the "ordinary" state. =
All forms of hypnosis - not only stage hypnosis - are theatrical (from =
the Greek the=F4rein, to see, to behold).
This conception of hypnosis helps us to understand why it is a =
phenomenon so difficult to define. As far as it is a rather void sign =
which works mostly as an invitation to differ, and the result of this =
invitation, it is no wonder that science always has had huge =
difficulties to explain its very nature. Hypnosis will be properly =
defined (in a non-communicational approach) when and only when "normal", =
"usual" behavior (or rather what is agreed to be so) will be properly =
defined. This, for sure, will not be for tomorrow...
3. The vagueness of the word "hypnosis" is probably the reason why there =
often is, in the hypnotic communication, a third kind of its use (or of =
its synonyms). Examples of this use are :
"In this special state, you are able to feel your hand completely numb."
"In this trance state you may now go back in your past lives."
"And being in this state, you will discover now that your arm is lifting =
up without your intention..."
"Hypnosis", is now specified according to the beliefs or the needs of =
the hypnotist and is given various properties. =
According to them, the subject is either (supposed to be) able to do =
things that he normally cannot do, or (supposed to be) unable to do =
things that he normally can do.
The difference with what is considered to be the normal or usual =
behavior can be specified in various ways, and in general according to =
the following polarities :
=
active-passive
outer-inner
voluntary- involuntary
free - compliant
autonomous -heteronomous
conscious-unconscious =
conscious-hyperconscious
natural- supernatural or occult
normal-pathological
profane -sacred
=2E..
If the subject's normal behavior is usually considered as voluntary, =
free, conscious..., then a meta-reframing of this behavior will define =
it as belonging to any of the antithetical categories.
It is as if in hypnosis things were put upside down. =
The privileges of the conscious or the voluntary are exchanged with =
those of the unconscious or the involuntary, in a way that evokes =
carnival or antic feasts like saturnalia where the privileges of masters =
and servants or of men and women are exchanged. =
Hypnosis is the Carnival of Mind.
Only cultural, theoretical, ideological or ethical considerations will =
lead the hypnotist to shape in these sets of meanings in a way that =
favors some polarities rather than others. =
It is no wonder that since two centuries, science tries to ascertain =
whether hypnosis is a (real) state or (only) a role-playing. This =
eternal debate should lead us to a better understanding of hypnosis. =
This requires from us that we consider this debate not as the result of =
a weakness of science, but as a symptom, a clue. If there is an =
everlasting debate about the reality of hypnosis, it is not by accident =
but because of its very nature. Hypnosis is a phenomenon which cannot =
avoid producing such a debate. And this controversy gives us information =
about the essence of hypnosis. Through a performative use of language, =
hypnosis has to begin as a kind of role-playing in order to become a =
reality, in more or less the same way than a king has to be declared (or =
sacred) "king" in order to (really) become a (real) king. The famous =
Moebius ring, in which the recto becomes the verso, the two surfaces =
being only one, gives us a model of this transformation of illusion into =
reality, beyond all traditional (and "scientific") distinctions. =
Some rules of the "hypnotic" game
It is perfectly possible to think of hypnosis as a kind of game or =
role-playing. Some of the rules of this game would be, for instance :
(1. Behaviors are either voluntary or involuntary, conscious or =
unconscious.)
This first rule is, of course not specific.
2. It is possible to enter a special state usually called "hypnosis" or =
hypnotic trance. This state does really exist. It is constituted mainly =
by a radical difference with the "normal", "usual" state.
3. The definition of the hypnotic state belongs mainly to the hypnotist.
(This means that when the hypnotist says, for instance, "Now you are =
totally awake", the subject has to awaken.)
4. The "getting in" and the "getting out" of this state depend on the =
hypnotist verbalizations.
(This is another way of stating some aspects expressed by the previous =
rule.)
5. In this state the subject gives up voluntary behaviors and looses =
initiative.
6. And accordingly, initiative belongs mainly to the hypnotist.
7. The hypnotist's verbal and non-verbal behavior is claimed to =
create/foster/favor/allow the subject's non-voluntary behaviors.
8. In trance, reality is, to a large extent, as defined by the =
hypnotist.
=
Other rules could be added. But what is totally overlooked by the =
non-state theories is a special rule which deserves a status of =
Meta-rule : =
The rules may never appear as rules, the game may never appear as a =
game, as a fiction, but as reality itself.
It is probably the same kind of meta-rule which functions in the =
performative use of language, when a man is sacred king, when a State =
declares its independence or when a president declares "The meeting is =
open". The performative function of language allows human beings to =
create stable realities and to relate to them as if they were mere =
realities totally akin to "natural" "objective" realities. This process =
probably helps them to avoid or to remove ambiguity and to live in a =
more reliable, stable predictable world. Hypnosis probably functions on =
this basis. The word "hypnosis" in an induction works as a stabilizer of =
the effects produced by suggestive communication. But with the =
particularity that the reality declared through the use of a rather void =
sign remains in itself necessarily somewhat vague and ambiguous.
Theoretical implications
The communicational model of hypnosis we are trying to build up has =
several important implications.
First, from a scientific standpoint, it enhances the fact that the study =
of hypnosis can in no way be separated from the study of the =
communicational context in which it takes place, that is, the =
communication about hypnosis because it does indeed interfere with =
hypnotic communication, because the hypnotist's utterances with his =
subjects are influenced by his theoretical beliefs ,.
This situation is fundamentally inescapable for the reason that =
"hypnosis", this relatively void sign, must necessarily be filled with =
the beliefs about hypnosis shared in the culture or the subculture in =
which hypnosis is undertaken. Therefore, to study "hypnosis in itself" =
does not make much sense : there is no such thing like "hypnosis in =
itself" inasmuch as human beings are concerned .
Since centuries, research is prisoner of the traditional alternative "It =
is only imagination, illusion, game, something created, an artifact" Vs =
"It is true, objective and real". =
Insofar as hypnosis puts particularly into light language in its =
function of production of reality, this alternative looses its meaning. =
It becomes precisely the epistemological trap to avoid. This is why both =
theories of hypnosis, the state theory and the non-state theory, are =
true, but, falling in this trap, they offer only a partial and =
incomplete vision of the phenomenon. To radically take into account the =
communicational nature of hypnosis implies to accept that the reality of =
hypnosis is not independent of all the messages circulating in hypnotic =
communication or in communication about hypnosis.
This may not be easy to accept, because the ideal of science is to =
produce statements which can be true independently from their utterance =
and hence from their communicational effects. In human sciences this is =
not always possible, maybe it is never possible : for instance, economic =
theories cannot remain independent of economic realities they are =
dealing with as far as they are published. They only could if they =
remained totally secret. The same is true for psychological theories =
(Melchior 1986) and still more for hypnosis. In other words, interaction =
is inescapable.
Another aspect of science is that it requires well-defined concepts. But =
obviously hypnosis is not a well-defined concept. In the frame of the =
communicational model of hypnosis the vagueness of the notion of =
hypnosis is no more a difficulty. It explains why the notion of hypnosis =
has to remain rather vague in order to function adequately (as a =
meta-reframing operator). In this communicational view, hypnosis is a =
well-defined phenomenon characterized by the fact that it can only be =
achieved with the use of a relatively ill-defined concept. The vagueness =
of the definition of hypnosis does not remain a defect. It becomes, on =
the contrary, an essential part of the process.
ELEMENTS OF BIBLIOGRAPHY
MELCHIOR (Th.) (1986). La nature des th=E9ories th=E9rapeutiques in =
Psychoth=E9rapies 1986 No 3, pp. 143-149.
MELCHIOR (Th.) (1990a). Les strat=E9gies communicationnelles en =
psychanalyse, en psychoth=E9rapie et en hypnose in Psychoth=E9rapies. 1990,=
=
No 3,pp. 143-151.
MELCHIOR (Th.) (1990b). Hypnose et prescription de t=E2ches in Actes du =
Congr=E8s International "L'hypnose 101 ans apr=E8s Charcot, Bernheim, Janet=
=
et Freud" organis=E9 par la Soci=E9t=E9 Fran=E7aise d'Hypnose =E0 Paris du =
28 au =
30 septembre 1990, pp.35-38.
MELCHIOR (Th.) (1991).Une approche communicationnelle de l'hypnose et =
des psychoth=E9rapies in Phoenix. No 11-12 juin 1991, pp. 65-70.
MELCHIOR (Th.) (1994) L'hypnose existe-t-elle ? in M=E9taphores, bulletin =
de l'Institut Milton H. Erickson de Belgique N=B0 28 Mars 1994; =
republished in a slightly different form in Phoenix N=B0 21 d=E9cembre 1993=
=
pp. 27-30.