Hypnotism made plain

While Dr. Albert E. Davis utilizes psycho-analysis as an adjunct to hypnosis and suggestion, most psycho-analysts are opposed to the employment of suggestive therapeutics in any case whatever. The late André Tridon, in particular, in his well-known treatise, “Psycho-Analysis and Behavior” (1920), points out that hypnotism and psycho-analysis “have nothing in common but are in fact the exact opposite of each other: hypnotism introduces something into the subject’s mind, psycho-analysis takes something out of it.”

The “something” that hypnotism introduces into the subject’s mind is the suggestion that the cells and organs of the body perform their functions in a normal manner, thus eliminating diseased conditions, leading to restoration of the patient’s health, and without the necessity for drugs. In many cases the same results can be achieved by psycho-analysis, by digging out the original causes and removing the complexes or obsessions. But this is not equivalent to saying that hypnotic suggestion is not in many cases a valuable therapeutic remedy. Since the ordinary custom, in the case of illness in a family, is to call in a physician, the question is whether suggestion can do the work usually thought to be produced only by the taking of medicine.

As a matter of fact, “suggestion can steady a palpitating heart equally as well as belladonna, or take the place of digitalis in heart disease by diminishing the number of beats and resting the heart muscles” (Davis). When a patient has a cold he is ordinarily put to bed and given drugs to induce perspiration. But he can also be put to bed and perspiration can be induced by hypnotic suggestion. By hypnotic suggestion, according to reputable psycho-therapists, constipation can be cured naturally, without recourse to drugs, by re-establishing healthy functional activity in the glands secreting the intestinal juices. By hypnosis a natural sleep can be made to supersede insomnia, followed by cheerfulness and capacity for hard work the morning following.

“The real value of hypnotism,” says Dr. Davis, “lies in the fact that it provides us with an additional weapon, which is enormously important, in the fight against disease. Through it the subject is better able to control his organism in his own interest. He cannot realize too plainly that the force which is exerted comes not from the hypnotist, but from himself. It is from the inner self the change arises; the hypnotist simply awakens dormant protective instincts. The best results are achieved when the patient understands this, for he will employ in his waking moments the same agency as that resorted to by the operator under hypnosis.”

What the hypnotist does is to stimulate the subconscious activities of body and mind. Very interesting and instructive in this connection is the following statement by Dr. Davis: “The sense of smell is greatly developed. I have had several subjects who, under hypnotism, could identify by sense of smell alone the owners of purses, keys and other articles of personal use. In hearing, it is well known that the subject can distinguish the faintest whisper of the operator inaudible to bystanders. Other powers are equally strengthened.... All of these instances enable one to realize the power of hypnotism to restore the proper working of bodily functions.”

Granted that psycho-analysis will also cure these same ailments which are reached by hypnotism or suggestion—may cure some of them better; but must one spend weeks or months exploring the history of the subconscious life in order to relieve a toothache or an attack of constipation?

Tridon seemed to think he was making out a strong case against suggestive therapeutics by pointing our similarities between neurotic and hypnotic states. “Every neurose,” he declared, “is a form of auto-suggestion.” Well, what of it? The business of the hypnotist is to help the patient to help himself in throwing off the neurose. And in many cases he does. In some cases he may fail. But as much can be said also of the psycho-analyst.

“The neurotic who consults a hypnotist is, after all, seeking a quick escape from reality, from effort, from responsibilities,” says Tridon (Op. cit., Page 275). If the “reality” happens to be neuralgia, or writer’s cramp, or a desire for alcohol in excess, why not seek to “escape” from it as soon as possible, with or without “responsibilities”? Why not seek “the line of least effort”?

The hypnotist reaches the subconscious mind by suggestion, and through the imagination—not the will—stimulates its health-restoring activities.

Tridon triumphantly declares that many experimenters “have come to the conclusion that we cannot suggest anything to a subject unless he unconsciously craves to do that very thing. Suggestions of unpleasant actions are either rejected or very ephemeral. Suggesting murder or suicide proves effective mainly in the movies. Lombroso saw his subjects wake up every time he ordered them to perform humiliating tasks or to assume degrading rôles” (Page 277).

Very good. No psycho-therapist would complain of the foregoing impeachment. The subject, whether he knows it or not, “unconsciously craves” to get well, to become strong, to throw off any neurosis which happens to afflict or disable him. The hypnotist suggests to the subconscious mind that what the subject unconsciously craves can be obtained, that it is being obtained, through the creative power of imagination, of auto-suggestion, supplemented and strengthened, if need be, by the direct suggestions or “commands” of the hypnotist.

No doubt there are cases, especially of deep-seated hysteria and neurosis, where analysis would be a more satisfactory method of treatment than hypnosis or suggestive therapeutics. Dr. Davis has tried both, and still employs either method, according to the diagnosis. Mr. Tridon was experienced only as an analyst. But he points out that Freud, who studied hypnotism under Charcot of Salpétrière and Bernheim and Liébault of Nancy, finally discarded the hypnotic method entirely. “It was while studying a patient in hypnotic ‘trance’ that Freud suspected the possibility of a study of the unconscious in the waking state,” says Tridon. I need merely remark in passing that the methods (and principles) of Charcot have also been “discarded” by practically all modern hypnotists, and the methods of Bernheim and Liébault much improved upon by later students—some of them, like Freud, pupils of these pioneer psycho-therapists.

But did Freud “discard” suggestion?

As a matter of fact, the patient who applies for treatment at the clinic of a psycho-analyst is under suggestion before he arrives. He has been assured by someone that the analyst can relieve him of his ailment, or that under the analysis his complaint will disappear. He has faith in the psycho-analytic method; he imagines himself being cured of his obsessions or complexes. His subconscious is already at work—stimulated by auto-suggestion—before he has his first interview. He is already on the road to recovery. Tridon to the contrary notwithstanding, there is a relationship between suggestion and psycho-analysis.

Tridon says (Page 280): “Jung says very frankly somewhere that practitioners who manage to invest themselves with the halo of the medicine man are wise in every respect. Not only do they have a large practice but they also obtain the best results. Dealing with neurotics, the medical exorcist shows to his subjects his full valuation of the ‘psychic’ element when he gives them an opportunity to fasten their faith to his mysterious personality.”

Realizing that the great psycho-analyst Jung has virtually (if unconsciously) returned to the basic principles of suggestive therapeutics, Tridon tells us that he disagrees with Jung “as to the final, not temporary, results of such cures.” But why this gratuitous injection of the word “temporary”? If “such cures” were merely “temporary,” as against proved permanent cures, would Dr. Jung, out of his wealth of experience, commend the “halo of the medicine man” as “wise in every respect”? I think not. Years of practical experience have taught Jung the great value of faith—and imagination—as a creative curative agency, acting by auto-suggestion on the subconscious personality: and he admits that the “medical exorcist” should show “to his subjects his full valuation of the ‘psychic’ element” when he gives them “an opportunity to fasten their faith to his mysterious personality.”

At the base of all successful psycho-therapeutic treatment lies faith, a form of creative imagination. So long as the “fame” of Jesus reached the ears of the sick and “tormented” “throughout all Syria,” “he healed them” (Matt. ix, 23, 24). But when he returned to his native countryside, where his “fame” as a healer was either unknown or discredited in advance, where he found no faith, “he could do no mighty work” (Mark, VI).⁠[6]