A Practical Guide to Self-Hypnosis

by Melvin Powers

I have found that for the majority of subjects the maternal approach works best. Perhaps the process of hypnosis awakens early unconscious memories of being put to sleep as a child. Some techniques that are used in hypnosis are quite similar to this. The subject, who is lying down, is told to close his eyes and is spoken to in a quiet, reassuring, monotonous tone of voice. The hypnotist is seated near him. The hypnotist even uses the same words that the subject has heard as a child: "Sleep. Go to sleep. When you awaken, you'll feel wonderfully well." In fact, I use some special music that I had recorded for inducing hypnosis. The first musical selection is Brahms' "Lullaby." Children's music boxes invariably contain this selection, and the melody cannot help but activate a pleasant nostalgia. It is a memory associated with love and tenderness. This brings us to the fact that hypnosis may offer the subject a chance to escape from the reality of pressing problems into a state of complete irresponsibility. In fact, one theory of hypnosis equates the hypnotic state as a form of unconscious regression and need for submission.

The male subject may have a strong, positive identification with his mother rather than his father. It is part of the unresolved Oedipus complex. He sees his mother as a kind, loving individual, always ready to help. Even if the mother did something socially unacceptable, the individual would defend her vehemently. The father who might do something wrong would rarely be excused. Just the opposite is true with the female subject. When asking the female child, "Whose girl are you?", the answer is invariably, "Daddy's girl." When asking the male child, "Whose boy are you?", the answer is invariably, "Momma's boy." We accept this transference of identification as a normal process of growing up. When it isn't normally resolved, it can account for severe personality problems. One might assume, therefore, that a woman hypnotist could better hypnotize a male subject, and a male hypnotist could better hypnotize a female subject, but this is not true except for cases such as we have just mentioned.

One school of thought feels that there is a strong submissive tendency in all of us and hypnosis gratifies this wish. The individual's need for dependence is also met. In this case, the hypnotist becomes omnipotent, being able to alter feelings that ordinarily distress the individual. Normally, adults, when confronted by a particularly upsetting experience, might want to be held closely by an intimate friend or member of the family. Don't we frequently put our arm around a friend in grief trying to comfort him? The inner strength which is created by hypnosis within the total personality structure of the subject lessens dependency upon the hypnotist, much in the same fashion that we need the doctor less as we start to recover from an illness. Self-hypnosis further lessens dependency for no authoritarian figure is used.

The subject's attitude towards authority is important to know. It is well-known that officers in the army are more difficult to hypnotize than noncommissioned men. The enlisted man, by a process of indoctrination and conditioning, is taught to obey and follow orders without reasoning. The transference of authority to the hypnotist is readily accomplished because of this conditioning process. The army doctor, when treating patients psychologically, replaces his army jacket with a regular white medical jacket to increase rapport.

One interesting theory is that the subject responds as he thinks the hypnotist would like him to. This is termed "role playing." When asking a subject under hypnosis his name, you usually get a very slow, deliberate answer, as though the subject were in a trance. You tell him that he can answer in a normal speaking voice and tempo and his further replies are to be in the same manner as his waking state.

Another theory along these lines is that the subject acts as he believes a hypnotized person would act. This, too, is role playing, but it does not explain analgesia, such as when the dentist hypnotizes the patient and proceeds to drill a tooth. No one (with the possible exception of a highly neurotic psychic masochist) is going to endure excruciating pain just to please the doctor.

One theory about hypnosis states that it allows the subject an opportunity of identifying with the hypnotist, whom he sees as a powerful figure. Through this identification, the subject is able to gain inner strength. On the other hand, the subject might rebel against the submissive nature of the hypnotic setting. This could easily create anxiety which, in turn, could create hostility resulting in resistance of various kinds. As a result of this, the subject might begin to criticize the hypnotist, find fault with the way he (the subject) is being handled, question the judgment of the hypnotist, or doubt the effectiveness of the hypnotic procedure.

Many investigators assert that the "rapport," meaning the relationship between the subject and hypnotist, is all important. This is true and the relationship can and does have many ramifications. In psychotherapy, the term "transference" is used to denote this relationship. The relationship is further described as a good or bad transference. There is also a countertransference which indicates the reaction of the therapist to the patient. Naturally, in order for the subject to respond, there must be good rapport.

I have tried to indicate that there are complexities that may arise in the hypnotic setting. There are many conflicting theories as to why a subject does or does not respond. There are no set rules to follow, and one's intuition, experience and judgment help solve any problem that arises.

Let me relate another frequent incident. I have had subjects come to me after they were unable to be hypnotized by several other professional hypnotists. They have complained that the hypnotists weren't "good hypnotists" because they couldn't hypnotize them. After all, they ask, hadn't they been willing subjects? My usual answer is that the fault, if there is one, is not with the hypnotists and really not with the subjects. It is a matter of exploring what has happened and then deciding on a course of action to insure success.