Theorizing about Hypnosis in Either/Or Terms

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The present paper addresses 3 issues raised by Coe (1992). First, it maintains that the “altered state” issue of the 1960s remains buried in current dichotomous classifications of hypnosis theories as involving either “special processes” or the social-psychological position. Given the current diversity of the field, it appears imprudent to classify theorizing in either/or terms; additionally, despite a history of using the term “altered state” in a circular way, it is not an inherently circular formulation. It can be used descriptively simply to point to the observation that some individuals in hypnosis report subjective alterations. A second issue broached concerns the metaphorical status of the term “hypnosis”; it is accepted as a misleading metaphor inherited from 19th century investigators such as Braid, Faria, Puyse´gur, and Lie´beault. Provided that is is recognized that this metaphor refers to a “domain” (E. R. Hilgard, 1973) of characteristically elicited behaviors, no problem ensues in retaining this metaphor derived from nocturnal sleep. A subsequent discussion of current conceptualizations of hypnosis indicates considerable agreement among investigators; there is much consensus that hypnosis is an individual differences phenomenon, in which imagination may, in some individuals, become so intense and so vivid, as to take on “reality value,” to the extent that a hypnotized person may have difficulty in distinguishing fantasy from reality. The S abilities of imagery/imagination, absorption, dissociation, and automaticity (which may be proved to be an index of dissociation) are proposed as being the main ingredients of the hypnotic experience. Finally, a synergistic approach is proposed as a means of progressing beyond the current impasse of either/or theorizing.

This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit: