Role Confusion
It is usually pretty hard to enforce boundaries, and I have a lot of trouble deciding if I am any good at it, or not. And Milton Erickson doesn’t help much.
This post is the third in a series about the utility of Ericksonian hypnotherapeutic techniques. It is also about boundary confusion and the ethics of using advantageous knowledge.
Psychologists have a set of rules which they are supposed to adhere to: they include some fairly obvious things about mandatory reporting under government legislation, and not sleeping with clients. But there is also a more subtle one which comes under the label of ‘role confusion’.
I have two jobs, and since the people in my day job know I am a psychologist, I am sometimes asked for some advice regarding very sensitive issues. My first response is always to ensure people understand that I cannot be their treating counsellor. Gentle reader, I know you are very astute, so I will spare you chapter and verse of the power relationships of therapeutic relationships. It is pretty obvious that someone I work with should not be under the duress of trying to work out when I am just saying stuff to help them, and when I’m doing my job by pushing the interests of whatever group might be in their way.
Similarly, I ought not to be a counsellor for someone on my cricket team; or my sister-in-law;or the husband of a work colleague; or my ex wife. Or, heaven forbid, the friend of my daughter, or nephew. You begin to appreciate, gentle reader, the fine line which psychologists walk every single day within regional Australian communities. The next time you are at a dinner party and feel the drunken desire to unburden yourself to a psychologist (the spouse of a friend, who is sitting next to you), and to ask them what to do about your personal sexual dysfunction, do both of you a favour. Ask for a referral.
The Ethical Paradox of Ericksonian Hypnosis Techniques
Anyway, this is all supposed to be about our brand new best friend, young Milt. He was a bloody genius, by the way. And perhaps best I now explain Milton Erickson’s own genius contribution to the role confusion paradox of psychotherapy. It really is a corker.
Freud had a high, squeaky voice. So he studied hypnosis under Charcot, but abandoned it. There is a single recording which exists and is testament to Freud’s singular failure as a hypnotist, apparently.
But if Erickson had been about in those days, Freud would have had another alternative to consider. Erickson was pretty freaky, really. Some of his induction techniques are non-verbal, and Freud’s lack of mellifluous oratory could have been overcome. So Freud need not have developed his talking cure. And the world would be a different place today.
Freud was using what is called classical hypnosis. It involves very clear signals – of the “Now I am going to hypnotise you” kind. Erickson, by contrast, was an artist; he developed subtle, sneaky ways to mess with people’s subconscious. He had what is now called disruptive technology. An Ericksonian hypnotist can induce you into a trance just by rubbing your elbow. I have seen it done. The technique is used to help people who are frightened of needles.
Our code of ethics states that hypnosis can only be used by consent and on people who are aware of what is happening. Since all hypnosis is voluntary, anyway, there is at times some heated argument about what that consent consists of. But I have seen a couple of gun hypnotists who are able to gain consent from a client and then undertake the most remarkably subtle interventions. Provided the client wants to go there (and defining THAT gets tricky), these therapists can achieve all kinds of stuff and the client will barely be aware of the process.
So, put simply, Erickson hypnosis cannot make you do something you do not want to do, but assuming you do want to do it, Ericksonian hypnotists can put you into a trance without you even being aware of it. And they may not even say a word. Erickson once famously put someone under by tossing them a big fake bowling ball.
So ok, I am Ericksonian trained. I could do all sorts of stuff. But I don’t: because without the subject’s consent, it would be unethical to help them. Do you start to see the paradox?
If Neuro-Linguistic Programming Were Real, It Would Be Unethical
Before I fully articulate the problem which Erickson gives us, let me take a moment to slag off at Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NLP was developed by Bandler and Grinder, based on what I believe to be a misinterpretation of Erickson’s work. NLP often assumes that techniques can be deployed to achieve a manipulation of others behaviour . It is a retelling of the Svengali myth, which presumes you can use hypnosis to make others do what you want them to – even involuntarily. It makes for great movies, but is, in essence, crap. NLP is often promoted (at the bottom end of the market) by pick-up artists and sales gurus.
The proponents of NLP would have you believe that you can impose your will on others and get laid and/or rich by using techniques inspired by Milton Erickson. Governments had concerns that Scientologists were using hypnosis to achieve those kinds of outcomes, and so in Australia a law was passed in the sixties to control who was allowed to use hypnosis.
And so: interestingly, until roughly a decade ago, it was illegal to practice hypnosis in Australia unless you were a psychiatrist, a psychologist or a dentist. The official course run by the Australian Society of Hypnosis is still restricted to this group of professionals. When I did the course we spent most of the time paying out on the one dentist who was there. He was a great bloke and took it well.
My personal belief is that NLP is based upon an aggressive paradigm. My brain will tell your arms and legs what to do. Since all hypnosis is self hypnosis, all hypnotic achievement is an empowerment of the subject and the facilitation of assertive self improvement, and so NLP does not work, cannot work, and comes from a fundamentally flawed basis.
This is just as well, because otherwise there would be a lot more crime committed in the world. As it works out, the true victims of NLP are the poor fools who willingly shell out big dollars for the courses. And there is a sense in which that would be justice, to my way of thinking. Because it is my sincere belief that anyone who signs up to NLP in its purest form is being deceptive, manipulative and self-interested. But maybe that’s just my opinion.
Role Confusion for Ericksonian Hypnotists
So let me sum up: a skilled Ericksonian hypnotist can intervene in your subconscious without you ever knowing. Such an intervention cannot contravene your willpower, but can help you along in a direction which you already want to go. Such an intervention is unethical. Psychologists are forbidden to do it.
Once a therapist knows the techniques though, the temptation is immense. Especially since Ericksonian hypnosis, at its core, promotes the assertive behaviour of its subjects. The very scripts invite the client to reflect upon the best course of action and to choose to buy into it. In many ways, the shallow end of Ericksonian hypnosis is just good, empathic counselling.
So how do I draw the line? How do I ensure that I only send a message to your unconscious self that has been considered and endorsed by your conscious self? And what if your conscious response to my question is a lie?
And what if I am not in a clinical setting? What if I suddenly realise that I could help you with the needle we both need to have for work? What if we are off to work with the staff of an abbotoir, but must have the q-fever injection first? And what if you tell me you’re fine but I know you’re scared? And I could help you with the needle – and you would never know – but THAT WOULD BE UNETHICAL.
To date, I have resisted temptation.
I sometimes offer to write a script for people, for them to record, which will help them with certain situations. My own voice is my best hypnotist, anyway, since I can trust it better. I will never accept payment for this service if there is a role confusion involved, and I always encourage all people to reflect upon my motives and what I could be getting out of this.
I do this because withholding help from family and friends just because we have a connection strikes me as being just as unethical as taking their money. I insist they record the script themselves, though, and I try to ensure I disclose something which balances the power equation. Otherwise, I just refer them.
Erickson and Sex
There are only two sections left in this post: I am trying to set up the planks which can form the platform of a life of contentment, and I need to get through two more things before I am done with Milton Erickson. So bear with me, please.
The first bit comprises two stories about Erickson. They are a part of the mythology which is perpetuated by his faithful followers, and his detractors. And those are two sides of the same coin, for mine.
Erickson once treated a woman who, today, would be referred to as sexually dysfunctional. She might be unkindly called frigid, or a prude. Her issue was that she found it difficult to be sexually present with her partner. She just didn’t get into it. Erickson used his techniques to awaken her sexually playful self, and declared her cured once she had stripped for him. Alone, in a private consulting room. He wrote this up as a case study. It seems to me Erickson was a braver therapist than I. Or, that he should have got out more.
Erickson also treated a young man for premature ejaculation by describing the way time can seem to slow down as you watch a clock. There was a lot more to it than that, but basically he encouraged the young man to wear a watch during sex, and laid out for his unconscious a metaphorical solution to the problem. One session. The young man never returned. Erickson concluded he did not come back because he was cured. The disciples rejoiced, and wished they were half as good as Milt.
The reason I wanted to tell these two stories is because I am, by nature, a sceptic. You don’t get (in a dream context) smashed under a truck as many times as I have been and come out the other side with a thoroughly trusting nature. I can see many other reasons for what happened.
Maybe Milt got his jollies off with the girl. And maybe the lad did not return because he thought Milt’s approach was a total crock. A watch, for God’s sake!
But here’s the thing. If you are interested in hypnosis, you are looking at messing with your subconscious. Do. Not. Automatically. Trust. Anyone. Not even Milt. Especially not me. I don’t need the lawsuit.
Hypnosis is by definition an exercise in mucking about with non-conscious phenomena.
Sure, it can improve your sex life. But don’t go using it to mess with someone else’s sex life. And be very, very cautious about allowing anybody else near yours.
Autogenesis and the Life of Contentment
Ok. So here’s my last point in relation to Ericksonian hypnosis. It rocks. It thoroughly works and is brilliant.
But the point of this blogpost has been: do not trust in the intentions of a hypnotist. Understand the possible motivations of anyone who might mess with your mind. Guard yourself against the overlapping of roles within your life. Don’t ever receive therapeutic services from someone who exists in your life in another context. Listen to their advice, by all means, but never pay for it and weigh their motivations carefully. You owe that to yourself.
The most powerful hypnosis, in my opinion, is Ericksonian hypnosis, delivered as self hypnosis. As this blog proceeds, I will give you tips about how to utilise Milt’s approaches in a way which will benefit yourself and allow you to undertake self hypnosis.
I will not be teaching you to hypnotise anyone else.
And hypnosis is no substitute for psychotherapy. You can’t just hypnotise your problems away. You must outgrow them. There is no silver bullet. There is no tape, no weekend program, no book, no blog, which will take away your pain. In a very real sense, life IS pain.
Hypnosis can help you to embrace the pain and to transcend it. And that, I believe, is the proper path to a life of contentment.
It is usually pretty hard to enforce boundaries, and I have a lot of trouble deciding if I am any good at it, or not. And Milton Erickson doesn’t help much.
This post is the third in a series about the utility of Ericksonian hypnotherapeutic techniques. It is also about boundary confusion and the ethics of using advantageous knowledge.
Psychologists have a set of rules which they are supposed to adhere to: they include some fairly obvious things about mandatory reporting under government legislation, and not sleeping with clients. But there is also a more subtle one which comes under the label of ‘role confusion’.
I have two jobs, and since the people in my day job know I am a psychologist, I am sometimes asked for some advice regarding very sensitive issues. My first response is always to ensure people understand that I cannot be their treating counsellor. Gentle reader, I know you are very astute, so I will spare you chapter and verse of the power relationships of therapeutic relationships. It is pretty obvious that someone I work with should not be under the duress of trying to work out when I am just saying stuff to help them, and when I’m doing my job by pushing the interests of whatever group might be in their way.
Similarly, I ought not to be a counsellor for someone on my cricket team; or my sister-in-law;or the husband of a work colleague; or my ex wife. Or, heaven forbid, the friend of my daughter, or nephew. You begin to appreciate, gentle reader, the fine line which psychologists walk every single day within regional Australian communities. The next time you are at a dinner party and feel the drunken desire to unburden yourself to a psychologist (the spouse of a friend, who is sitting next to you), and to ask them what to do about your personal sexual dysfunction, do both of you a favour. Ask for a referral.
The Ethical Paradox of Ericksonian Hypnosis Techniques
Anyway, this is all supposed to be about our brand new best friend, young Milt. He was a bloody genius, by the way. And perhaps best I now explain Milton Erickson’s own genius contribution to the role confusion paradox of psychotherapy. It really is a corker.
Freud had a high, squeaky voice. So he studied hypnosis under Charcot, but abandoned it. There is a single recording which exists and is testament to Freud’s singular failure as a hypnotist, apparently.
But if Erickson had been about in those days, Freud would have had another alternative to consider. Erickson was pretty freaky, really. Some of his induction techniques are non-verbal, and Freud’s lack of mellifluous oratory could have been overcome. So Freud need not have developed his talking cure. And the world would be a different place today.
Freud was using what is called classical hypnosis. It involves very clear signals – of the “Now I am going to hypnotise you” kind. Erickson, by contrast, was an artist; he developed subtle, sneaky ways to mess with people’s subconscious. He had what is now called disruptive technology. An Ericksonian hypnotist can induce you into a trance just by rubbing your elbow. I have seen it done. The technique is used to help people who are frightened of needles.
Our code of ethics states that hypnosis can only be used by consent and on people who are aware of what is happening. Since all hypnosis is voluntary, anyway, there is at times some heated argument about what that consent consists of. But I have seen a couple of gun hypnotists who are able to gain consent from a client and then undertake the most remarkably subtle interventions. Provided the client wants to go there (and defining THAT gets tricky), these therapists can achieve all kinds of stuff and the client will barely be aware of the process.
So, put simply, Erickson hypnosis cannot make you do something you do not want to do, but assuming you do want to do it, Ericksonian hypnotists can put you into a trance without you even being aware of it. And they may not even say a word. Erickson once famously put someone under by tossing them a big fake bowling ball.
So ok, I am Ericksonian trained. I could do all sorts of stuff. But I don’t: because without the subject’s consent, it would be unethical to help them. Do you start to see the paradox?
If Neuro-Linguistic Programming Were Real, It Would Be Unethical
Before I fully articulate the problem which Erickson gives us, let me take a moment to slag off at Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NLP was developed by Bandler and Grinder, based on what I believe to be a misinterpretation of Erickson’s work. NLP often assumes that techniques can be deployed to achieve a manipulation of others behaviour . It is a retelling of the Svengali myth, which presumes you can use hypnosis to make others do what you want them to – even involuntarily. It makes for great movies, but is, in essence, crap. NLP is often promoted (at the bottom end of the market) by pick-up artists and sales gurus.
The proponents of NLP would have you believe that you can impose your will on others and get laid and/or rich by using techniques inspired by Milton Erickson. Governments had concerns that Scientologists were using hypnosis to achieve those kinds of outcomes, and so in Australia a law was passed in the sixties to control who was allowed to use hypnosis.
And so: interestingly, until roughly a decade ago, it was illegal to practice hypnosis in Australia unless you were a psychiatrist, a psychologist or a dentist. The official course run by the Australian Society of Hypnosis is still restricted to this group of professionals. When I did the course we spent most of the time paying out on the one dentist who was there. He was a great bloke and took it well.
My personal belief is that NLP is based upon an aggressive paradigm. My brain will tell your arms and legs what to do. Since all hypnosis is self hypnosis, all hypnotic achievement is an empowerment of the subject and the facilitation of assertive self improvement, and so NLP does not work, cannot work, and comes from a fundamentally flawed basis.
This is just as well, because otherwise there would be a lot more crime committed in the world. As it works out, the true victims of NLP are the poor fools who willingly shell out big dollars for the courses. And there is a sense in which that would be justice, to my way of thinking. Because it is my sincere belief that anyone who signs up to NLP in its purest form is being deceptive, manipulative and self-interested. But maybe that’s just my opinion.
Role Confusion for Ericksonian Hypnotists
So let me sum up: a skilled Ericksonian hypnotist can intervene in your subconscious without you ever knowing. Such an intervention cannot contravene your willpower, but can help you along in a direction which you already want to go. Such an intervention is unethical. Psychologists are forbidden to do it.
Once a therapist knows the techniques though, the temptation is immense. Especially since Ericksonian hypnosis, at its core, promotes the assertive behaviour of its subjects. The very scripts invite the client to reflect upon the best course of action and to choose to buy into it. In many ways, the shallow end of Ericksonian hypnosis is just good, empathic counselling.
So how do I draw the line? How do I ensure that I only send a message to your unconscious self that has been considered and endorsed by your conscious self? And what if your conscious response to my question is a lie?
And what if I am not in a clinical setting? What if I suddenly realise that I could help you with the needle we both need to have for work? What if we are off to work with the staff of an abbotoir, but must have the q-fever injection first? And what if you tell me you’re fine but I know you’re scared? And I could help you with the needle – and you would never know – but THAT WOULD BE UNETHICAL.
To date, I have resisted temptation.
I sometimes offer to write a script for people, for them to record, which will help them with certain situations. My own voice is my best hypnotist, anyway, since I can trust it better. I will never accept payment for this service if there is a role confusion involved, and I always encourage all people to reflect upon my motives and what I could be getting out of this.
I do this because withholding help from family and friends just because we have a connection strikes me as being just as unethical as taking their money. I insist they record the script themselves, though, and I try to ensure I disclose something which balances the power equation. Otherwise, I just refer them.
Erickson and Sex
There are only two sections left in this post: I am trying to set up the planks which can form the platform of a life of contentment, and I need to get through two more things before I am done with Milton Erickson. So bear with me, please.
The first bit comprises two stories about Erickson. They are a part of the mythology which is perpetuated by his faithful followers, and his detractors. And those are two sides of the same coin, for mine.
Erickson once treated a woman who, today, would be referred to as sexually dysfunctional. She might be unkindly called frigid, or a prude. Her issue was that she found it difficult to be sexually present with her partner. She just didn’t get into it. Erickson used his techniques to awaken her sexually playful self, and declared her cured once she had stripped for him. Alone, in a private consulting room. He wrote this up as a case study. It seems to me Erickson was a braver therapist than I. Or, that he should have got out more.
Erickson also treated a young man for premature ejaculation by describing the way time can seem to slow down as you watch a clock. There was a lot more to it than that, but basically he encouraged the young man to wear a watch during sex, and laid out for his unconscious a metaphorical solution to the problem. One session. The young man never returned. Erickson concluded he did not come back because he was cured. The disciples rejoiced, and wished they were half as good as Milt.
The reason I wanted to tell these two stories is because I am, by nature, a sceptic. You don’t get (in a dream context) smashed under a truck as many times as I have been and come out the other side with a thoroughly trusting nature. I can see many other reasons for what happened.
Maybe Milt got his jollies off with the girl. And maybe the lad did not return because he thought Milt’s approach was a total crock. A watch, for God’s sake!
But here’s the thing. If you are interested in hypnosis, you are looking at messing with your subconscious. Do. Not. Automatically. Trust. Anyone. Not even Milt. Especially not me. I don’t need the lawsuit.
Hypnosis is by definition an exercise in mucking about with non-conscious phenomena.
Sure, it can improve your sex life. But don’t go using it to mess with someone else’s sex life. And be very, very cautious about allowing anybody else near yours.
Autogenesis and the Life of Contentment
Ok. So here’s my last point in relation to Ericksonian hypnosis. It rocks. It thoroughly works and is brilliant.
But the point of this blogpost has been: do not trust in the intentions of a hypnotist. Understand the possible motivations of anyone who might mess with your mind. Guard yourself against the overlapping of roles within your life. Don’t ever receive therapeutic services from someone who exists in your life in another context. Listen to their advice, by all means, but never pay for it and weigh their motivations carefully. You owe that to yourself.
The most powerful hypnosis, in my opinion, is Ericksonian hypnosis, delivered as self hypnosis. As this blog proceeds, I will give you tips about how to utilise Milt’s approaches in a way which will benefit yourself and allow you to undertake self hypnosis.
I will not be teaching you to hypnotise anyone else.
And hypnosis is no substitute for psychotherapy. You can’t just hypnotise your problems away. You must outgrow them. There is no silver bullet. There is no tape, no weekend program, no book, no blog, which will take away your pain. In a very real sense, life IS pain.
Hypnosis can help you to embrace the pain and to transcend it. And that, I believe, is the proper path to a life of contentment.
I have never been hypnotised but am curious to try it with the right practitioner. I dabbled a little bit in meditation/hypnobirthing and felt it helped me get through the birth of my first child a lot easier than I otherwise would have.
ReplyDeleteI can totally relate to the feeling of existing in different states of concentration or consciousness. I've had migraines for many years and it is now at the point where, if I am able to lie down at the onset, I can kind of self-hypnotise my way through it without the excruciating pain I used to get. visualise the migraine until I can actually 'see' it with my eyes closed and although I still feel the usual nausea and very washed out afterwards, the splitting pain in my head that was there before isn't as intense these days. It's like the act of looking directly at something (facing the nub of what you were afraid of - the intensity of that pain) makes it diminish. Whereas before I would try distracting myself, all I could think about was how much it hurt, now by focussing on the sensation, it seems to hurt less. Yes?