This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney] On: 30 December 2014, At: 02:30 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
The Mind-Body-Spirit Paradigm: Crisis or Opportunity? Stanley Krippner
a
a
Saybrook University , San Francisco , California , USA Published online: 02 Jan 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Stanley Krippner (2014) The Mind-Body-Spirit Paradigm: Crisis or Opportunity?, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 56:3, 210-215, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2014.857503 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2014.857503
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 56: 210–215, 2014 Copyright © American Society of Clinical Hypnosis ISSN: 0002-9157 print / 2160-0562 online DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2014.857503
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
COMMENTARY
The Mind-Body-Spirit Paradigm: Crisis or Opportunity? Stanley Krippner Saybrook University, San Francisco, California, USA
The terms that people use to describe their world and their activities in it are social constructs, “products of historically situated interchanges among people” (Gergen, 1985, p. 31). The word “science,” derived from Latin terms meaning “to know” and “knowledge,” is one of those social constructs, and one that has been extremely useful. Men and women working as “scientists” have enabled humankind “to know” the workings of much of nature, from the human body to the solar system in which that body operates. Philosophers of science often refer to “demarcation,” the issue of what separates “good science” (science that is well done) from “bad science” (science that is not very well done) and both from “pseudoscience” (something that contends to be science), but is really not science at all—at least not as the term is understood by the contemporary scientific community. Advocates of Christian Science, Creation Science, and Astrological Science may be very clever people who are serious about their work, but whose efforts fall short of the disciplined inquiry that characterize the scientific enterprise that its most powerful advocates have constructed over the years. This special issue was organized in a way to adhere to the principles and procedures of “good science,” insofar as the issue’s editor and authors understand the term. Hypnosis entered the scientific arena with the work of the flamboyant Franz Anton Mesmer, arguably the first practitioner who could be labeled a “psychotherapist.” Mesmer had cobbled together a treatment based on folk healing practices, Roman Catholic exorcisms, and esoteric philosophy. He spoke of “magnetic fields” and “crises” activated by “passes” made over a patient’s body. This treatment was not immediately subjected to serious investigation when he gained attention in Vienna. “Mesmerism,” as it was called, later attracted considerable attention in France and in 1785 it was put to the Address correspondence to Dr. Stanley Krippner, Ph.D., Alan Watts Professor of Psychology, Saybrook University, 747 Front Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
COMMENTARY
211
test. A royal commission to investigate “mesmerism” was commissioned by King Louis XVI and was chaired by Benjamin Franklin, the American ambassador. Mesmer refused to participate but sent Charles D’Eslon, to represent him (Kirsch, Lynn, & Rhue, 1993). The experiments were a landmark in scientific history due to their use of sophisticated research methods, such as having a blindfolded participant (in this case a 12-year-old boy) identify which tree in a grove had been “magnetized.” The participant claimed to feel the effects of magnetism the further away he moved from the “magnetized” tree, eventually collapsing in a faint. But the terms “single blinded” and “double blinded” may have derived from these investigations, some of which asked participants to identify which flasks of water had been “magnetized.” Ailing participants were also investigated, both with and without “mesmerism,” the first investigation of what today is called the “placebo effect.” A second royal commission also concluded that the purported benefits of “mesmerism” were not due to “magnetism” but to normal recovery processes, delusion, or imagination. Mesmer left Paris in disgrace but his representative, Charles D’Eslon, had a more positive reaction, commenting, “If treatment by the use of magnetism is the best treatment, why do we not make the best of it?” (as cited in Gravitz, 1991, p. 27). Mesmer spoke of how his mental activity had an effect upon people’s well-being, anticipating so-called “mind-body medicine” by several centuries. Mesmer died in 1815 and “mesmerism” was either shrugged off by the medical establishment or reframed as “trances” by such followers as the Marquis de Puysegur whose patients displayed “artificial somnambulism” rather than “convulsions.” It was resurrected in the 19th century by James Braid, an English physician, who described the “somnambulism” as a “nervous sleep,” and saw the phenomenon as a result of fixation, suggestibility, and a form of sleep. The new name, hypnotism, was derived from Hypnos, the Greek god of sleep. Braid kept records of his work, especially when he used “nervous sleep” for anesthesia. The scientific investigation of hypnosis was on its way. Scientific Paradigms Scientific investigations are conducted according to the paradigms, or world views, of people who have the interest, the capacities, and the resources to do so. But not all scientists take the same perspective. The “realists” hope that their endeavors will yield some degree of “truth” while “instrumentalists” are more concerned with “knowledge,” which is actually closer to the original Latin term. Both groups adopt what might be called the “Scientific World View”: The cosmos is understandable and science is the most valid means to obtaining that understanding (Hageman & Frederick, 2013). There are many ways to obtain this understanding, and these are usually called “scientific methods,” whether conducted formally in a laboratory or casually while riding in a carriage. But none of the methods produces “proof” because science is self-correcting, open-ended, and able to both generate and accommodate “paradigm shifts” such as the
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
212
KRIPPNER
“Copernican Revolution,” the “Darwinian Revolution,” or the ongoing shifts resulting from quantum mechanics. Good science does all of these, bad science does fewer, and pseudoscience does none. An example of bad science would be the plethora of articles finding Black/White differences in intelligence scores, ignoring one or more of such factors as test standardization sample bias, socio-economic differences of comparison groups, and the effects of trans-generational trauma. Economics, perhaps unfairly, has been labeled a “dismal science” or even a bad science, but—to its credit—it has produced no end of paradigms, although few of them have passed the test of time. Darlene A. Osowiec’s article develops many of these principles, suggesting that yet another paradigm shift is emerging. I view her observations as examples of the self-correcting component of good science. For most of its history, science was maledominated, both in terms of personnel and outlook. She criticizes René Descartes for separating body and brain from mind and soul. However, this ploy liberated science from the shackles imposed upon it by the Church, which was content to focus upon the soul and developing new ways to manipulate it, purportedly for its own good. In the meantime, science moved ahead investigating topics that would have been taboo in the era before Descartes and which were still forbidden in parts of the world where no Descartes was available. Again, it was that outrageous rascal Mesmer who started to mend the split, with hypnosis as one of many benefactors. Osowiec also is critical of John B. Watson for emphasizing observable, measurable behavior and discarding introspectionism and subjective experience. However, behaviorism allowed psychology to study such non-verbal organisms as non-human primates, babies, and those adults incapable of speech. Later, subjective experience was brought back to the psychological aegis by the cognitive and humanistic psychologists—much to the chagrin of B.F. Skinner and his compatriots who thought that such terms as “inner behavior” could regain the ground lost to behaviorism’s rivals—but it was too late. However, none of these developments are radical enough to deserve the label of a holistic, systems-oriented, “emerging paradigm.” This is the term that Osowiec reserves for the final part of her article, one that builds upon the yet-to-be-appreciated insights of quantum physics, such as its erasure of the gap between observer and observed, and its suggestion that “consciousness” (in one of its many definitions) can be found in all aspects of a universe that, rather than being mechanistic, is basically self-organizing, interconnected, and evolving. In applying this “emerging paradigm” to hypnosis, Osowiec heals the ruptures between experimenter and clinician, qualitative and quantitative research, and the psychological and biological bases of behavior. Not all readers will agree with Osowiec, but hers is a bravura performance. Examples of the Emerging Paradigm Michael D. Yapko recalls that when he entered the psychotherapy field he was moved to discover that depression was the most common mood disorder on planet Earth but
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
COMMENTARY
213
that very little was known about it. Now a great deal is understood—and it is still the planet’s most prevalent mood disorder. Yapko sees depression as a condition that erodes the human spirit; hence this special issue’s theme of mind-body-spirit is especially relevant to depression and other mood disorders. But the “spirit of hypnosis” is available to help people create meaningful possibilities for their lives. This “spirit” expresses itself in many ways such as emphasizing the value of hypnosis and in excellent clinical practice. In hypnotically-facilitated psychotherapy, a “presence” is evoked, one that helps clients inspire and focus. Yapko refers to hypnotic “artistry,” and hints that science may not be able to completely capture this artistry. It is often said that hypnosis is both a science and an art; perhaps descriptive science is as close as we can get to reconciling these two aspects of hypnosis. Yapko then raises a perennial question: Why isn’t hypnosis better regarded? There is ample evidence that it is effective, even evidence-based, and that it can be applied to any number of problematic situations in human life. He notes that there are some 250 hospital-based programs based on mindfulness practices, and with some justification notes that the only phenomenon that would halt this growth would be the emergence of X-rated Las Vegas “mindfulness shows.” But it is not only stage hypnosis that has impeded the growth of hypnosis, it is the constant warning about the “dangers” of hypnosis, well-meaning injunctions that probably do the field more harm than good. Yapko closes his article by sharing what he has learned from elephant trainers and from key people in the field such as Kay Thompson who was very fond of elephants. Philip R. Appel’s article discusses psychosynthesis, which is a model of personality as well as a form of psychotherapy. I had the privilege of spending most of a day with its founder Robert Assagioli, and am pleased that his insights are still as contemporary as they were decades ago. Because of Assagioli’s emphasis on psychosomatic as well as transpersonal issues, this article is very much at home in this special issue. His concept of the “higher self” and its ability to communicate its “will” to the “conscious self” is a cornerstone of psychosynthesis. His inclusion of sub-personalities in his model foreshadowed the use of ego states in some forms of hypnotically-facilitated psychotherapy. But the psychosynthesis “disidentification” exercise is also comparable to mindfulness meditation. Appel’s uses of hypnosis when applying psychosynthesis during psychotherapy are ingenious, a tribute to both the psychosynthesis model and the hypnotic process. It includes the use of imagery, imagination, pacing, mental rehearsal, and an application of Carl Jung’s four “functions” to a client’s past experiences. Hypnosis helps clients develop their own set of symbols that are associated with their personality dynamics. These are just a few examples of a psychotherapy process that actively promotes selfawareness and psychological integration. In retrospect, it seems as if psychosynthesis and hypnosis were made for each other. The title of Nicole Ruysschaert’s article promises a lot, and she delivers. This is no simplistic road map to the land of smiley faces. Ruysschaert provides useful definitions and descriptions of this tricky term, and then demonstrates that it can be learned. And if happiness can be learned, hypnosis can facilitate that learning. There is nothing new about mental imagery, affect bridges, positive focusing, ego-strengthening, age
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
214
KRIPPNER
progression, and reliving positive experiences, but Ruysschaert puts them together in a nicely designed package well suited for hypnotic facilitation. Further, she traces the way that this package is grounded in neurology and biology. After covering body and mind, she ends with a succinct note on spirit. Spiritual questions can be addressed by making connections with others, finding something larger than ourselves, and perhaps of most importance by living a meaningful life. Assen Alladin’s astute article demonstrates why mindfulness meditation and its derivatives have had a rapid impact on psychotherapy that hypnosis can only envy. “Mindfulness-based psychotherapy” has even been anointed as evidence-based, the Holy Grail of psychotherapy terminology. Alladin morphs this approach into “mindfulnessbased cognitive hypnotherapy” (MBCH), a procedure that asserts that it is the mind that keeps us from being mindful, distracting us from here-and-now experiences. In addition to recognizing the paradoxical nature of mind (of “the Little Mind”), MBCH recognizes the heart (or “the Big Mind”) and what it represents as central to our emotional well-being. The Big Mind is the source of emotion, courage, happiness, wisdom, and— of course—sorrow. MBCH does not advise counteracting distressing or unwarranted thought but to accept them without reacting to them. Alladin cites research evidence indicating that the heart is more than a metaphor when it comes to personal well-being; the heart can be described as an information center that binds the entire body producing, at its best, psychophysiological coherence. And this coherence feeds back to the heart enhancing its activity. MBCH is built upon cultivating intention, awareness, acceptance, and gratitude. This might sound too good to be true, but Alladin presents data and case studies that demonstrate its surprising effectiveness. What Is So Special About This Special Issue? The themes running through the articles in this special issue have been encountered by readers of this journal before. So why is a special issue needed? After reading these articles, it appears to me that the overall impact emphasizes some points that reinforce each other, even though they are presented from different perspectives. The term “mind-body medicine” no longer raises the hackles that it did a few decades ago when it was denounced as “New Age sewage.” Hypnosis is included with biofeedback, neurofeedback, imagery rehearsal, meditation, and expressive art and movement therapy as a mind-body treatment. And there can be mind-body psychotherapy as well as mind-body medicine. The inclusion of “spirit” raises a new problem, even though the American Psychological Association has published a number of books on spiritual issues in psychotherapy and the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual contains a short description of a category termed “religious or spiritual problem.” The authors of the articles in this special issue define and describe “spirit” in various ways, but each of them infers that the term refers to something beyond a person’s
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
COMMENTARY
215
customary identity. Many Native American tribes had the concept of the “long body,” a body that did not end with one’s skin. This was a body that could form a linkage with other tribal members and with non-human beings as well. For this reason, they prayed to “all our relations.” The long body was also able to extend into the past and into the future, as well as to extend over great distances in the present. Such feats may have been metaphors or they might have referred to a paradigm similar to the one that Darlene A. Osowiec hints at in her article. If people do not end where their skin ends, that poses a problem to the current dominant paradigm of Western science, the model of human separateness. There is a frequently repeated saying that the Chinese character for “crisis” is the same as that for “opportunity.” But this is not quite right. Crisis is two characters, one of which is the character for “opportunity.” So instead of saying that a crisis is an opportunity, it is more accurate to say that each crisis contains an opportunity. The crisis arises when a client reports an experience that is not easily explained by the dominant paradigm. But that report is also an opportunity for a new paradigm to emerge. References Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275. Gravitz, M. A. (1991). Early theories of hypnosis: A clinical perspective. In S. L. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp. 19–42). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hageman, J. H., & Frederick, C. (2013). Phenomenological and evidence based research in ego state therapy: Recognized and unrecognized successes and future directions. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 56, 66–85. Kirsch, I., Lynn, S. J., & Rhue, J. W. (1993). Introduction to clinical hypnosis. In J. W. Rhue, S. J. Lynn, & I. Kirsch (Eds.), Handbook of clinical hypnosis (pp. 3–22). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
The Mind-Body-Spirit Paradigm: Crisis or Opportunity? Stanley Krippner
a
a
Saybrook University , San Francisco , California , USA Published online: 02 Jan 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Stanley Krippner (2014) The Mind-Body-Spirit Paradigm: Crisis or Opportunity?, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 56:3, 210-215, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2014.857503 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2014.857503
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 56: 210–215, 2014 Copyright © American Society of Clinical Hypnosis ISSN: 0002-9157 print / 2160-0562 online DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2014.857503
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
COMMENTARY
The Mind-Body-Spirit Paradigm: Crisis or Opportunity? Stanley Krippner Saybrook University, San Francisco, California, USA
The terms that people use to describe their world and their activities in it are social constructs, “products of historically situated interchanges among people” (Gergen, 1985, p. 31). The word “science,” derived from Latin terms meaning “to know” and “knowledge,” is one of those social constructs, and one that has been extremely useful. Men and women working as “scientists” have enabled humankind “to know” the workings of much of nature, from the human body to the solar system in which that body operates. Philosophers of science often refer to “demarcation,” the issue of what separates “good science” (science that is well done) from “bad science” (science that is not very well done) and both from “pseudoscience” (something that contends to be science), but is really not science at all—at least not as the term is understood by the contemporary scientific community. Advocates of Christian Science, Creation Science, and Astrological Science may be very clever people who are serious about their work, but whose efforts fall short of the disciplined inquiry that characterize the scientific enterprise that its most powerful advocates have constructed over the years. This special issue was organized in a way to adhere to the principles and procedures of “good science,” insofar as the issue’s editor and authors understand the term. Hypnosis entered the scientific arena with the work of the flamboyant Franz Anton Mesmer, arguably the first practitioner who could be labeled a “psychotherapist.” Mesmer had cobbled together a treatment based on folk healing practices, Roman Catholic exorcisms, and esoteric philosophy. He spoke of “magnetic fields” and “crises” activated by “passes” made over a patient’s body. This treatment was not immediately subjected to serious investigation when he gained attention in Vienna. “Mesmerism,” as it was called, later attracted considerable attention in France and in 1785 it was put to the Address correspondence to Dr. Stanley Krippner, Ph.D., Alan Watts Professor of Psychology, Saybrook University, 747 Front Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
COMMENTARY
211
test. A royal commission to investigate “mesmerism” was commissioned by King Louis XVI and was chaired by Benjamin Franklin, the American ambassador. Mesmer refused to participate but sent Charles D’Eslon, to represent him (Kirsch, Lynn, & Rhue, 1993). The experiments were a landmark in scientific history due to their use of sophisticated research methods, such as having a blindfolded participant (in this case a 12-year-old boy) identify which tree in a grove had been “magnetized.” The participant claimed to feel the effects of magnetism the further away he moved from the “magnetized” tree, eventually collapsing in a faint. But the terms “single blinded” and “double blinded” may have derived from these investigations, some of which asked participants to identify which flasks of water had been “magnetized.” Ailing participants were also investigated, both with and without “mesmerism,” the first investigation of what today is called the “placebo effect.” A second royal commission also concluded that the purported benefits of “mesmerism” were not due to “magnetism” but to normal recovery processes, delusion, or imagination. Mesmer left Paris in disgrace but his representative, Charles D’Eslon, had a more positive reaction, commenting, “If treatment by the use of magnetism is the best treatment, why do we not make the best of it?” (as cited in Gravitz, 1991, p. 27). Mesmer spoke of how his mental activity had an effect upon people’s well-being, anticipating so-called “mind-body medicine” by several centuries. Mesmer died in 1815 and “mesmerism” was either shrugged off by the medical establishment or reframed as “trances” by such followers as the Marquis de Puysegur whose patients displayed “artificial somnambulism” rather than “convulsions.” It was resurrected in the 19th century by James Braid, an English physician, who described the “somnambulism” as a “nervous sleep,” and saw the phenomenon as a result of fixation, suggestibility, and a form of sleep. The new name, hypnotism, was derived from Hypnos, the Greek god of sleep. Braid kept records of his work, especially when he used “nervous sleep” for anesthesia. The scientific investigation of hypnosis was on its way. Scientific Paradigms Scientific investigations are conducted according to the paradigms, or world views, of people who have the interest, the capacities, and the resources to do so. But not all scientists take the same perspective. The “realists” hope that their endeavors will yield some degree of “truth” while “instrumentalists” are more concerned with “knowledge,” which is actually closer to the original Latin term. Both groups adopt what might be called the “Scientific World View”: The cosmos is understandable and science is the most valid means to obtaining that understanding (Hageman & Frederick, 2013). There are many ways to obtain this understanding, and these are usually called “scientific methods,” whether conducted formally in a laboratory or casually while riding in a carriage. But none of the methods produces “proof” because science is self-correcting, open-ended, and able to both generate and accommodate “paradigm shifts” such as the
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
212
KRIPPNER
“Copernican Revolution,” the “Darwinian Revolution,” or the ongoing shifts resulting from quantum mechanics. Good science does all of these, bad science does fewer, and pseudoscience does none. An example of bad science would be the plethora of articles finding Black/White differences in intelligence scores, ignoring one or more of such factors as test standardization sample bias, socio-economic differences of comparison groups, and the effects of trans-generational trauma. Economics, perhaps unfairly, has been labeled a “dismal science” or even a bad science, but—to its credit—it has produced no end of paradigms, although few of them have passed the test of time. Darlene A. Osowiec’s article develops many of these principles, suggesting that yet another paradigm shift is emerging. I view her observations as examples of the self-correcting component of good science. For most of its history, science was maledominated, both in terms of personnel and outlook. She criticizes René Descartes for separating body and brain from mind and soul. However, this ploy liberated science from the shackles imposed upon it by the Church, which was content to focus upon the soul and developing new ways to manipulate it, purportedly for its own good. In the meantime, science moved ahead investigating topics that would have been taboo in the era before Descartes and which were still forbidden in parts of the world where no Descartes was available. Again, it was that outrageous rascal Mesmer who started to mend the split, with hypnosis as one of many benefactors. Osowiec also is critical of John B. Watson for emphasizing observable, measurable behavior and discarding introspectionism and subjective experience. However, behaviorism allowed psychology to study such non-verbal organisms as non-human primates, babies, and those adults incapable of speech. Later, subjective experience was brought back to the psychological aegis by the cognitive and humanistic psychologists—much to the chagrin of B.F. Skinner and his compatriots who thought that such terms as “inner behavior” could regain the ground lost to behaviorism’s rivals—but it was too late. However, none of these developments are radical enough to deserve the label of a holistic, systems-oriented, “emerging paradigm.” This is the term that Osowiec reserves for the final part of her article, one that builds upon the yet-to-be-appreciated insights of quantum physics, such as its erasure of the gap between observer and observed, and its suggestion that “consciousness” (in one of its many definitions) can be found in all aspects of a universe that, rather than being mechanistic, is basically self-organizing, interconnected, and evolving. In applying this “emerging paradigm” to hypnosis, Osowiec heals the ruptures between experimenter and clinician, qualitative and quantitative research, and the psychological and biological bases of behavior. Not all readers will agree with Osowiec, but hers is a bravura performance. Examples of the Emerging Paradigm Michael D. Yapko recalls that when he entered the psychotherapy field he was moved to discover that depression was the most common mood disorder on planet Earth but
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
COMMENTARY
213
that very little was known about it. Now a great deal is understood—and it is still the planet’s most prevalent mood disorder. Yapko sees depression as a condition that erodes the human spirit; hence this special issue’s theme of mind-body-spirit is especially relevant to depression and other mood disorders. But the “spirit of hypnosis” is available to help people create meaningful possibilities for their lives. This “spirit” expresses itself in many ways such as emphasizing the value of hypnosis and in excellent clinical practice. In hypnotically-facilitated psychotherapy, a “presence” is evoked, one that helps clients inspire and focus. Yapko refers to hypnotic “artistry,” and hints that science may not be able to completely capture this artistry. It is often said that hypnosis is both a science and an art; perhaps descriptive science is as close as we can get to reconciling these two aspects of hypnosis. Yapko then raises a perennial question: Why isn’t hypnosis better regarded? There is ample evidence that it is effective, even evidence-based, and that it can be applied to any number of problematic situations in human life. He notes that there are some 250 hospital-based programs based on mindfulness practices, and with some justification notes that the only phenomenon that would halt this growth would be the emergence of X-rated Las Vegas “mindfulness shows.” But it is not only stage hypnosis that has impeded the growth of hypnosis, it is the constant warning about the “dangers” of hypnosis, well-meaning injunctions that probably do the field more harm than good. Yapko closes his article by sharing what he has learned from elephant trainers and from key people in the field such as Kay Thompson who was very fond of elephants. Philip R. Appel’s article discusses psychosynthesis, which is a model of personality as well as a form of psychotherapy. I had the privilege of spending most of a day with its founder Robert Assagioli, and am pleased that his insights are still as contemporary as they were decades ago. Because of Assagioli’s emphasis on psychosomatic as well as transpersonal issues, this article is very much at home in this special issue. His concept of the “higher self” and its ability to communicate its “will” to the “conscious self” is a cornerstone of psychosynthesis. His inclusion of sub-personalities in his model foreshadowed the use of ego states in some forms of hypnotically-facilitated psychotherapy. But the psychosynthesis “disidentification” exercise is also comparable to mindfulness meditation. Appel’s uses of hypnosis when applying psychosynthesis during psychotherapy are ingenious, a tribute to both the psychosynthesis model and the hypnotic process. It includes the use of imagery, imagination, pacing, mental rehearsal, and an application of Carl Jung’s four “functions” to a client’s past experiences. Hypnosis helps clients develop their own set of symbols that are associated with their personality dynamics. These are just a few examples of a psychotherapy process that actively promotes selfawareness and psychological integration. In retrospect, it seems as if psychosynthesis and hypnosis were made for each other. The title of Nicole Ruysschaert’s article promises a lot, and she delivers. This is no simplistic road map to the land of smiley faces. Ruysschaert provides useful definitions and descriptions of this tricky term, and then demonstrates that it can be learned. And if happiness can be learned, hypnosis can facilitate that learning. There is nothing new about mental imagery, affect bridges, positive focusing, ego-strengthening, age
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
214
KRIPPNER
progression, and reliving positive experiences, but Ruysschaert puts them together in a nicely designed package well suited for hypnotic facilitation. Further, she traces the way that this package is grounded in neurology and biology. After covering body and mind, she ends with a succinct note on spirit. Spiritual questions can be addressed by making connections with others, finding something larger than ourselves, and perhaps of most importance by living a meaningful life. Assen Alladin’s astute article demonstrates why mindfulness meditation and its derivatives have had a rapid impact on psychotherapy that hypnosis can only envy. “Mindfulness-based psychotherapy” has even been anointed as evidence-based, the Holy Grail of psychotherapy terminology. Alladin morphs this approach into “mindfulnessbased cognitive hypnotherapy” (MBCH), a procedure that asserts that it is the mind that keeps us from being mindful, distracting us from here-and-now experiences. In addition to recognizing the paradoxical nature of mind (of “the Little Mind”), MBCH recognizes the heart (or “the Big Mind”) and what it represents as central to our emotional well-being. The Big Mind is the source of emotion, courage, happiness, wisdom, and— of course—sorrow. MBCH does not advise counteracting distressing or unwarranted thought but to accept them without reacting to them. Alladin cites research evidence indicating that the heart is more than a metaphor when it comes to personal well-being; the heart can be described as an information center that binds the entire body producing, at its best, psychophysiological coherence. And this coherence feeds back to the heart enhancing its activity. MBCH is built upon cultivating intention, awareness, acceptance, and gratitude. This might sound too good to be true, but Alladin presents data and case studies that demonstrate its surprising effectiveness. What Is So Special About This Special Issue? The themes running through the articles in this special issue have been encountered by readers of this journal before. So why is a special issue needed? After reading these articles, it appears to me that the overall impact emphasizes some points that reinforce each other, even though they are presented from different perspectives. The term “mind-body medicine” no longer raises the hackles that it did a few decades ago when it was denounced as “New Age sewage.” Hypnosis is included with biofeedback, neurofeedback, imagery rehearsal, meditation, and expressive art and movement therapy as a mind-body treatment. And there can be mind-body psychotherapy as well as mind-body medicine. The inclusion of “spirit” raises a new problem, even though the American Psychological Association has published a number of books on spiritual issues in psychotherapy and the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual contains a short description of a category termed “religious or spiritual problem.” The authors of the articles in this special issue define and describe “spirit” in various ways, but each of them infers that the term refers to something beyond a person’s
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:30 30 December 2014
COMMENTARY
215
customary identity. Many Native American tribes had the concept of the “long body,” a body that did not end with one’s skin. This was a body that could form a linkage with other tribal members and with non-human beings as well. For this reason, they prayed to “all our relations.” The long body was also able to extend into the past and into the future, as well as to extend over great distances in the present. Such feats may have been metaphors or they might have referred to a paradigm similar to the one that Darlene A. Osowiec hints at in her article. If people do not end where their skin ends, that poses a problem to the current dominant paradigm of Western science, the model of human separateness. There is a frequently repeated saying that the Chinese character for “crisis” is the same as that for “opportunity.” But this is not quite right. Crisis is two characters, one of which is the character for “opportunity.” So instead of saying that a crisis is an opportunity, it is more accurate to say that each crisis contains an opportunity. The crisis arises when a client reports an experience that is not easily explained by the dominant paradigm. But that report is also an opportunity for a new paradigm to emerge. References Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275. Gravitz, M. A. (1991). Early theories of hypnosis: A clinical perspective. In S. L. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.), Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp. 19–42). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hageman, J. H., & Frederick, C. (2013). Phenomenological and evidence based research in ego state therapy: Recognized and unrecognized successes and future directions. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 56, 66–85. Kirsch, I., Lynn, S. J., & Rhue, J. W. (1993). Introduction to clinical hypnosis. In J. W. Rhue, S. J. Lynn, & I. Kirsch (Eds.), Handbook of clinical hypnosis (pp. 3–22). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
