Although no doctor, psychiatrist or scientist of any standing in the world today would risk his reputation by denying the existence of hypnotism and the reality of its phenomena, nobody can say exactly what it is. There are still many ignorant and foolish people who are prepared to scoff at hypnotism and deride its usefulness. Even the most hardened sceptics, however, cannot explain away the phenomena of the trance—unlike the famous French physician and scientist who maintained to his dying day that the telephone was a ventriloquist’s trick and the phonograph a fraud!

The fact that nobody knows the true nature of hypnosis does not detract from its usefulness. After all, nobody knows the true nature of sleep or electricity, but few would deny their value.

One thing is certain: and that is, that there is nothing ‘occult’ about hypnotism. It should be unnecessary to stress this fact in these days of science and progress, but it is astonishing how many otherwise intelligent and educated people regard the practice of hypnotism as an esoteric cult.

Undoubtedly, the trance state does appear weird to those who do not understand it; and in early Christian times it became associated with the idea of witchcraft and magic. Sensational stories of the Svengali-Trilby type, although having no foundation in fact, have helped to cause the credulous public to regard it with superstitious awe. So great is the force of suggestion that even many medical men who have never studied the subject, or even witnessed hypnosis, will unhestitatingly condemn it.

Many doctors hesitate to use hypnotism because they know that the public regard it, quite wrongly, with suspicion, and they feel that they may run the risk of committing professional suicide by adopting such an unorthodox method of healing. As a result we have the highly unscientific attitude adopted by one doctor who replied, when asked by a patient if she could try hypnotism, ‘It’s very dangerous - I do not know anything about it!’

Such an attitude of mind is all the more remarkable when it is considered that the pioneers of hypnotism have all been fully qualified and highly respected medical men. There is a vast literature on the subject; and, as a result of hypnotism being driven underground, considerable research has been carried out by reputable scientists working quietly in their laboratories. Their painstaking work, often carried out under considerable difficulty, has added greatly to our knowledge of the nature of hypnotism and exploded many of the old beliefs.

Chief among these exploded myths is the popular belief that hypnosis is sleep. Although hypnosis may be induced by suggestions of sleep, and sleep may be turned into hypnosis, and hypnosis may turn into sleep, all scientific tests show that the trance is more like the waking state than ordinary sleep.

For instance, anybody who is ordinarily asleep will not respond to stimuli in the same way in which a hypnotized subject will. Usually, if spoken to, a person who is asleep will not respond; but a hypnotized patient can hear better than usual, and will carry out even a whispered command. In some cases it is possible to get a response from a sleeping person by repeatedly speaking to him, but in this case the ordinary sleep has changed into hypnosis.

Again, in ordinary sleep a person is unconscious of his surroundings; but when hypnotized the subject knows perfectly well where he is and what is happening. If he has beeh deeply hypnotized there may be loss of memory regarding what happened in the trance, especially if the hypnotist has suggested this; and as a result such a subject imagines he did not know what was happening during hypnosis.

A moment’s thought will convince the reader that even in the deepest hypnosis the subject must be able to hear every word spoken by the hypnotist in order to carry out his commands.

Another difference is that in ordinary sleep certain reflexes such as the knee jerk are diminished or abolished, whereas in hypnosis they are the same as in the waking state.

Scientific tests which record the action of the heart and lungs show that the hypnotic state is more like normal consciousness than ordinary sleep.

Brain waves, as measured by special instruments, are characteristic of those in the waking state. Another scientific test, which shows that hypnosis is definitely not sleep, makes use of the psycho-galvanic reflex. This test depends upon the fact that the resistance of the body to a small amount of electric current varies under the influence of emotion. Normally, it is about 5000 ohms in the waking state; and if some stimulus is applied to the body, say a prick with a pin, the resistance falls to perhaps 4000 ohms and then rises back to normal. In ordinary sleep the resistance may rise as high as 50,000 ohms, but in hypnosis it is 5000 ohms—the same as in the waking state.

It is very important that this difference between hypnosis and sleep should be recognized. By reason of the fact that hypnosis is often produced by suggestions of sleep, and hypnotized persons are usually seen with their eyes closed and so appearto be asleep, the general public practically always considers hypnosis to be sleep.

Patients are nearly always surprised by the fact that they can hear the hypnotist speaking while they are hypnotized. Indeed, it is not uncommon in the light and medium stages for the patient to say, ‘You know, I don’t think I was really under, as I could hear everything you said.’

This, in spite of the fact that they have been sitting perfectly still, sometimes in an awkward position, without moving a muscle for anything between half an hour and an hour—a condition which is impossible in the waking state.

Such misconceptions regarding hypnosis can cause deep disappointment which may detract from the value of the treatment. Therefore it should always be carefully explained to the patient that hypnosis is not ordinary sleep, and that he will and indeed must hear the hypnotist speaking all the time. Indeed, the hypnotist may be said to keep the patient awake or alert by speaking. If the hypnotist stops speaking to a patient for any length of time, the trance will turn into ordinary sleep, and the patient will wake after a varying time of anything from a few minutes to a few hours.

There is never any danger of remaining permanently in the trance, a thing which many people seem to fear. Further, it should be explained that the patient will feel merely in a pleasant, drowsy state as though half asleep and half awake, and that he will on no account be unconscious. Finally, it may be pointed out that some people pass into a deep trance very easily even at the first attempt and that such people may forget some or all of the events in the trance; in which case they would not remember hearing the hypnotist.

Enough has been said to show that hypnotism is most definitely not ordinary sleep; and now we must consider briefly some of the other well-known theories. The first of these which is mentioned, only to be condemned, is that of Charcot. As the result of some highly unscientific work with grossly hysterical patients, the great French neurologist reached the extraordinary conclusion that only hysterical people could be hypnotized. This cannot be considered as even a remotely possible explanation of hypnosis, unless we consider 85 % to 90 % of all people are hysterical. Strangely enough, there are even some people today who hold this highly unscientific opinion, and it is quite common for a psychiatrist or psychologist to say, ‘Oh, so-and-so should be a good hypnotic subject - she’s hysterical.’

As a matter of fact, the easiest subject to hypnotize is a perfectly normal, healthy person; and while some hysterical cases are easy, others may prove very difficult.

Just as with the sleep theory, it is important that patients should recognize the falseness of Charcot’s claims. Nobody likes to be labelled hysterical; and if the patient believes that only hysterical and weak-willed people can be hypnotized, then this attitude of mind is likely to result in resistance to treatment.

Another favourite theory is that of ‘dissociation’. Here, it is supposed that the conscious mind is split off from the subconscious during hypnosis. As the conscious mind is more and more suppressed, the subconscious comes more and more to the surface, as it were, and takes over control of the individual. When the conscious mind has been entirely suppressed, then there is no memory for events in the trance. This theory is very popular with the lay public, who in recent years (chiefly from popular books on psychology, newspaper articles and psychological films) have become very ‘subconscious-minded’! Practically every patient expects to become unconscious while the subconscious mind receives suggestions from the hypnotist, and to wake up with no memory of events of the trance.

Unfortunately, there are several well-known facts which upset this delightfully simple theory. One is that consciousness is retained in the trance and subjects are able to think and reason. Even although deeply ‘asleep’ in the hypnotic sense they can, and often do, refuse to carry out suggestions with which they do not agree.

Loss of memory for events in the trance often follows deep hypnosis, especially if suggested by the hypnotist, and in this case the patient would imagine that he had been unconscious throughout. However, there is often no loss of memory even after the deepest hypnosis; and such patients will, of course, remember the events of the trance.

Even when there is apparent loss of memory this can be removed by suggestion; and, further, scientific tests have proved that the loss of memory is more artificial than real. Patients who have been trained to develop a conditioned reflex (that is, to act in a certain way to some definite stimulus) will do so, even although told to forget. This shows that the loss of memory is not real. It is important to explain to patients that amnesia for events in the trance 15 not essential for success, and that in the great majority of cases subjects are able to recall most, if not all, of what has happened. Otherwise, because they have heard the hypnotist speaking and remember most of what has happened, they are likely to feel disappointed’ in some way. Such feelings of disappointment may, in certain cases, act as counter-suggestion and so tend to undo some of the good which has been done.

A few people have attempted to explain hypnosis as a conditioned reflex. However, to set up a conditioned reflex, a period of training is necessary, as Pavlov’s famous experiment with a dog shows. By ringing a bell each time the dog was fed, Pavlov caused it to associate the sound of the bell with food. After a time, by merely ringing the bell, without any food, he was able to cause a flow of saliva in the dog’s mouth.

In a similar fashion it was supposed that the suggestions of the hypnotist would ‘ring the bell’, as it were, in the patient’s mind and so cause the condition of hypnosis to appear. The fact that it is often possible to induce hypnosis very rapidly even at the first attempt, and without any previous training of any sort, disproves this theory.

Another theory considers that hypnosis results from brain fatigue following the strain of listening to sleep suggestions or some monotonous stimulus such as a metronome. Some methods, as will be seen later, do aim at tiring the senses; but in many cases hypnosis can be produced very quickly and easily without any previous straining. Evidently this brain fatigue is not necessary and cannot explain hypnosis, especially as in hypnosis the senses are often exalted and thinking improved.