Pogo, Revisited
by Carl Ralph CCHt

 We live in a unique and exciting period in the development of hypnotherapy.  I was fully struck by that reality last week when, in the course of some research, I got on the phone and actually spoke to two of the pioneers of our profession whom I had learned about in my training. To me it was something like calling up Sigmund Freud or Carl Jung for consultation.

Indeed, ours is a young and burgeoning science.  We find ourselves approximately where our big brother, Psychology, was in the early years of this century … young, uncertain – and on the threshold of credibility.  For eight years, from the mid-1880s when Freud abandoned hypnosis as a psychoanalytic tool, until the 1960s when serious interest in it was renewed, our profession lay in virtual stasis.  Unfortunately, hypnotherapy as a genuine tool suffered a serious setback during its long nap. Public awareness of hypnosis blossomed during this time through the efforts of stage hypnotists. Certainly, I in no way begrudge these individuals their livelihoods, but the net impact on hypnotherapy as a mental healthcare modality was significantly injured.  First, there is the credibility issue. How do you take seriously, much less find altogether trustworthy, a technique based upon that which has been a part of entertainment all of our lives?  Had B. F. Skinner taken his Behavior Modification act on the road as something of a vaudeville performance for public amusement, would he have been able to subsequently command attention in clinical circles?  

The other “gift” stage hypnotism brings into our clinical settings is the fear factor. How can you trust this person? After all, at any moment after your session you may find yourself inexplicably clucking like a hen! And even when hypnotherapy has been approached as a scientific endeavor, it has left a stigma on the practice.  Unquestionably MKULTRA did little to improve public perception of hypnotherapy.

Nonetheless, the biggest setbacks we have received as a profession have been wielded by our own hand. To quote Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us!”  How many clinicians speak of their practice in conjunction with spiritism, metaphysics, the paranormal, astrology and the like?  I do not judge these practices, much less condemn them, but they have no place in professional clinical work.  By continually associating our profession with other, less acceptable interventions, we only damage the credence others may place in hypnotherapy. We openly dabble in philosophies promising tremendous results, but where is our evidence?

Where is our evidence? Clearly, we have been told over and over, loud and clear that that is the cost of admission at the gates of professional credibility.  Psychology floundered at these same gates for decades before its pioneers took up the challenge.  We need to heed their lesson.  Ideally we would collectively endeavor to establish some base of strong, empirical data to substantiate hypnotherapy as a viable and productive tool, either curative (resolving client problems) or ethical (improving their quality of life).  But empirical research is expensive and time consuming.  Without external funding, training and assistance it is likely few if any of us are prepared to undertake it in a meaningful way. Nonetheless, we each can, we each should, begin to gather and to publish clinical data, statistics accumulated over time indicating the overall effectiveness of specific modalities of treatment.  We are responsible for answering the questions, “Does what we do work?  Does it perform better or worse when specific variables are changed?”  It is providing response to questions like these that we, like every psycho-socio science before us, will move forward in our communities, accepted as legitimate contributors. 

Another issue that affects hypnotherapy’s acceptance is our abominable lack of adequate, standardized and accredited training. Today when a client goes to a hypnotherapist how does he or she know that therapist’s qualifications?  Sure, there’s a certificate on the wall, but how do they know if that certification represents a weekend’s training or a year’s?  Without some measure of self-regulation in our educational standards we encourage under-qualified individuals to practice hypnotherapy to the discredit of us all.  

Last year the State of Indiana, in its landmark legislation regarding state certification of hypnotists and hypnotherapists, clearly pronounced for any that cared to listen what the criteria is for the states to take us seriously: a minimum of 350 hours of formal training including 150 hours of supervised practice.  Many in our occupation looked fearfully at this ruling as unwanted government intervention, missing entirely the honor Indiana has bestowed on us.  Indiana’s regulation of hypnotherapy is an invitation to legitimacy, an invitation to a higher standard – an invitation we should each heartily embrace.

I would call those of like mind, those who want to see hypnotherapy taken seriously, those who want to witness its acceptance as a true healthcare science, to contact me at c.e.ralph@worldnet.att.net.  We are the mothers and fathers of our profession. Together we can see it’s raised properly.