The 1950's rivalry between Milton H. Erickson, MD, and David Elman created an intellectual schism in the world of hypnotherapy. The friction between the psychiatrist and the former stage hypnotist has left an enduring legacy of distrust and name calling between various factions. This problem belies the benefit that could exist should the adherents of their legacies could just for a moment start exploring the similarities rather than remaining dogmatically mired in the differences.
(For those who are not familiar with these two giants, let me give a quick explanation. Dr. Erickson was the polio-stricken psychiatrist who developed many elegant and permissive hypnotic techniques which he used as the center piece for his highly effective and flexible approach to psychotherapy. David Elman was a former stage hypnotist and radio personality who spent the last two decades of his life training medical doctors and dentists. His methods were more direct. After Erickson's efforts resulted in the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association approving the clinical use of hypnosis in 1958 and 1959, respectively, he became known by his followers as the "Father of American Hypnotherapy." On the other hand, Elman's memory faded into obscurity until the 1970's when Gerald Kein, an Orlando-based hypnotherapist, revived it.)
Both men clearly believed that a patient must learn to "get out of their own way" if change were to occur. Although Erickson started off by using a patient's patterns of thinking and behavior as an initial starting point for therapy, he maintained that it was necessary to split previous associations. Once this splitting occurred, he wanted to give the patient room to find new healthier associations. This was used for both medical and psychological treatments.
Elman's definition of hypnosis was as a state where the "critical faculty" (or factor) was bypassed and "selective thinking" could occur. After many years of studying, teaching, and using Elman hypnotherapy I have come to the conclusion that the more efficient the critical faculty bypass becomes the more efficient selective thinking will result. Elman's students repeatedly proved this assertion. This is further supported by my experience and Gerald Kein's expert training.
Both Erickson and Elman's hypnotic philosophies contain this duality. Having taught courses on both, as well as courses on mind/body integration and hypnotic neurology, I have experienced the undeniable epiphany that they were essentially saying the same thing. Yes, there is a part of the patient's mind that is the obstacle. And, freedom from this burden opens a door for not only the possibility of radical surgery being performed without chemical anesthesia, but also deep and lasting physiological and psychological changes.
I found the linkages by further studying the research of University of Pennsylvania Medical School professor Andrew Newberg, MD, Wisconsin psychiatrist and savant syndrome expert Darold Treffert, MD, Harvard Medical School professor, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, and Allan Snyder, PhD, of the University of Sydney (Australia). Each of these experts have honed in on the fact that if you can shut down the "tyranny of the left brain" then the door is literally opened for enhanced brain function and abilities. This seems to overtly match Elman's techniques and recent experiments with Transcranial Magnetics and brain reorganization resulting from sensory deprivation. If you can shut down the protective filter of the brain, then other parts of the brain are energized.
It may seem to be a stretch to apply this to Erickson. Regardless of the hesitation to do so, one must realize that most of the "homework" which he assigned his patients and his wily linguistic techniques were designed to create trance by overloading the conscious mind. This overloading is exactly what the recent scientific experiments have sought to achieve. What Elman did was to start the critical faculty bypass procedure by repeatedly giving suggestions. Conversely, Erickson used the permissive, conversational approach to achieve the exact same state.
So, while the resulting trance may be extremely similar, I contend that there are significant differences. The speed and depth of trance is normally more pronounced with Elman's techniques. Additionally, by defining the hypnotic state bereft of the trance requirement, he showed that many of the trance (or somnambulistic medium trance state) benefits can be achieved outside of trance. While not as rapid and profound, with the subtleties of Erickson's techniques patient resistance (an area with which Elman had considerable difficulty) could be easily handled and more fundamental changes would result. Therefore, when applying their various methods to mind/body treatments I tend to favor Elman's rapid approaches over Erickson. This means that rapid symptom alleviation to include immediate perceptions of pain and current allergy symptoms tend to respond better to Elman's techniques and the re-learning process required for chronic pain, tissue healing, and adjusting adaptive immune responses would respond better to Ericksonian hypnosis.
Even though I see differences in applications, by understanding both Erickson and Elman's thoughts and then filtering this through recent mind/body research, I get a better appreciation of the intervention capabilities that clinicians possess provided that they adjust to the situation at hand. Despite the tendency toward dogmatism found among the legacy holders of each school, Elman's insistence on creativity and Erickson's rejection of the inflexibility of his peers lead me to the conviction that these two giants were two sides of the same coin.
Posted: 11/14/2008
