This article was downloaded by: [Australian National University] On: 29 January 2015, At: 15:29 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
Towards an Integrated Clinical Hypnosis: Comment on Bloom's Editorial Rodger Kessler Ph.D. Published online: 21 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Rodger Kessler Ph.D. (1992) Towards an Integrated Clinical Hypnosis: Comment on Bloom's Editorial, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 34:3, 215-218, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1992.10402848 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1992.10402848
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 & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS VOLUME 34, NUMBER 3, JANUARY 1992
Letters to the Editor
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 15:29 29 January 2015
Towards an integrated clinical hypnosis: Comment on Bloom's editorial As is characteristic of Peter Bloom's writing, his recent guest editorial in the Journal was useful and provocative, Dr. Bloom identified two main sources of polarization among the variety of thinkers and practitioners within the field of clinical hypnosis. First, some positions when taken by the "Ericksonian movement" are at odds with the contemporary context of clinical thinking, with the practice of hypnosis, and with psychological treatment. Second, the "Ericksonian position" is at odds with the substantive research in clinical hypnosis and the utility of such research. He cites as examples: (1) the use of hypnosis for regression to, and recovery of, perinatal awareness and past lives; (2) the danger of applying hypnotic techniques without full regard to a full clinical understanding of the patient; and (3) the lack of acknowledgment of the value of objective measurement in hypnosis. As I read and reread his editorial, two questions arose: (1) How can we resolve the polarization and promote the evolution of clinical hypnosis? (2) How can we forge a collaborative community to evaluate objectively that which may be valuable and that which provides little of use in the clinical approaches that have become identified with the "Ericksonian position?" I would argue there is no Ericksonian position. Rather, there is Erickson's writ-
ing, and there are several positions taken by various interpreters of Erickson, who share certain common positions (although this is not for sure) but have much diversity in their ideas concerning theoretical, empirical, and psychotherapeutic issues. Part of the collaborative task must be either the elaboration of a «seminal" Ericksonian position to evaluate empirically or to identify those major positions raised by Erickson and the neo-Ericksonians that challenge some of the rich traditions and substantive research noted by Bloom. I was surprised that Dr. Bloom offers as a major criticism the "Ericksonian" position that hypnosis can facilitate regression to perinatal and past-life awareness. Although there is no evidence that Erickson believed this, there may be clinicians from "Ericksonian" approaches who take this position. Nonetheless, I am sure that many "Ericksonians" and non-Ericksonians alike would find such a position untenable. I think this issue is not central to the debate between the "Ericksonians" and the rest of the clinical hypnosis community. Concerning his second point, the dangers of applying hypnotic techniques without regard to the individual's unique context, I am sure there are many nonEricksonians who suffer from the same lack of rigor. Part of the dilemma is that access to a level of necessary training about hypnosis and psychotherapy is just not
215
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 15:29 29 January 2015
216
sufficiently available, to "non-Ericksonians" or "Ericksonians" or otherwise (Davies, 1985; Taub-Bynum & House, 1983). Anyone who does not acknowledge the established empirical devices and findings of our field certainly has gaps in their thinking and practice. To suggest that the "Ericksonians" as a group fail to understand or acknowledge the value of empiricism and objective measures may be to some degree accurate but not reflect all who label themselves Ericksonians. For whatever we think of the research, the Ericksonian Monographs frequently publish a variety of research papers (Lankton & Zeig, 1988), and there is an emerging empirical literature evaluating "Ericksonian" positions (Matthews, Bennett, Bean, & Gallagher, 1985; Alman & Carney, 1980). Even if the three "fundamental issues" identified by Dr. Bloom represent major departures in thinking about hypnosis and psychotherapy, they are not distinctively Ericksonian departures. Within "non-Ericksonian" clinical hypnosis, there are certainly broad differences in thinking concerning such significant areas as hypnotic state, hypnotizability, clinical measurement, and scripted or tailored inductions and suggestions. These issues are not what divide the Ericksonian and non-Ericksonian camps. What divides them are dichotomies that strangle communication: us/them, better/worse, important! unimportant, etc. In the quest to develop more effective clinical hypnotic techniques, to advance careers, and to advance the field of psychotherapy, much unsupported, theoretically flawed writing and teaching have been offered by persons under an "Ericksonian" banner. This can probably also be said about any school of therapy. Er-
LETfERS TO TIlE EDITOR
ickson's and the neo-Ericksonian's influence have been powerful, even if much of what has been interpreted is surrounded by question. Instead of this influence inspiring reasoned, thoughtful identification and empirical investigation of positions that merit consideration, we are left, as Dr. Bloom pointed out, with issues that create obstacles to successful communication. What will inspire open collegial communication, thinking, and investigation is a mutual analysis and investigation of the fundamental issues that irritate some in the clinical hypnosis community and intrigue others concerning "Ericksonian" positions and the comparisons of these findings with the research and ideas that currently guide our thinking. As was suggested earlier, to some degree these empirical investigations have been and are being done. Stephen Lynn and his colleagues have recently examined 19 studies in which traditional suggestionsand approachesare contrastedwith diverse types of indirect approaches and suggestions (Lynn, et al., in press). Also, the research of Joseph Barber (1977), Price and Barber (1989), and Sheehan and McConkey (1982) offer interesting and encouraging directions. Many intriguing questions have not yet been fully investigated. For example, there is frequent belief in indirect presentations of suggestions as characteristic of successful hypnotic outcome (Gilligan, 1987; Lankton, 1985; Zeig, 1985). Also, I wonder about using Sheehan and McConkey's experiential analysis technique (EAT) (Sheehan and McConkey, 1982) to evaluate subjects' response to direct and indirect presentations to assess whether there are any apparent phenomenological differences among respondents between the two delivery styles. Or, what about using a con-
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 15:29 29 January 2015
LE1TERS TO TIlE EDITOR
tent analysis to determine from therapy scripts of prominent Ericksonians and prominent traditional practitioners of clinical hypnosis whether there are in fact differences in direction and indirection and permissiveness and nonpermissiveness between groups? It might be interesting to take the differences in the characterological styles and cluster traits between high-hypnotizable and low-hypnotizable subjects observed by the Spiegels (Spiegel & Spiegel, 1978) and tailor the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) so that lows, for example, would be presented a tailored measure generated from the Spiegels' conceptualization of their styles and traits to assess whether there is any improvement in measured hypnotic ability. Is the phenomenological experience of clients affected by direct or indirect hypnotic presentations? Can hypnotizability be changed by tailoring inductions? Do Ericksonian practitioners and non-Ericksonian practitioners use different amounts of indirection and permissiveness (Gfeller, Lynn, & Pribble, 1987)? Does it matter? It is time to change our attitudes in both camps. The current schism between the Ericksonian community and the clinical hypnosis community does not assist the advancement of hypnosis. It is time to move from this position. As Garry Trudeau has implored us (paraphrasing Quincy Jones) in Doonesbury, "We must check our egos at the door." ASCH, SCEH, and the Erickson Foundation should develop collaborative relationships and task groups. The experimental community should attend, with creative and rigorous investigation, to the varied positions that Erickson and his interpreters present. In a world in which the Berlin Wall tumbles, South Africa moves towards
217
abolishing apartheid, and a Mideast peace conference is in the wind, surely the distance that separates the hypnotic community can be narrowed. We can, as Peter Bloom has so rightly observed, be "free from the need to be identified with any particular persuasion, and remain fully open to learning from our clinical and scientific observations" (Bloom, 1991).
Rodger Kessler, Ph.D. Stowe, Vermont References Alman, B. & Carney R. (1980). Consequences of direct and indirect suggestions on success of posthypnotic behavior. American Joumal of Clinical'Hypnosis, 23, 112118. Barber, J. (1977). Rapid induction analgesia: A clinical report. American Journal 0/ Clinical Hypnosis, 19, 138-147. Bloom, P. (1991). Some general comments about Ericksonian hypnotherapy. American Journal o/Clinical Hypnosis, 33,221-224. Davies, P. (1985). On Brian Fellows hypnosis teaching and research in British psychology departments. British Journal 0/ Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis 12, 157-158. Gfeller, J., Lynn, S., & Pribble, W. (1987). Enhancing hypnotic susceptibility: Interpersonal and rapport factors. Journal 0/ Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 586595. Gilligan, S. (1987). Therapeutic trances: Cooperation principle in Ericksonian hypnotherapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel, pp. 9697. Lankton, C. (1985). Elements of an Ericksonian approach. In S. Lankton (Ed.), Elements & dimensions of an Ericksonian approach. New York: Brunner/Mazel, pp. 67-69. Lankton, S. & Zeig, J. (1988). Ericksonian monographs Number 4: Research comparisons and medical applications 0/ Ericksonian techniques. New York: Brunner!MazeI.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 15:29 29 January 2015
218
Lynn, S., Neufeld, V., & Mare, C. (In press). Direct vs. indirect suggestions: Does communication style make a difference? Matthews, W., Bennett, H., & Gallagher, M. (1985). Indirect versus direct hypnotic suggestions-an initial investigation: A brief communication. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 32, 307-314. Price, D. & Barber, J. (1987). An analysis of factors that contribute to the efficacy of hypnotic analgesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96,46-51. Sheehan, P. & McConkey, K. (1982). Hypnosis and experience: The exploration of phenomena and process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spiegel, D. & Spiegel, H. (1978). Trance and treatment: Clinical uses of hypnosis. New York, Basic Books, 89-94. Taub-Bynum, E. & House, J. (1983). The teaching of hypnosis: Outline and method. College Health, 32, 82-85. Zeig, J. (1985). Experiencing Erickson: An introduction to the man and his work. New York: Brunner Mazel, pp. 34-35.
Response to Rodger Kessler's letter I welcomed Rodger Kessler's thoughtfulletter to the editor regarding my Guest Editorial. This is the kind of dialogue that is both pleasurable and necessary if we are going to bridge the gap between "Ericksonian hypnosis" and "traditional hypnosis.' , His cogent warning is well taken that the dangers that divide us are not the apparent differences in substance but the potentially harmful kind of polarization created by "we/them, better/worse, important/unimportant" is well taken. It is easy, I agree, to lose sight of the fact that most practitioners of clinical hypnosis, regardless of theoretical persuasion, are more in agreement than not. However,
LEITERS TO TIlE EDITOR
the issues that I raised of regression to and recovery of perinatal awareness and past lives (which unfortunately obscured more important implications of suggesting undue ease in accessing and talking to the unconscious); the application of hypnotic techniques without full regard for the individual's unique therapeutic context; and the lack of acknowledgement of the values of objective measures of hypnotizability, intelligence, and ego functions remain of concern to me. Although I am sure some "non-Ericksonians" use these ideas unthinkingly, in my experience, many "Ericksonians" are more active proponents of them. If only these large numbers of therapists who are in agreement, "Ericksonians" and "nonEricksonians" alike, would more openly speak out, my wish for a greater shared consensus on how to use hypnosis in therapy might come true. Despite the above possibility for agreements, I do believe there are clear "Ericksonian" positions found on many issues that are still at variance with the rest of the field-one of which follows. In 1979, the term "Ericksonian" was first used in print in conjunction with the International Congress on Approaches to Hypnosis and Psychotherapy (Zeig, personal communication, 1991). Since then, I believe, there has been an unfortunate emphasis on techniques used by the therapist rather than a focus on the unique therapeutic needs of the patier.t. The seeming elevation of indirect suggestion over direct suggestion is a curious but real example, even though Erickson himself used both with equal facility (Kay Thompson, personal communication, 1991). Indirect suggestion, the flagship of the Ericksonian movement with its almost romanticized beauty and exquisiteness, is usually compared unfavorably to direct
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20
Towards an Integrated Clinical Hypnosis: Comment on Bloom's Editorial Rodger Kessler Ph.D. Published online: 21 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Rodger Kessler Ph.D. (1992) Towards an Integrated Clinical Hypnosis: Comment on Bloom's Editorial, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 34:3, 215-218, DOI: 10.1080/00029157.1992.10402848 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1992.10402848
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 & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS VOLUME 34, NUMBER 3, JANUARY 1992
Letters to the Editor
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 15:29 29 January 2015
Towards an integrated clinical hypnosis: Comment on Bloom's editorial As is characteristic of Peter Bloom's writing, his recent guest editorial in the Journal was useful and provocative, Dr. Bloom identified two main sources of polarization among the variety of thinkers and practitioners within the field of clinical hypnosis. First, some positions when taken by the "Ericksonian movement" are at odds with the contemporary context of clinical thinking, with the practice of hypnosis, and with psychological treatment. Second, the "Ericksonian position" is at odds with the substantive research in clinical hypnosis and the utility of such research. He cites as examples: (1) the use of hypnosis for regression to, and recovery of, perinatal awareness and past lives; (2) the danger of applying hypnotic techniques without full regard to a full clinical understanding of the patient; and (3) the lack of acknowledgment of the value of objective measurement in hypnosis. As I read and reread his editorial, two questions arose: (1) How can we resolve the polarization and promote the evolution of clinical hypnosis? (2) How can we forge a collaborative community to evaluate objectively that which may be valuable and that which provides little of use in the clinical approaches that have become identified with the "Ericksonian position?" I would argue there is no Ericksonian position. Rather, there is Erickson's writ-
ing, and there are several positions taken by various interpreters of Erickson, who share certain common positions (although this is not for sure) but have much diversity in their ideas concerning theoretical, empirical, and psychotherapeutic issues. Part of the collaborative task must be either the elaboration of a «seminal" Ericksonian position to evaluate empirically or to identify those major positions raised by Erickson and the neo-Ericksonians that challenge some of the rich traditions and substantive research noted by Bloom. I was surprised that Dr. Bloom offers as a major criticism the "Ericksonian" position that hypnosis can facilitate regression to perinatal and past-life awareness. Although there is no evidence that Erickson believed this, there may be clinicians from "Ericksonian" approaches who take this position. Nonetheless, I am sure that many "Ericksonians" and non-Ericksonians alike would find such a position untenable. I think this issue is not central to the debate between the "Ericksonians" and the rest of the clinical hypnosis community. Concerning his second point, the dangers of applying hypnotic techniques without regard to the individual's unique context, I am sure there are many nonEricksonians who suffer from the same lack of rigor. Part of the dilemma is that access to a level of necessary training about hypnosis and psychotherapy is just not
215
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 15:29 29 January 2015
216
sufficiently available, to "non-Ericksonians" or "Ericksonians" or otherwise (Davies, 1985; Taub-Bynum & House, 1983). Anyone who does not acknowledge the established empirical devices and findings of our field certainly has gaps in their thinking and practice. To suggest that the "Ericksonians" as a group fail to understand or acknowledge the value of empiricism and objective measures may be to some degree accurate but not reflect all who label themselves Ericksonians. For whatever we think of the research, the Ericksonian Monographs frequently publish a variety of research papers (Lankton & Zeig, 1988), and there is an emerging empirical literature evaluating "Ericksonian" positions (Matthews, Bennett, Bean, & Gallagher, 1985; Alman & Carney, 1980). Even if the three "fundamental issues" identified by Dr. Bloom represent major departures in thinking about hypnosis and psychotherapy, they are not distinctively Ericksonian departures. Within "non-Ericksonian" clinical hypnosis, there are certainly broad differences in thinking concerning such significant areas as hypnotic state, hypnotizability, clinical measurement, and scripted or tailored inductions and suggestions. These issues are not what divide the Ericksonian and non-Ericksonian camps. What divides them are dichotomies that strangle communication: us/them, better/worse, important! unimportant, etc. In the quest to develop more effective clinical hypnotic techniques, to advance careers, and to advance the field of psychotherapy, much unsupported, theoretically flawed writing and teaching have been offered by persons under an "Ericksonian" banner. This can probably also be said about any school of therapy. Er-
LETfERS TO TIlE EDITOR
ickson's and the neo-Ericksonian's influence have been powerful, even if much of what has been interpreted is surrounded by question. Instead of this influence inspiring reasoned, thoughtful identification and empirical investigation of positions that merit consideration, we are left, as Dr. Bloom pointed out, with issues that create obstacles to successful communication. What will inspire open collegial communication, thinking, and investigation is a mutual analysis and investigation of the fundamental issues that irritate some in the clinical hypnosis community and intrigue others concerning "Ericksonian" positions and the comparisons of these findings with the research and ideas that currently guide our thinking. As was suggested earlier, to some degree these empirical investigations have been and are being done. Stephen Lynn and his colleagues have recently examined 19 studies in which traditional suggestionsand approachesare contrastedwith diverse types of indirect approaches and suggestions (Lynn, et al., in press). Also, the research of Joseph Barber (1977), Price and Barber (1989), and Sheehan and McConkey (1982) offer interesting and encouraging directions. Many intriguing questions have not yet been fully investigated. For example, there is frequent belief in indirect presentations of suggestions as characteristic of successful hypnotic outcome (Gilligan, 1987; Lankton, 1985; Zeig, 1985). Also, I wonder about using Sheehan and McConkey's experiential analysis technique (EAT) (Sheehan and McConkey, 1982) to evaluate subjects' response to direct and indirect presentations to assess whether there are any apparent phenomenological differences among respondents between the two delivery styles. Or, what about using a con-
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 15:29 29 January 2015
LE1TERS TO TIlE EDITOR
tent analysis to determine from therapy scripts of prominent Ericksonians and prominent traditional practitioners of clinical hypnosis whether there are in fact differences in direction and indirection and permissiveness and nonpermissiveness between groups? It might be interesting to take the differences in the characterological styles and cluster traits between high-hypnotizable and low-hypnotizable subjects observed by the Spiegels (Spiegel & Spiegel, 1978) and tailor the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) so that lows, for example, would be presented a tailored measure generated from the Spiegels' conceptualization of their styles and traits to assess whether there is any improvement in measured hypnotic ability. Is the phenomenological experience of clients affected by direct or indirect hypnotic presentations? Can hypnotizability be changed by tailoring inductions? Do Ericksonian practitioners and non-Ericksonian practitioners use different amounts of indirection and permissiveness (Gfeller, Lynn, & Pribble, 1987)? Does it matter? It is time to change our attitudes in both camps. The current schism between the Ericksonian community and the clinical hypnosis community does not assist the advancement of hypnosis. It is time to move from this position. As Garry Trudeau has implored us (paraphrasing Quincy Jones) in Doonesbury, "We must check our egos at the door." ASCH, SCEH, and the Erickson Foundation should develop collaborative relationships and task groups. The experimental community should attend, with creative and rigorous investigation, to the varied positions that Erickson and his interpreters present. In a world in which the Berlin Wall tumbles, South Africa moves towards
217
abolishing apartheid, and a Mideast peace conference is in the wind, surely the distance that separates the hypnotic community can be narrowed. We can, as Peter Bloom has so rightly observed, be "free from the need to be identified with any particular persuasion, and remain fully open to learning from our clinical and scientific observations" (Bloom, 1991).
Rodger Kessler, Ph.D. Stowe, Vermont References Alman, B. & Carney R. (1980). Consequences of direct and indirect suggestions on success of posthypnotic behavior. American Joumal of Clinical'Hypnosis, 23, 112118. Barber, J. (1977). Rapid induction analgesia: A clinical report. American Journal 0/ Clinical Hypnosis, 19, 138-147. Bloom, P. (1991). Some general comments about Ericksonian hypnotherapy. American Journal o/Clinical Hypnosis, 33,221-224. Davies, P. (1985). On Brian Fellows hypnosis teaching and research in British psychology departments. British Journal 0/ Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis 12, 157-158. Gfeller, J., Lynn, S., & Pribble, W. (1987). Enhancing hypnotic susceptibility: Interpersonal and rapport factors. Journal 0/ Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 586595. Gilligan, S. (1987). Therapeutic trances: Cooperation principle in Ericksonian hypnotherapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel, pp. 9697. Lankton, C. (1985). Elements of an Ericksonian approach. In S. Lankton (Ed.), Elements & dimensions of an Ericksonian approach. New York: Brunner/Mazel, pp. 67-69. Lankton, S. & Zeig, J. (1988). Ericksonian monographs Number 4: Research comparisons and medical applications 0/ Ericksonian techniques. New York: Brunner!MazeI.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 15:29 29 January 2015
218
Lynn, S., Neufeld, V., & Mare, C. (In press). Direct vs. indirect suggestions: Does communication style make a difference? Matthews, W., Bennett, H., & Gallagher, M. (1985). Indirect versus direct hypnotic suggestions-an initial investigation: A brief communication. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 32, 307-314. Price, D. & Barber, J. (1987). An analysis of factors that contribute to the efficacy of hypnotic analgesia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96,46-51. Sheehan, P. & McConkey, K. (1982). Hypnosis and experience: The exploration of phenomena and process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spiegel, D. & Spiegel, H. (1978). Trance and treatment: Clinical uses of hypnosis. New York, Basic Books, 89-94. Taub-Bynum, E. & House, J. (1983). The teaching of hypnosis: Outline and method. College Health, 32, 82-85. Zeig, J. (1985). Experiencing Erickson: An introduction to the man and his work. New York: Brunner Mazel, pp. 34-35.
Response to Rodger Kessler's letter I welcomed Rodger Kessler's thoughtfulletter to the editor regarding my Guest Editorial. This is the kind of dialogue that is both pleasurable and necessary if we are going to bridge the gap between "Ericksonian hypnosis" and "traditional hypnosis.' , His cogent warning is well taken that the dangers that divide us are not the apparent differences in substance but the potentially harmful kind of polarization created by "we/them, better/worse, important/unimportant" is well taken. It is easy, I agree, to lose sight of the fact that most practitioners of clinical hypnosis, regardless of theoretical persuasion, are more in agreement than not. However,
LEITERS TO TIlE EDITOR
the issues that I raised of regression to and recovery of perinatal awareness and past lives (which unfortunately obscured more important implications of suggesting undue ease in accessing and talking to the unconscious); the application of hypnotic techniques without full regard for the individual's unique therapeutic context; and the lack of acknowledgement of the values of objective measures of hypnotizability, intelligence, and ego functions remain of concern to me. Although I am sure some "non-Ericksonians" use these ideas unthinkingly, in my experience, many "Ericksonians" are more active proponents of them. If only these large numbers of therapists who are in agreement, "Ericksonians" and "nonEricksonians" alike, would more openly speak out, my wish for a greater shared consensus on how to use hypnosis in therapy might come true. Despite the above possibility for agreements, I do believe there are clear "Ericksonian" positions found on many issues that are still at variance with the rest of the field-one of which follows. In 1979, the term "Ericksonian" was first used in print in conjunction with the International Congress on Approaches to Hypnosis and Psychotherapy (Zeig, personal communication, 1991). Since then, I believe, there has been an unfortunate emphasis on techniques used by the therapist rather than a focus on the unique therapeutic needs of the patier.t. The seeming elevation of indirect suggestion over direct suggestion is a curious but real example, even though Erickson himself used both with equal facility (Kay Thompson, personal communication, 1991). Indirect suggestion, the flagship of the Ericksonian movement with its almost romanticized beauty and exquisiteness, is usually compared unfavorably to direct
