Hidden Depths: The Story of Hypnosis by Robin Waterfield. Macmillan, £20, pp 464. ISBN 0 333 77949 5. Rating: ★★
One of the illustrations in this book is of a newspaper advertisement, which screams, “How to get girls through hypnotism!” The author of this entertaining book, Robin Waterfield, prosaically points out beneath the illustration, “It is impossible to make even a hypnotised subject go against her moral code.” This immediately raises the central conundrum with hypnosis—if you can't make people under hypnosis do what they wouldn't have done otherwise, then what's the point of it? The social psychologists argue that it gives subjects an excuse to behave in ways that they would otherwise find difficult to justify, and is no less powerful for that.
Waterfield, writer in residence at Sussex University, starts his historical account of hypnosis by stating that, “As sometimes happens, science is actually behind the times on this. A great many ordinary people—you and me—know perfectly well that hypnotherapy (and some other so called ‘alternative’ therapies) works.” Evidence in favour of this assertion ranges from personal experience, to watching stage hypnotist Paul McKenna on television—leaving apparently little doubt that something “real” is going on, “even if it seems inexplicable.”
The book is an attempt to dismantle the medical profession's “deep-rooted prejudices” against hypnosis in an even handed way, using a meticulously researched chronological account of the subject.
It is easy to forget, without the benefit of a historical perspective, that doctors were not always highly regarded by the public. In the 19th century, when treatments were disagreeable and effectiveness doubtful, doctors were held in low esteem. It was then that mesmerism emerged as an incendiary device that ignited fierce arguments between the lay public and the medical profession. A minority of “progressives”—led by John Elliotson, professor of medicine at University College London—embraced mesmerism as a potent conceptual device, while a majority—led by Thomas Wakely, editor of the Lancet—opposed it as a hazardous fraud.
Exactly what to make of hypnosis has not really been resolved in the past 200 years. However, Waterfield is more evangelical about its benefits, perhaps because he seems to have neglected a substantial proportion of the more recent scientific work on the subject. An early ominous sign is to be found in his acknowledgments—he expresses his thanks for being pointed in the direction of the library of the Society for Psychical Research. He also thanks one of the foremost current researchers on the subject—Dr David Spiegel, professor of psychiatry and behavioural sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine—yet in the main body of the book I could find scant reference to more contemporary work on hypnosis.
Waterfield neglects research that finds that subjects who are made hypnotically blind in one eye are subject to perceptual illusions that could only be effective if they have good vision in both eyes. Meanwhile subjects who are made hypnotically deaf respond to the verbal command “now you can hear again.”
The most recent brain scanning research confirms that hypnotic alteration of colour perception produces blood flow changes in the part of the brain that processes colour vision. Hypnosis, therefore, seems to be able to alter the way in which the brain itself, not just the mind, processes colour vision.
Hypnosis certainly increases pain thresholds, but poorly susceptible subjects can exhibit as much analgesia as highly susceptible ones by using various cognitive strategies, including distraction. The key point here is that it is possible to achieve most of what can be done through hypnosis by direct appeal to the conscious mind, rather than an indirect wooing of the unconscious.
Hypnosis is always going to be unfashionable in a modern medical and psychological age that has recently chosen to back the conscious mind against the unconscious. Certainly Waterfield has performed a commendable service in reminding a sceptical profession that hypnosis should not be dismissed out of hand—it is indeed a useful technique for a wide variety of ailments.
The problem remains the issue that dogged this technique from the very start—putting your faith in the hypnotist seems to be a large part of why it works. This might partly explain why hypnotists have always seemed so prone to overly grandiose claims on hypnotism's behalf. And if it really can't help you get girls, then . . .
Figure.
MARY EVANS
Journal from hypnotism's heyday showing a hypnotised subject removing his toupee