Did Freud Fail at Hypnosis Because of Substance Abuse?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Antoine Pruyssers on May 3, 2010 at 5:30pm

I'm pretty convinced that this one is a no-brainer:

Richard Clark MFT said:

2. Anyone that learns hypnosis should like using hypnosis.

But you make a good point Richard.
Maybe Freud just sucked at being a good hypnotist, or didn't really realise it's potential, and threw it away, like an old worn out rag-doll.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on May 3, 2010 at 6:27pm

O.K. folks....for anyone who's interested, here's the chapter of my book about Freud and hypnosis.
The info in those "NOTES" is just as comprehensive as the main text, but would take up too much room
to add here.
Perhaps another time...?

Saul

www.HistoryOfHypnotism.com




CHAPTER 6


Interestingly enough, one of Bernheim’s disillusioned ex-pupils was going to become quite famous in his own right.
Unfortunately however, Dr. Sigmund Freud held about as many misconceptions regarding hypnosis and suggestion as was humanly possible.
Of course, this was hardly surprising when one considers that his very first exposure to the phenomenon was at a stage exhibition, the next- a stay at la Salpêtrière with Charcot, and finally- a visit with Liébeault and Bernheim at Nancy.
[NOTE 19]


To paraphrase Rawlson, Freud had burst into the tangled undergrowth of hypnotism with a pioneer’s hatchet. This path was narrow and dangerous and, sadly, he was unable to avoid the many pitfalls.
The source of his difficulties can clearly be traced to his hopelessly authoritarian frame of reference and crude approach to induction; for, as Kline (1958/1966) informs us: “Freud’s knowledge of hypnosis and his experience with it, clinically and experimentally, were at best limited not only in time but, most of all, in procedure and in approach. In many ways, Freud’s use of hypnosis was similar to the use of a pharmacologic agent.” (p. 63)
Sure enough, at one point Freud (1891) had actually complained that: “The chief deficiency of hypnotic therapy is that it cannot be dosed.” (p. 111)

His conceptualization of the induction process was so thoroughly distorted moreover, that he wrote in his landmark “Studien über Hysterie” (Breuer and Freud, 1895): “She was an excellent subject for hypnosis. I held my finger before her and called out “Sleep!” and she sank down with an expression of stupefication and confusion.” (p. 40)
Now, you couldn’t get much worse than that- unless it would be by waking subjects, as he did (in Tinterow, 1970), by shouting “That is enough for the present!” (P. 469)
[NOTE 20]


His primitive view (and use) of suggestion was clearly that of the Nancy school’s as well, for, according to Freud (1891): “...suggestions consist in an energetic denial of the ailments of which the patient has complained, or in an assurance that he can do something, or in a command to perform it.” (p. 111)
Such as the “suggestion”: “You will have no more headaches!”, or the "suggestion": “Sleep!”.

Not surprisingly, failure would often be his reward for employing this soon to be discredited methodology and, according to Kline (1958/1966):
“He grew weary of hearing from many...patients after the command, “you will sleep, sleep now” such protests as, “But doctor, I am not sleeping.” Freud would then be forced to...say, “I do not mean the usual sleep, I mean the hypnotic”...or “I really don’t want you to sleep.” The necessity for all this psychosemantics confused and embarrassed him. He began to feel it would be better to avoid the embarrassment altogether.”
(p. 12)

It was at this point in time that "psychoanalysis" was born.
Coindidence? Perhaps. But, as Gibson (1977) explained:
“To a man of Freud’s dominating personality, such failures to hypnotize must have been very galling...The technique of psychoanalysis which he went on to substitute for hypnotherapy contained no such hazards for the physician, and it is small wonder that it came to be accepted by so many psychiatrists as a preferable alternative. In psychoanalysis there is no attempt on the part of the therapist to do more than be a patient listener...Freud showed his genius in such an invention.”
(p. 50)

Be that as it may, no matter how one chooses to interpret his switch to psychoanalysis, this turn of events has never, as Kline (1958/1966) pointed out, altered the fact that: “Freud’s break with hypnosis is primarily related to his inability to manage hypnosis, to the limited range of hypnotizability that he himself encountered, and to his impatience and lack of concern with the meaning of refractoriness in hypnotic response.” (p. 63)
In other words, by his authoritarian approach to induction...
[NOTE 21]


* * *


Incidentally, as far as that goes, Freud (1910, in Strachey, 1966/1978) even admitted how: “When I found that, in spite of all my efforts, I could not succeed in bringing more than a fraction of my patients into a hypnotic state, I determined to give up hypnosis...” (p. 66)
The operative phrase here is “in spite of all my efforts”, for, as Gravitz and Gerton (1984b) remind us:
“His knowledge of hypnotic techniques was rather narrow and limited, and he relied heavily, as has already been noted, upon authoritarian commands...Furthermore, the induction methods per se employed by Freud were limited in scope. These included the use of manual passes a la Mesmer above the patient’s face and body, the placement of digital pressure upon the patient’s forehead, grasping the subject’s head between his own two hands and then commanding sleep, or holding the index finger sternly before the patient and calling “Sleep!”...”
(p. 13)

Ironically enough, practically all of his patients were “hypnotizable”, if only he’d have chosen to adopt a different type of approach.
The Art of hypnotism, to paraphrase Lacayo, had only needed fine-tuning, not the meat-axe!
But instead of applying himself to improving the methodology, Freud would simply discontinue his use of hypnotherapy.

The consequences of this decision are still clearly noticeable, for, as Kline (1958/1966) sadly informs us:
“Vast majorities of professional workers in medicine, physiology, psychiatry, psychology, and the social sciences have either antiquated, inadequate, or distorted ideas of the nature of hypnosis...To a great extent, the figure of Sigmund Freud and some of his observations have been built into a legend of hypnotic omnipotence and, on the basis of his observations and conclusions, hypnosis has been dismissed...In this lies one of the greatest distortions of scientific truth in modern times.”
(p. 44)
In fact, it would not be exaggerating to state that the price in terms of lost potential has been nothing less than staggering, because, to hear Karoly (1961) tell it: “...if he had not wandered off on his “tour de force”, psychoanalysis, and had turned his genius to developing hypnosis instead, the world today would be a mentally healthier place.”
(p. 28)

Ultimately however, Freud’s abandonment of hypnotism would, among other things, result in the fact that the “Dictionary of Psychoanalysis” (1950; in Kline, 1958/1966) ended up defining the phenomenon in a manner reminiscent of an epitaph: “Hypnosis...in the present day is only employed by laymen for the purposes of entertainment.” (p. 6)

Needless to say, that was anything but a laughing matter, because this cruel and senseless joke turned out to be entirely at our expense!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Elliott on May 3, 2010 at 6:39pm

I may have been misled, but many years ago I read that Freud stopped using hypnosis due to the fact that he had developed a cancerous growth in his mouth, quite possibly caused, or exacerbated by, those awful little cigars he smoked incessantly.

Due to the growth, his ability to speak in an appropriately hypnotic manner declined. In fact, I'd imagine that his ability to speak eventually declined quite quickly.

That kind of brings it all to earth, does it not?

Regards to all,
Dan

Saul Rosenfeld said:

O.K. folks....for anyone who's interested, here's the chapter of my book about Freud and hypnosis.
The info in those "NOTES" is just as comprehensive as the main text, but would take up too much room
to add here.
Perhaps another time...?

Saul

www.HistoryOfHypnotism.com




CHAPTER 6


Interestingly enough, one of Bernheim’s disillusioned ex-pupils was going to become quite famous in his own right.
Unfortunately however, Dr. Sigmund Freud held about as many misconceptions regarding hypnosis and suggestion as was humanly possible.
Of course, this was hardly surprising when one considers that his very first exposure to the phenomenon was at a stage exhibition, the next- a stay at la Salpêtrière with Charcot, and finally- a visit with Liébeault and Bernheim at Nancy.
[NOTE 19]


To paraphrase Rawlson, Freud had burst into the tangled undergrowth of hypnotism with a pioneer’s hatchet. This path was narrow and dangerous and, sadly, he was unable to avoid the many pitfalls.
The source of his difficulties can clearly be traced to his hopelessly authoritarian frame of reference and crude approach to induction; for, as Kline (1958/1966) informs us: “Freud’s knowledge of hypnosis and his experience with it, clinically and experimentally, were at best limited not only in time but, most of all, in procedure and in approach. In many ways, Freud’s use of hypnosis was similar to the use of a pharmacologic agent.” (p. 63)
Sure enough, at one point Freud (1891) had actually complained that: “The chief deficiency of hypnotic therapy is that it cannot be dosed.” (p. 111)

His conceptualization of the induction process was so thoroughly distorted moreover, that he wrote in his landmark “Studien über Hysterie” (Breuer and Freud, 1895): “She was an excellent subject for hypnosis. I held my finger before her and called out “Sleep!” and she sank down with an expression of stupefication and confusion.” (p. 40)
Now, you couldn’t get much worse than that- unless it would be by waking subjects, as he did (in Tinterow, 1970), by shouting “That is enough for the present!” (P. 469)
[NOTE 20]


His primitive view (and use) of suggestion was clearly that of the Nancy school’s as well, for, according to Freud (1891): “...suggestions consist in an energetic denial of the ailments of which the patient has complained, or in an assurance that he can do something, or in a command to perform it.” (p. 111)
Such as the “suggestion”: “You will have no more headaches!”, or the "suggestion": “Sleep!”.

Not surprisingly, failure would often be his reward for employing this soon to be discredited methodology and, according to Kline (1958/1966):
“He grew weary of hearing from many...patients after the command, “you will sleep, sleep now” such protests as, “But doctor, I am not sleeping.” Freud would then be forced to...say, “I do not mean the usual sleep, I mean the hypnotic”...or “I really don’t want you to sleep.” The necessity for all this psychosemantics confused and embarrassed him. He began to feel it would be better to avoid the embarrassment altogether.”
(p. 12)

It was at this point in time that "psychoanalysis" was born.
Coindidence? Perhaps. But, as Gibson (1977) explained:
“To a man of Freud’s dominating personality, such failures to hypnotize must have been very galling...The technique of psychoanalysis which he went on to substitute for hypnotherapy contained no such hazards for the physician, and it is small wonder that it came to be accepted by so many psychiatrists as a preferable alternative. In psychoanalysis there is no attempt on the part of the therapist to do more than be a patient listener...Freud showed his genius in such an invention.”
(p. 50)

Be that as it may, no matter how one chooses to interpret his switch to psychoanalysis, this turn of events has never, as Kline (1958/1966) pointed out, altered the fact that: “Freud’s break with hypnosis is primarily related to his inability to manage hypnosis, to the limited range of hypnotizability that he himself encountered, and to his impatience and lack of concern with the meaning of refractoriness in hypnotic response.” (p. 63)
In other words, by his authoritarian approach to induction...
[NOTE 21]


* * *


Incidentally, as far as that goes, Freud (1910, in Strachey, 1966/1978) even admitted how: “When I found that, in spite of all my efforts, I could not succeed in bringing more than a fraction of my patients into a hypnotic state, I determined to give up hypnosis...” (p. 66)
The operative phrase here is “in spite of all my efforts”, for, as Gravitz and Gerton (1984b) remind us:
“His knowledge of hypnotic techniques was rather narrow and limited, and he relied heavily, as has already been noted, upon authoritarian commands...Furthermore, the induction methods per se employed by Freud were limited in scope. These included the use of manual passes a la Mesmer above the patient’s face and body, the placement of digital pressure upon the patient’s forehead, grasping the subject’s head between his own two hands and then commanding sleep, or holding the index finger sternly before the patient and calling “Sleep!”...”
(p. 13)

Ironically enough, practically all of his patients were “hypnotizable”, if only he’d have chosen to adopt a different type of approach.
The Art of hypnotism, to paraphrase Lacayo, had only needed fine-tuning, not the meat-axe!
But instead of applying himself to improving the methodology, Freud would simply discontinue his use of hypnotherapy.

The consequences of this decision are still clearly noticeable, for, as Kline (1958/1966) sadly informs us:
“Vast majorities of professional workers in medicine, physiology, psychiatry, psychology, and the social sciences have either antiquated, inadequate, or distorted ideas of the nature of hypnosis...To a great extent, the figure of Sigmund Freud and some of his observations have been built into a legend of hypnotic omnipotence and, on the basis of his observations and conclusions, hypnosis has been dismissed...In this lies one of the greatest distortions of scientific truth in modern times.”
(p. 44)
In fact, it would not be exaggerating to state that the price in terms of lost potential has been nothing less than staggering, because, to hear Karoly (1961) tell it: “...if he had not wandered off on his “tour de force”, psychoanalysis, and had turned his genius to developing hypnosis instead, the world today would be a mentally healthier place.”
(p. 28)

Ultimately however, Freud’s abandonment of hypnotism would, among other things, result in the fact that the “Dictionary of Psychoanalysis” (1950; in Kline, 1958/1966) ended up defining the phenomenon in a manner reminiscent of an epitaph: “Hypnosis...in the present day is only employed by laymen for the purposes of entertainment.” (p. 6)

Needless to say, that was anything but a laughing matter, because this cruel and senseless joke turned out to be entirely at our expense!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AJ on May 4, 2010 at 5:31am

Richard, your line of reasoning presupposes that Freud learned how to conduct hypnosis. Perhaps the lessons he received were inadequate for him? And even if Freud managed to learn how to be effective with hypnosis, maybe the reason why he did was solely for academic reasons. In addition, hypnosis is a skill set that can be combined with other modalities so anyone using hypnosis is not limited to exclusively use it.

Still "Why?" is not being addressed.


Richard Clark MFT said:

I find the whole discussion of Freud's "failure" with hypnosis an interesting phenomena within the hypnotherapy community. It seems to presuppose some things.
1. Anyone that learns hypnosis should be good at it. 2. Anyone that learns hypnosis should like using hypnosis.
3. Anyone that learns and uses hypnosis would never want to do anything else.

It is kind of like asking why J. Willard Marriott failed at the A&W Root Beer Stand Business.

Just some thoughts.

Richard

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AJ on May 4, 2010 at 5:35am

Kevin, the reason why Freud claimed that hypnosis did not work is easy to answer. He failed miserably at it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AJ on May 4, 2010 at 5:39am

Dan, the last sixteen years of Freud's life were seriously impaired by his poor health yet that has little to do with his earlier years when he formulated his theories and discarded hypnosis.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AJ on May 4, 2010 at 5:51am

Saul, thanks for this reprint: Sure enough, at one point Freud (1891) had actually complained that: “The chief deficiency of hypnotic therapy is that it cannot be dosed.” (p. 111)

Obviously, "intoxicating" the client was on his mind and seemed like an easier route to take. Remember on April 24, 1884, Freud ordered his first gram of cocaine from the local apothecary, so he had a few years of experience with this drug prior to that comment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on May 4, 2010 at 6:02am

Doc Regal said:

Saul, thanks for this reprint: Sure enough, at one point Freud (1891) had actually complained that: “The chief deficiency of hypnotic therapy is that it cannot be dosed.” (p. 111)



Doc,

Perhaps the content of NOTE 21 will be enlightening as well in regards to your original question...



NOTE 21



On the whole, it’s not hard to see that Freud’s various grievances against hypnosis were merely the result of the faulty approach he chose to adopt.
For starters, his conviction that hypnotized people were sometimes prone to feelings of a sexual nature, and even erotic stimulation, was obviously related to his use of such highly inappropriate physical means as “stroking”.
This same objection, it will be recalled, has always accompanied the use of that particular technique- ever since the days of Mesmer and the Secret Rapport of 1784...!
(see also NOTE 1).

And then there’s the fact that he was said to have regarded the phenomenon as being somewhat "mystical" and unscientific. But seeing as how his entire methodology consisted of vigorously giving direct authoritative suggestions like “Sleep!”, and “Your headache is gone!”, that did actually resemble the methodology of a sorcerer uttering magical incantations, or that of an exorcist casting out demons. (see also NOTE 3)

To make matters worse- it's been seen how his patients were not always accommodating...

Indeed, Freud’s highly limited understanding of suggestive dynamics was evidenced by this exclusive reliance on direct suggestion- a tactic that was bound to prove disappointing in the end.
In that respect, he’d complained how (in Strachey, 1966/1978): “In the long run, neither the doctor nor the patient can tolerate the contradiction between the decided denial of the ailment in the suggestion, and the necessary recognition of it outside the suggestion.”
(p. 141)

By the same token, Freud (in Kline, 1958/1966) would confess: “I gave up the suggestion technique, and with it hypnosis, so early in my practice because I dispaired of making suggestion powerful and enduring enough to effect permanent cures.” (p. 10)
Once again however, it must be remembered that, according to his own definition of the word, “suggestion” entailed nothing more than an “energetic denial” of the patient’s ailment, or a “command to perform” some action. Under the circumstances, he was quite fortunate even to have occasionally effected temporary cures- let alone permanent ones!

In any event, as Shor (1979) informs us: “Freud’s abandonment of hypnosis as a therapeutic method was a wise decision if not a historical necessity, since the authority and obedience brand of hypnotism that dominated his era was too unwieldy, artifact-laden, and encrusted with transference and countertransference problems...” (p. 32)

While Kline (1958/1966) would similarly declare that:
“On the basis of the subjective motives, Freud’s position on hypnosis can be accepted as justifiable for him. His own research interests...and, most important of all, his discomfort with hypnotic procedures are factors which, for an individual are justified. Group acceptance, particularly scientific group acceptance of such reasons for rejecting a concept or methodology cannot, however, be justified on the same basis.”
(p. 16, italics mine)

In fact, if one reads between the lines, his personal discomfort, not to say abject embarrassment, at having to employ such techniques was clearly discernable in his statement (1891; in Strachey, 1966/1978) that: “Anyone who sets about hypnotizing half sceptically, who may perhaps seem comical to himself in this situation, and who reveals by his expression, his voice and his bearing that he expects nothing from the experiment, will have no reason to be surprised at his failures, and should rather leave this method of treatment to other physicians who are able to practice it without feeling damaged in their medical dignity...” (p. 105)


* * *



For that matter, even though Freud ultimately chose to discontinue his use of hypnosis, this by no means implied that he felt it was actually harmful. On the contrary, he even seems to have gone out of his way to dispel such ideas!
Consequently, as Wester and Smith (1984) explained: “Fueled over the years by a few dogmatists and partisans, the notion that Freud completely rejected the modality is inconsistent with the historical record of his own words.” (p. 16)

For one thing, he obviously disagreed with Charcot’s assertion that hypnosis was a “pathological” manifestation or an “artificial hysteria”. This can be seen in his preface to the German (his own) translation of Bernheim’s “de la Suggestion” (1888; in Strachey, 1966/1978). To whit:
“Another line of argument hostile to hypnosis rejects it as being dangerous to the mental health of the subject and labels it as “experimentally produced psychosis”...It must be added that there is little to be gained by calling suggestions “obsessional ideas”...it seems likely that more light will be thrown on obsessional ideas by comparing them with suggestions than the other way round...if indeed, there is anything at all to be gained from transporting technical names out of their proper spheres. No, the cause of hypnotism is in no danger from this quarter.”
(idem, pp. 76-77)

In his review of Forel’s “Hypnotism” (1889) one year later, Freud once again stressed the fact that: “...hypnosis loses none of its harmlessness and none of its curative value by being called “artificial insanity” or “artificial hysteria”, any more than meat loses any of its good taste or nutrative value by being denounced in their rage by vegetarians as “carrion”.” (idem, p. 93)

Nor had he overlooked the fact that widespread belief in such ideas was solely the result of their proponent’s (Charcot’s) illustrious reputation and stature in the scientific community. In his own (1889) words: “It is difficult for most people to suppose that a scientist who has had great experience in certain regions of neuropathology, and has given proof of much acumen, should have no qualification for being quoted as an authority on other problems...” (idem, p. 92)

In that same article, Freud would also defend the phenomenon of suggestion from those who claimed that it subjugated the patients’ will, by caustically writing that: “It is quite interesting to...hear psychiatrists who are in the habit of suffocating the “freely aspiring mental activity” of their patients with large doses of bromide, morphine and chloral, arraigning suggestive influence as something degrading to both parties.” (idem, p. 94)
And in 1891, he would claim yet again that:
“There is no doubt that the field of hypnotic treatment is far more extensive than that of other methods of treating nervous illnesses. Nor is there any justification for the reproach which asserts that hypnosis is only able to influence symptoms and then only for a short time...Everything that has been said and written about the great dangers of hypnosis belongs to the realm of fable.”
(idem, p. 113)

So although, in the end, he decided to redirect his researches (psychoanalysis), there is absolutely no justification for condemning the phenomenon in his name, as was done by most (if not all) of his followers, because, truth be told, his track record regarding hypnosis was nothing to brag about.
Indeed, as Kline (1958/1966) reminds us: “...among his varied contributions, many of which rank exceptionally high both in psychology and philosophy, his contributions to hypnosis were minor. He was no authority here and, in fact, made no claims as such.”
(p. 69)

What’s more, the man was actually a good deal more open-minded about the subject than were most of his disciples! As van Renterghem (1911), one of his early colleagues, would appreciatively write:
“...Freud recognizes the benefits in all forms of psychical therapy that can lead to cure. He has personally chosen to devote his life to the perfecting of psychoanalysis, and that is why he concerns himself with it exclusively. But he nevertheless appreciates the results of his colleagues who do employ suggestion- both in and out of hypnosis. He thereby proves that he is more scientifically inclined than most other investigators who, either through short-sightedness, or a desire for self-promotion, repudiate the Gods that they worshipped yesterday, and swear allegiance to their methodology alone; like Popes- excommunicating all that stands apart.”
(p. xix)



It is rather hypocritical to pretend otherwise...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AJ on May 4, 2010 at 6:29am

Saul, your well researched book has an abundance of great info. Thanks for all of your replies.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Clark MFT on May 4, 2010 at 6:50am

"Doc",

As Saul has shown, Freud seems not to have claimed hypnosis did not work, and moving away from an area of practice does not equate to failing.

Why did you fail at finance? Surely it is to be supposed it was do to some vice or personal short coming.

Richard

Doc Regal said:

Kevin, the reason why Freud claimed that hypnosis did not work is easy to answer. He failed miserably at it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AJ on May 4, 2010 at 7:19am

Your NLP tautology, Richard, is unbelievable. Nonetheless, you can choose to believe as you wish., however your wish is not my command. Cheers! Doc

P.S. The question posted is still not being addressed by you. Failing primarily means two things of which I am specifically referring to: neglect to do something

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AJ on May 4, 2010 at 8:08am

Continuing onward...

In Freud's search for making his mark, I found this report here:

In his published account of the case, written some twelve years later, Breuer treated the story which Anna O. had related in a trance as a true account of an incident which had given rise to her aversion to drinking. He said he had concluded that the way to cure a particular symptom of ‘hysteria’ was to recreate the memory of the incident which had originally led to it and bring about emotional catharsis by inducing the patient to express any feeling associated with it..

The sudden disappearance of one of Anna O.’s many symptoms thus became the basis for what Breuer later described as a ‘therapeutic technical procedure’. According to both Freud and Breuer, this method had been applied systematically to each of Anna’s symptoms and as a result she was cured completely of her hysteria.

The case of Anna O. played a fundamental role in the development of Freud’s thought. She has frequently been described as the first psychoanalytic patient, a view which Freud himself, lecturing at Clark University in the United States, once endorsed:

If it is a merit to have brought psychoanalysis into being, that merit is not mine. I had no share in its earliest beginnings. I was a student and working for my final examinations at the time when another Viennese physician, Dr Josef Breuer first (in 1880-2) made use of this procedure on a girl who was suffering from hysteria. [1]

Freud, however, was understating his own role. Psychoanalysis would never have come into being if he had not transformed Breuer’s ‘talking cure’ by marrying it with Charcot’s views on traumatic hysteria and his own elaborate technique for reconstructing repressed memories through interpretation and free-association.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page