the Free Hypnosis Social Network
Is it right to have fun at other peoples expence?
Stage show hypnosis takes control of another’s belief and then subjects them to humorous scenarios.
Is this right or wrong?
Don't forget the victims volunteer to go before their peers!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by docregal.com on -
When it comes to respect, Melvin Helitzer writes: There are three ways you can attract attention:
1. You can legitimately achieve some outstanding accomplishment.
2. You can criticize somebody.
3. You can be unconventional.
A truly skilled entertainer need not rely on option 2.
-
Permalink Reply by Duncan Murray on -
'Stage show hypnosis takes control of another’s belief...'
Even with stage 1 of your course, Wayne James Fearn, you will know that the client, or subject of hypnosis, is always in control...'Hypnosis 101 The Basics' ...the subject agrees to go along with it - if they don't - it won't work and the show will be a flop...if the suggestions are muddled, not repeated/reinforced etc then they won't be accepted...
The 'control' is an illusion - if the illusion is broken there is no show - the audience is as - if not more - important to trance its depth and maintenance and the compliance of the subjects than potentially the hypnotist - if the hypnotist loses the audience he loses the show...
woof!
-
Permalink Reply by Kelley Woods on -
I suppose you might wonder who is having the fun...and of course, that's subjective. My taste in humor is different than someone's else. Most volunteers for stage hypnosis have expectation of the type of stunts they will participate in, so I see nothing wrong with it. If a viewer is offended, that's the risk of attending such an event, as is the possiblity of watered-down drinks!
Now if the audience and participants are having fun at the hypnotist's expense...THAT might be an interesting show to see!
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Sandland on -
victims? Control? Expense?
I guess that's one perspective of stage hypnosis, although its probably not one that anyone actually trained in stage hypnosis would have.
I'm trained in stage hypnosis but don't ever do shows. I'm clinically oriented, and in that orientation believe that correct terminology and objective analysis are important. I think the entire framework of your question should be rewritten without those words I mentioned.
Also, I'd recommend using the word subject as a noun instead of a verb.
Everyone else will take care of the rest.
Scott
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne James Fearn on -
Here you go again Duncan, assumptions, assumptions!
Duncan Murray said:'Stage show hypnosis takes control of another’s belief...'
Even with stage 1 of your course, Wayne James Fearn, you will know that the client, or subject of hypnosis, is always in control...'Hypnosis 101 The Basics' ...the subject agrees to go along with it - if they don't - it won't work and the show will be a flop...if the suggestions are muddled, not repeated/reinforced etc then they won't be accepted...
The 'control' is an illusion - if the illusion is broken there is no show - the audience is as - if not more - important to trance its depth and maintenance and the compliance of the subjects than potentially the hypnotist - if the hypnotist loses the audience he loses the show...
woof!
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne James Fearn on
-
Now that would be good!
How about a show of stage hypnotists belittled by one hypnotist infront of everyone they ever belittled!
Kelley Woods said:I suppose you might wonder who is having the fun...and of course, that's subjective. My taste in humor is different than someone's else. Most volunteers for stage hypnosis have expectation of the type of stunts they will participate in, so I see nothing wrong with it. If a viewer is offended, that's the risk of attending such an event, as is the possiblity of watered-down drinks!
Now if the audience and participants are having fun at the hypnotist's expense...THAT might be an interesting show to see!
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne James Fearn on
-
Smashing!
When one writes a masterpiece not everyone is in agreement!
Scott Sandland, C.Ht. said:victims? Control? Expense?
I guess that's one perspective of stage hypnosis, although its probably not one that anyone actually trained in stage hypnosis would have.
I'm trained in stage hypnosis but don't ever do shows. I'm clinically oriented, and in that orientation believe that correct terminology and objective analysis are important. I think the entire framework of your question should be rewritten without those words I mentioned.
Also, I'd recommend using the word subject as a noun instead of a verb.
Everyone else will take care of the rest.
Scott
-
Permalink Reply by Fable Goodman on -
-
Permalink Reply by Duncan Murray on
-
'Here you go again Duncan, assumptions, assumptions!'
To mock Wayne you should mimic properly - assumptions, assumptions, assumptions! - but I never assume anything - everything posted is true and accurate...do stage 2 and then the diploma and you will have a qualified opinion....to assume makes an ass of you and me...you have assumed, I have made a statement of fact!
-
Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on -
Well, as those of you who know me are well aware, I've posted a great deal on this very subject and am VERY passionate in my views regarding PUBLIC exhibitions of hypnosis for the purpose of "entertainment". This is because, after having thoroughly researched the subject of WHY hypnosis has, all throughout it's 200 year history, been universally regarded by the vast majority of both the general public as well as health care professionals in such a NEGATIVE fashion, I sincerely believe that its exploitation for the use of "entertainment" has sullied its IMAGE in the eyes of those who would otherwise have regarded the phenomenon purely as a force for HEALING.
I have neither the time nor inclination to rehash the many thousands of words I've already expended on this Forum trying to convince those who, either because they make it their living, or simply refuse to even CONSIDER the fruits of my almost thirteen years of fanatical research, so I'll just copy & paste Chapter 3 of my book here below (without the "NOTES" which would take up WAY too much additional space).
I realize that to those whose minds are closed against any and all argument it won't matter at all HOW much "proof" or hard evidence is presented, but hopefully those who are sincerely interested in learning the terrible extent of the damage done to hypnotism's IMAGE throughout the years by such exhibitions will at least CONSIDER what I'm trying to say...
Saul
www.HistoryOfHypnotism.com
CHAPTER 3
Having missed this golden opportunity to finally attain scientific recognition, hypnotism, just as had mesmerism, soon became more or less relegated to the tawdry domain of the stage-operators, where a potent combination of tasteless sensationalism coupled with extremely authoritative induction tactics would serve to effectively poison the minds of most everyone against the phenomenon of trance.
To hear Hudson (1893/1920) tell it:
“The idea is being very generally promulgated...that the ability of one man to mesmerize or hypnotize another implies the possession of a very dangerous power...It would be strange indeed if the average man were not impressed with an indefinable dread of the power of the hypnotist. He sees him, by means of certain mysterious manipulations, throw his subject into a profound sleep, and awaken him by a snap of the fingers...All this, and much more, can be seen at public exhibitions of hypnotism...”
(pp. 122-123)
(NOTE 5]
Not surprisingly, induction tactics were expressly tailored to meet the special requirements of these "entertainers"- which meant instilling a sense of righteous awe in the audience.
That effect was always best achieved by appearing to totally subdue their subjects.
For example, as a certain “Doctor” Cook (1901/1950) instructed:
“Stand directly in front of the subject, about 5 feet from him; have him stare at you blankly while you assume a fierce expression of determination; raise your hands and separate the fingers; gradually move your hands toward him, and then suddenly seize him by the shoulders and give him a...quick shove backward; rivet your eyes upon his in the greatest earnestness and intensity. If this method succeeds”, he continued, “the subject will assume a peculiar and unmistakable expression of submission.”
(p. 259)
Presumably somewhat like that of the legendary Count Dracula’s slack-jawed victims, after he’d transfixed them (in a curiously similar manner) with his Evil Eye...
Or consider the methodology of Donato- one of the most active of these traveling hypnotists at the close of the 19th century. His favorite induction technique (employed at one time or other on some 30,000 subjects) made use of both “fascination”, and a bizarre derivative that was known as “attraction”.
Wynaendts Francken (1902) described its manifestation as follows:
“The subject becomes paralyzed in his will, follows the operator everywhere, and slavishly imitates his every movement...(Donato) had the subjects press the palms of their hands against his; he then applied downward force while at the same time, and with a penetrating stare from his bulging eyes, ordered them to lock gazes with him. While doing this, he whirled around the subject or forced him backwards, until he felt that that one would offer him no more resistance...While all this was taking place, his subjects exhibited a taut, staring demeanor, wide-open eyes, a look devoid of all expression, and contorted facial features.”
(pp. 20-21)
The mind reels at the low-rent horror of it all.
For all intents and purposes, it appeared as if “open season” had been declared on anyone who was either foolhardy or naïve enough to offer themselves as a volunteer. And generally, by the end of each performance, even the most liberal boundaries of common decency had been ruthlessly and shamefully violated.
What the audience got to witness, from that first barked order (“Sleep!”) to the last imperious command (“Awaken!”), was an elegantly staged but contemptible illusion of Raw Power, of Total Mind Control.
As de Laurence (1901/1925) advised his would-be colleagues:
“...tell (the subjects) to close their eyes and that when you have counted three they will open their eyes, but will find a swarm of bees stinging them all over their faces and bodies, and their frantic and half-crazed efforts to drive off the imaginary bees will provoke roars of laughter. Rest them all, and say, now when I count three, you will open your eyes and will find that you are sitting upon a red-hot stove”, and their desperate efforts to get off the chairs will afford great amusement...Then take two or three subjects and sew their tongues together with needle and thread, and while in this condition have them sing a song or converse with each other...”
(pp. 49-51)
[NOTE 6]
* * *
Of course, it wouldn’t be fair to claim that all of these exhibitions were cruel, vile and repugnant- because many of them were merely sleazy, debasing and loathsome.
But while the lyrics might sometimes differ, the melody was always recognizable:
What the audience got to witness, was how certain of their number were seemingly transformed from responsible human beings into hapless, will-less buffoons.
How otherwise sane and upright citizens were reduced, as if by some evil alchemy, to a succession of entranced zombies, lurching and weaving to the clipped commands of “The World’s Greatest Hypnotist!”- his arrogant finger-snaps acting like a diabolical kind of remote-control, instantaneously propelling them through yet another bizarre and frenzied routine.
What's more, as Boekhoudt (1890) pointed out: “Suggestion in the hands of the stage-magnetizers can be a dangerous weapon. When Hanson, for example, says to the hypnotized subject, “Your hair is on fire!” ("Vos cheveux brûlent!") it really shouldn’t be surprising that this might be so shocking to the subject as to cause considerable harm to his nervous system.” (p. 80)
Fortunately enough, no one was ever actually killed or crippled- at least, not permanently. But as Kost (1965, p. 222) rightfully lamented, one inevitable side-effect was that no matter how hard an audience might “roar with laughter” at the ludicrous antics of those subjects, they simultaneously: “develop a fear and a revulsion at the debasing of the human being which they are observing, and often come away with the mental reservation that no one is ever going to hypnotize them.”
While people occasionally winced at the incredible excesses committed by those operators, they nevertheless continued to frequent their performances- thereafter breathlessly spreading the word to others that a hypnotist was someone who could “make” (force!) people to do anything he wanted them to do...
[NOTE 7]
* * *
With each and every exhibition, that choice bit of disinformation became further ingrained in the public consciousness; and the common reaction, understandably enough, usually ranged from a vague but anxious distaste all the way to stark, raving terror.
Such as when an operator named Carl Sextus (1893/1895) described how, while giving one of his performances, he was:
“...greatly surprised to see a couple of fellows take from their pockets some lemons which, in accordance with some ceremonies to me unknown, they cut into pieces. With these they carefully rubbed their temples, forehead, etc. Even their poorly-blacked shoes did not miss this peculiar treatment. These mystic experiments, I learned later, were supposed to be safeguards against my hypnotic influence. Another young gentleman, who was seemingly well-built, had a prominence on his chest which looked like a deformity. Later in the evening...when he removed his coat and vest, there was much merriment in the audience when a couple of thick copper plates, some roofing zinc, and a large horseshoe dropped to the floor with resounding noise. This gentleman was evidently (also) very well prepared...”
(p. 274)
All in all, I suppose Sextus should have been satisfied that they hadn’t decided to try their luck with a sharpened stake, or silver bullets. From a purely ethical standpoint, it wouldn’t have been..altogether..unjustified.
Indeed, thanks to the employment of such exceedingly authoritarian techniques, the figure of the “hypnotist” had by now become popularly conceptualized as a creature so vile and menacing that he practically left a trail of slime in his wake!
Once again, as Sextus bemusedly related:
“Wherever I appeared on the street the children hurried away, stopping their play, ceasing their merry laughter, while they sought shelter in the doors and alleys. A tall boy...who had the courage to stare at me in daring proximity, was taken into the house by his anxious mother. Polish, Bohemian and Italian women crossed themselves solemnly whenever I passed them during my stay in that locality.”
(idem, p. 276)
While the prevalence of this attitude was to tragically result in the senseless obliteration of hypnotism’s therapeutic potential, it at least provided lots of juicy material for sordid “dime novels”, in which a common theme, as Ludwig (1963, p.73) noted, tended to depict a sweet, guileless female, seduced through hypnosis into love and bondage by a cunning and much older Simon Legree type of villain. While in this state, she was completely powerless to resist his wishes and commands.
Needless to say, they sold briskly; and the added impact of lurid and sensationalistic accounts in the daily press contributed to the further degeneration of hypnotism’s (already thoroughly battered) image.
[NOTE 8]
* * *
All things considered, it’s not particularly surprising that mankind’s concept of the hypnotic experience had by now been effectively transformed into an unsavory parody.
In fact, to hear Satow (1923) tell it:
“As lately as 1890, the celebrated Professor DuBois-Reymond regarded it as “a form of insanity”, and even the brilliant physiologist Helmholtz called it “a worthless conjuring-trick”...A certain Professor Fuchs...is reported to have said: “I shall acknowledge hypnotism when a hypnotist succeeds in inducing Professor Helmholtz to behave like a bashful girl, or Professor DuBois-Reymond to growl like a dog and tear his napkin to pieces with his teeth.”
(p. 17)
[NOTE 9]
Worst of all, such appalling misconceptions were not only being deliberately fostered by legions of enterprising and unscrupulous showmen, they were also being unintentionally fostered by legions of well-meaning but ignorant investigators!
Regrettably enough, it seems that the time was just not ripe for some wise and respected authority to rise up in furious indignation and, once and for all, expose these ruinous fallacies for what they really were.
If anything, my friend, the opposite was true...
-
Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on
-
I'd also like to add the following two eloquent quotes from mid-19th century practitioners addressing this very problem of the terrible harm to "mesmerism's" IMAGE that resulted from tawdry sensationalistic public displays for the purpose of "entertainment". And although some will (heatedly!) claim that modern stage shows are less objectionable than those of past eras, this is true in SOME cases, but most assuredly NOT in ALL (I provide several GRAPHIC examples in my book of such modern transgressions).
Once again, nobody is talking about actual "physical" harm, but rather harm to its IMAGE re the PERCEPTION of the VAST MAJORITY of the PUBLIC and HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS regarding the viability of the employing this SAME phenomenon seen in STAGE exhibitions for the purpose of HEALING.
As far as that goes, there has been surprisingly little change in such attitudes from the mid-19th century to the present day.
SOME change of course.....but only a blip on the radar screen compared to what it SHOULD have been!
“I believe there is no doubt that the greatest of all injuries done to Mesmerism is by its itinerant advocates. This appears to be admitted by everybody but the itinerants themselves...But no man of enlarged views, of knowledge...would venture upon the perilous rashness of making a public exhibition of the solemn wonders yet so new and impressive, of playing upon the brain and nerves of human beings, exhibiting for money on a stage states of mind and soul held too sacred in olden times to be elicited elsewhere than in temples, by the hands of the priests of the gods...It is true, the blame of their desecration rests with the learned men who ought to have shown themselves wise in relation to a matter so serious, and to have taken the investigation into their own hands. It is they who are answerable for having turned over the subject to the fanatical and the vulgar. It is they who have cast this jewel of knowledge and power into the lap of the ignorant; and no one can wonder that it is bartered for money and notoriety. The spectacle is a disgusting and a terrible one,- disgusting as making a stimulating public show of what cannot be witnessed (even) in the quietest privacy without emotions of awe...and terrible as making common and unclean that which, at least at present, is sanctified by mystery, (and) by complete unfitness for (public) use. It is urged that public exhibitions of mesmeric phenomena attract much attention to the subject...This may be true, but what an amount of mischief is there to set off against this! There is much more wonder, doubt and disgust caused than conviction, and the sort of conviction so originated could, on the whole, be very well dispensed with...It would be something gained if the honest among these lecturers could be taught and convinced that they had better be quiet, and let the matter alone, rather than propagate Mesmerism by such a method...”
(H. Martineau, 1845, pp. 48-49)
Or, as Barth (1853) similarly noted:
“Many would rather suffer from disease than accept a cure at the hands of the mesmeriser. If we would ascertain the cause of their dislike to mesmerism, we shall find that they are not alarmed by the statements of its opponents, but disgusted by the follies and injudicious conduct of some of its avowed friends and supporters. It is indeed questionable if the spread of mesmerism is not as much retarded by friends as by enemies...The practice of mesmerism for any other purpose than the cure of disease has been especially deprecated...Phenomena which would excite the wonder and serious contemplation of the profoundest of philosophers are made a matter of sport, fun, and idle amusement...and a game at mesmerism becomes for grown-up children what blind man’s buff is for the juveniles. The tricks which are played on the unfortunate subject very often end in distress or mischief, and thus one of the most worthy powers which has been conferred on humanity is desecrated and turned into a matter which serious people view with apprehension, and suffering invalids reject because they can feel no respect for that which they have known only as something causing innocent unsuspecting people to suffer or to do ridiculously absurd things and be laughed at by others.”
(pp. 89-91)
It is THIS distorted image of hypnotic trance that has hampered its progress for the past two centuries, and has seen to it that the phenomenon has always been, and for the most part still IS, popularly regarded as a "sinister form of mind control".
-
Permalink Reply by docregal.com on
-
Authoritarian suggestions preceded by "you cannot" are indeed taunting in nature.
Learning Center
Featured Advertising
Latest Activity
© 2012 Created by Scott Sandland.
About Us
Contact Us
Subscribe To RSS