The Bateson - Erickson Connection & 'Shoddy Epistemology'

I'm originally Erickson Foundation-trained, and also have a background in NLP and academic psychology.

Over the last few years I've been studying Bateson - both books and the Esalen lectures. It seems pretty obvious to me now that he was the lynchpin in the development of NLP.

Granted it was a group effort, but it seems to me that he was a critcal part of it, especially the bits which came to be know as 'New Code'.

My question to the community is, how much do you know about the collaborations between Bateson and Erickson?

I've found bits and pieces, such at the Erickson documentary (dir. Jeff Zeig?) which mentions Milton and Betty's involvement with the Balinese trance dance films (they helped Bateson spot who was really in trance, and who was faking).

Also found a Bateson book in the university library, "Balinese Character", written in 1942 with acknowledgements to Erickson. It goes on to demonstrate Balinese dance instruction methods, using the words Visual, and Kinesthetic.

And then there's the fact Bateson sent Bandler & Grinder to Erickson, leading to the Milton Model. He later criticised it as 'shoddy epistemology'. My interpretation of that comment is that it was an incomplete model (language patterns only), and didn't sufficiently describe what Erickson did.

So, I'll open it to the floor. Any other opinions, information sources, etc. would be very much appreciated.

Favorite

0 members favorited this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jaime Nichols on February 6, 2009 at 2:53pm

Unfortunately, much of the collaborations have been lost to time. One link that would be interesting to explore is Jay Haley, who was mentored by both Erickson and Bateson well ahead of the NLP developers. One wonders if Erickson introduced Bateson to Haley. All in all, worthy of research!

--Jaime

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on February 6, 2009 at 7:47pm

Perhaps we can meet up at Fabel's virtual fireside and engage in imaginary conversations and connections between these two giants?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary Lintern on February 7, 2009 at 12:29am

Good point. The Palo Alto team is an interesting parallel, and IMHO, more consistent than NLP. I especially enjoy Paul Watzlawick's writings.

There's a lot to like about NLP, although I think it falls down at the epistemological level. One of my missions is to inject some of Bateson's wisdom back into it.

Have you got Brad Keeney's "Milton Erickson: An American Healer"? There's a free DVD with the book - one of Bateson's research films of Erickson, at Palo Alto. You've got to wonder how many more they made, and what happened to them.

I understand there's an archive of Bateson's letters at UC Santa Cruz. I need to call in, next time I'm in the area. Should be some fascinating reading.

I was thinking about the Milton Model recently - especially about how it's an apparent opposite of the Meta Model, and was developed afterwards. Were Bandler and Grinder perhaps operating through the filters of their earlier model?

It's a useful set of language patterns, but is too often taught as a way to 'do therapy like Erickson did'.

I've trained with Steve Gilligan, and recently bought a set of his Trance Camp CDs, to see how his approach has developed. Mindblowing stuff, and it incorporates both Erickson and Bateson's ideas.

If I'm understanding him correctly, one of the keys to Erickson's success was going into trance with the client to gather information about their system. I was surprised to find academic psychologists are now writing about the same sort of thing, ie., getting into rapport, and pacing a chess opponent, in order to pre-empt their moves.

By the way, I'm currently researching the relational field between films and audiences. Doing my best to draw on all the above. You've prompted me to dig deeper.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary Lintern on February 7, 2009 at 12:30am

Definitely. Fable is away this week, at a retreat. He might like to be involved.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on February 7, 2009 at 5:09am

I agree, let's wait until the fire-master returns before firing up this "play on words"

What would a conversation between Bateson and Erickson sound like? Hmmmm -

By the way - I did enjoy watching Fable playing with his balls (I hope they were his balls...)

Here's something that maybe of interest:

http://www.narberthpa.com/Bale/lsbale_dop/cybernet.htm

GREGORY BATESON, CYBERNETICS,
AND THE SOCIAL/BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
ABSTRACT
Gregory Bateson's interdisciplinary work in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution and Epistemology was profoundly influenced by the ideas set forth in systems theory, communication theory, information theory and cybernetics. Bateson used the single term cybernetics in reference to an aggregate of the ideas that grew together shortly after World War II. For him, cybernetics, communication theory, information theory, and systems theory, together constituted a unified set of ideas. Many scholars and practitioners of the social/behavioral sciences, and the humanities, were first introduced to the cybernetic paradigm through Bateson's work. Yet, he seldom offered his audience more than a cursory reference to the key principles underlying his particular understanding of cybernetics. Thus, this essay incrementally and historically delineates the fundamental principles underlying the cybernetic paradigm as it was employed by Bateson.

=^..^=
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary Lintern on February 7, 2009 at 6:46am

What got me started was a hypnosis mentor I had about 10 years ago. She was in her late 70s then, and very skilled.

Anyway, she was an Erickson fan, and used to read the Collected Papers over and over. Said she believed Erickson never fully explained his approach and she was trying to unlock the code.

I started studying hypnosis in the second year of my psychology degree, by which time I'd heard of Bateson's theories of schizophrenic communication (eg. double-binds). Erickson was the second time I encountered the concept. Assumed it was Bateson's idea.

Then I found out Bateson had spent some time studying / working with Erickson, prior to NLP. Back to my mentor, I asked her if she thought Erickson had got some of his ideas from Bateson. Her answer was a very enigmatic, 'it was all Erickson'.

Cut to my recent discovery of the 1942 book (Balinese Character), with acknowledgements to Erickson in the front. Got me thinking - how long did these two actually collaborate, and how often? Did Erickson influence Bateson's anthropological fieldwork?

I understand (from Grinder's book, 'Whispering in the Wind') that he and Bandler spent a week modelling Erickson, the end result of which was the Milton Model.

I think it was after reading 'Patterns 1' that Bateson commented it was 'shoddy epistemology', meaning he was unhappy with the thinking / assumptions behind the model. I take it to mean he thought the Milton Model wasn't an adequate representation of Erickson's technique.

But, it's still an interesting set of patterns. When I took the Erickson Foundation courses, I was surprised there was no mention of it. My experience is that Steve Gilligan has the most complete model of Erickson (and was also a student of Bateson), and it has little to do with linguistics.

Of course, it's natural that John Grinder, being a linguist, would come away with a linguistic model.

Wheelchairs? Don't know, wasn't there :-) I've heard people say that about Gilligan too. Again, don't know, but he did do some deep-trance identification with him. Best to go straight to the source on that one, I think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ4Kaz6pVFQ

I'll be honest, and admit I didn't find Bateson an easy read at first, but the persistence paid off. 'Steps to an Ecology of Mind' is a masterpiece, and I'm sure I've only just scratched the surface. Easier, and more entertaining reads are 'Angels Fear' and 'Mind and Nature'. In those books, he explains complex ideas, through imaginary conversations with his young daughter.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Haifleigh on February 7, 2009 at 11:22am

Gary,

...recently bought a set of his Trance Camp CDs, to see how his approach has developed. Mindblowing stuff, and it incorporates both Erickson and Bateson's ideas.

If I'm understanding him correctly, one of the keys to Erickson's success was going into trance with the client to gather information about their system.

Steve Gilligan tells the story of Keeney interviewing Bateson in 1977, in which Bateson provides his insight into Erickson. (see attachment - approx. 40 sec.). The piece is from Generative Hypnosis.

Interesting research you are doing on the field between film and audience.

Namaste,
(with reverence to you)
(love, integrity, wisdom, and peace)
Michael

Attachments:

weave of the total complex.mp3, 671 KB

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary Lintern on February 7, 2009 at 11:36am

Thanks Michael! That's an interesting resource.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary Lintern on February 7, 2009 at 3:45pm

So, after several hours of Googling, and reading, I found this:

http://www.stephengilligan.com/interviewA.html

Including this paragraph:

"Gregory Bateson and Milton Erickson had been buddies since 1932, when Bateson and Mead went to Bali to study trance rituals. Before going, they consulted about trance process with young Milton Erickson, who was then a psychiatrist in Detroit. From that encounter, Erickson developed life long relationships with both Mead and with Bateson".

Guess that's my answer for how long they knew each other - almost 50 years !

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on February 7, 2009 at 5:17pm

When the Fire-master returns we can invite Bateson and Erickson to join us at the imaginary fire and let the imaginary conversations begin-- One can only wonder what they will have to say about Dumpty's fall...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Collingwood on February 7, 2009 at 9:41pm

Very good postulations Gary, one interesting thing to note is that Bandler & Grinder got very rich? Bateson didn't. I have wondered about this for years. When you watch true NLP masters such as Derren Brown, and hear what he says about Bandlers training after he walked out on the first day and didn't return, that also makes me wonder. Is it about previous reputation, profit and snappy names, or actually teaching students what is practical effective and worthwhile learning.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh Cole on February 8, 2009 at 5:57am

I have not read much of Bateson's work for precisely that reason, It is tough sleding to get through it. Steps to the ecology of the mind is the only thing I have by him.. I have had it on my book shelf for years, just never quite gotten through it. You have inspired me to take another crack at it.

Hugh Cole.