Hypnotherapists tend to sit in a camp of some kind with regards to their approach and their hypnotic style. At some stage the hypnotherapist may have considered whether they preferred being direct or indirect, more positive or negative or provocative. They may have considered working with the content of presenting issues or just looking at the process as favoured by varying approaches. They may also have considered being more authoritative or permissive with regards to the delivery of their suggestions within hypnotherapy sessions.
Many hypnotherapists just become the kind of therapist that they were taught to be by their hypnotherapy trainer and adopt that style.
The issue I have with taking any style, is that choosing a style is a bit self-indulgent. It is thinking of me, me, me and not considering the client.
The way we approach a client and their presenting issues ought to be influenced by the kind of person they are and the way they respond and react to a certain hypnotic style or approach. It should not be that a hypnotherapist simply applies some rigid formula to each and every client that they see.
I’d prefer to encounter more hypnotherapists who embrace the notion of having fluency in lots of (if not all) styles and approaches to hypnotherapy and then use whatever they believe to be of the greatest benefit to the client.
Something that I find myself often embroiled in discussions with fellow hypnotherapists is the notion of thinking hypnotherapy and applications of hypnosis are science or art, and finding a balance.
In 1997 Covino wrote that therapy is more art than science and will remain so as long as therapy remains the interpersonal process that it is – due to the subjective nature of the interactions of the unique individuals within the therapeutic relationship. Many hypnotherapists advocate this position.
Yet many evidence based hypnotherapists have shown through a growing body of research within the field that when certain processes are applied in similar fashion, certain results prevail regardless of the therapist’s artistry.
I choose to land on the side that strives to have empirical evidence supporting what we do, yet have many good friends who argue that more efficacy data won’t help us to be better humans within our clinical work and prefer to strive to be better artists than being able to employ strategies supported by research. I often argue back that this could be seen as irresponsible and also that it is often the therapists congruence and belief in their abilities enhancing placebo and a variety of other things that could be getting them the results with strategies that have no evidence supporting it.
Such debates prove quite divisive in the field of hypnotherapy. They occur and re-occur.
That said, if any hypnotherapist has a range and depth of knowledge and skills, with a degree of flexibility and a client centred approach, is that not being artistic? Am I not using some artistry?
If someone is capable of making informed decisions about how and when to use direct approaches or indirect approaches, permissive or authoritative language, being process or content focused (and so on) then is that not artistry? Informed, intelligent artistry at that?
I think the division can sometimes help us to be informed and keep examining the way we do things, but it also serves for some to dig their heels in and defend their style and their approach and refuse to be flexible enough to understand anything else.
Some might think it sitting on the fence, but I’d prefer to think of it as being eclectic in my approach to being a hypnotherapist… And here is a picture of a fine looking fence for me to go and sit on…
Like a person who is considered to be a social chameleon adapting to their social surroundings, a good therapist in my mind should adapt their style to one which the client feels more comfortable thus keeping rapport and increasing the chances of a successful outcome. We have a wardrobe full off clothes that we change into to match the occasion so why not the therapist with a box of styles to choose from when required.
@Gareth, thanks for that contribution, enjoyed that.
@Phil, I concur and think you made the points I was thinking far better than I can and did! Very much appreciated 🙂
I’m not convinced by Covino.
In my view, it’s too often the case that:
A scientist is someone who is competent, and can explain how and why they are competent.
An artist is someone who is competent, but cannot explain how or why they are competent.
Yes, of course it’s difficult to take something as complex as a therapeutic relationship and break down all the different variables that affect it. But I see no proof that it is impossible – that somehow the nature of the relationship renders it beyond the reach of objectie measurement. We can make practical and meaningful measurements of all sorts of psychological factors nowadays – including happiness, depression and so forth. It takes time and effort to do that of course, but why give up before you’ve even started?
An art is inherently less valuable than a science, because it is harder to reproduce. If it’s an art, then therapists either have ‘it’ or they don’t. If therapy is a science, then we have a model we can train and teach, and that leads to better quality therapy across the board.