Down yonder, a reader writes:
Jimmy, what is your "informed opinion" about whether it would be morally advisable for a Catholic to be hypnotized, either to help curb an unhealthy habit, or just as part of a show at a fair or on a cruise or something?
It depends in part on what your view of hypnosis is.
If you think that hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness that results in heightened suggestibility then it would be morally licit to use it for legitimate therapeutic purposes, like stopping smoking or losing weight or curbing anxiety.
It would not be morally usable for illegitimate therapeutic or investigative purposes, like trying to dig up memories of past lives, alien abductions, or fingering real or imaginary criminals since hypnosis trying to use hypnosis in this way leads to confabulated "memories."
It also could be morally licit to use it for entertainment purposes IF (and this is a BIG IF) you’re confident that the use of it in a particular case will not result in you doing or being tempted to do something immoral. For example, if you know that the stage magician is likely to give you morally neutral commands like "Cluck like a chicken" then the act would have a different moral character than if he were going to give you commands like "You’re becoming extremely aroused by your co-worker, who I also have here on stage hypnotized. You can’t keep your hands off her, etc., etc."
If, on the other hand, you’re like me and think that hypnosis is likely a socially constructed role that people know how to "play" from movies and TV (rather than a genuine altered state of consciousness) then a different moral question comes to the fore, because hypnosis in that case functions basically as a placebo.
Deceiving people into thinking that a placebo is real is immoral because it involves the offense of lying, but–in principle–it’s not immoral to use placebos as long as you don’t lie to people about the nature of what they’re doing. If you say, "This is not a change in your consciousness; it’s just a confidence-building measure that has as much or as little meaning as you choose to put into it" then I could see where therapeutic hypnosis might be morally permissible in principle.
I could see an informed Catholic saying to himself, "This may be just a placebo–or perhaps a smidge more than a placebo–but I’m going to use the fact that I was hypnotized as a confidence-building measure when I want a smoke or want to eat or when I’m feeling over-anxious."
In that case the person would not be attributing more to hypnosis than hypnosis has or is known to have. He’s aware that it’s just a tool he’s using with himself to accomplish his goals (like counting to ten in order to cool off when you’re mad or telling yourself that you can do something in preparation for actually doing it).
I’m not 100% comfortable with that, but it’s sufficiently non-problematic I wouldn’t at this point say that a properly informed Catholic couldn’t morally use it for therapeutic reasons.
Of course, the illegitimate therapeutic and investigative considerations would still apply.
And I’d be more uncomfortable about using it for entertainment since part of the game is thinking that what the stage hypnotist is doing might be real–unless the audience was made to understand that this is all just a game.
There’s also a "content-free" school of hypnosis that treats it just as a relaxed, focused state in which a person can put himself and decide for himself what he wants to do. In that case, it’s basically a form of meditation, and as long as it doesn’t get overlaid with mysticism or claims that it’s anything other than it is then it seems morally nonproblematic in principle.
This is all distinct from using hypnotism in works of fiction, where real-world rules don’t apply and hypnotism can be presented in a humorous, fantasy light–like in the otherwise forgettable Woody Allen movie Curse of the Jade Scorpion.
Madagascar! Constantinople!
Do you guys know how hypnotize a chicken? No joke. Vets can apparently do it easily, which is useful when they have to x-ray a bird or something.
Whoa, major slam on WA’s “Curse”. Ok, it’s not his best (duh, i hate it when people say that, since only 1 film can ever be one’s “best”) but it’s a charmer story and, as so many WA flicks are, anti-adultery.
In my hypnosis training, it was made pretty clear that stage hypnosis is a different animal altogether from therapeutic hypnosis. The key difference is one of setting (and of outcome) but the interesting thing about the stage hypnosis setting is that it’s often acknowledged that social construct theory comes into play.
In fact, it may well be pressure from the audience, as well as the stage hypnotist pre-selecting certain candidates who signal they are willing to essentially perform for the audience, that is central to the fine art of getting people to embarass themselves.
I’m not trained in the specifics of stage hypnosis, but that’s the gist of what I was taught about it. If that’s the case, then if the stage hypnotist represents to the audience and the assistant that something other than peer pressure is at work, it could have moral implications.
That’s not to say that “real” suggestibility doesn’t come into play. But social pressure and another hypnotic (or persuasive) technique, authority, definitely have a large role on the stage.
IMHO this is why you hear so many stories of the “quit smoking” hypnosis group sessions that are very showy but possibly ineffective. The audience is gone, therefore the pressure is gone.
In a one-on-one therapeutic or coaching context, however, the ideal situation is simply helping the client get out of their own way. Just like athletics are enhanced when you’re “in the zone”, so can problem solving be enhanced under the right setup.
“And [if it’s a social construct] I’d be more uncomfortable about using it for entertainment since part of the game is thinking that what the stage hypnotist is doing might be real–unless the audience was made to understand that this is all just a game.”
Have to disagree just slightly here, Jimmy. If it’s all a social construct, I’d be more inclined to think it would be morally permissible for entertainment purposes just as other stage shows would be.
For example, sleight-of-hand trickery is essentially also a social construct passed off as magic — with all the accompanying showmanship of incantations and wands and mysterious special effects (like smoke and lighting) — and its entertainment use is perfectly permissible, even when the audience (e.g. young children) don’t explicitly know it’s essentially a game.
If, on the other hand, it is a legitimate therapeutic measure, then I’d be less inclined to see it as appropriate for entertainment purposes, since playing around with legitimate medical therapies can be dangerous.
Its my understanding that, because hypnosis bypasses the conscious and goes to the subconscious, its not possible for the hypnotee(?) to do anything that they dont want to; i.e. anything that contradicts their morals. Im not sure of the implications that the “social construct” aspect of stage hypnosis has on this, but I know in one on one sessions in a clinical setting, the person still has complete control.
Ive never been hypnotized myself, mind you, so this is all academic, not from experience.
Lovecraft and now this?
How ill-informed are Catholics about dabbling in the occult?
From reading this, the answer is EXTREMELY.
http://www.letusreason.org/Nam3.htm
Wilma Tyndale: it’s not that Catholics are ill-informed about dabbling in the occult; rather, that some Evangelicals have an unhealthy obsession with it, seeing satanic influence everywhere.
Am I wrong that the reason drunkeness and the use of mind-altering drugs is immoral is that they constitute an abandoning of self control? If I am not wrong, then would not hypnosis, whether is is a placebo or not, be immoral for the same reason?
Wilma,
It is not fair to judge how Catholics as a whole are based just on this blog in any case. Besides, Jimmy and other Catholics, including myself, have expressed considerable concern over this issue. I don’t think Jimmy actually has proposed a single opinion on the morality of hypnosis, just what it would be if this or that were the case.
The fact that occult groups have borrowed from Lovecraft does not automatically make him or his works occult. You can read the extensive discussion about him on the recent posts on him if you have not already.
Wilma-
Jimmy’s whole point is that you don’t really lose control. It’s either a case of “let’s pretend” or a case of the hypnotist helping the individual to achieve a state of focused relaxation.
It is not mind control. Mind control is a myth.
Hypnosis also has NOTHING to do with the occult unless the particular hypnotist introduces it independently alongside of the hypnosis, which would be a good indication that the “hypnotist” is a quack.
The only magic involved in hypnotism is the mysterious ability to make your cash disappear (for no good reason).
Tim,
If the person is just pretending to be hypnotised then we are just dealing with dishonesty here. What we seem to be looking at though, if it is a placebo effect, is people subconsciously or semi-consciously (I am not a psycologist so I use the terms loosely) abandoning control of their actions to the hypnotist. This still constitutes an abandoning of self-control and thus still seems moraly problematic.
If there is an element of achieving “a state of focused relaxation” then it is a kind of focused relaxation aimed at opening yourself up to suggestion in a radical way.
In both cases the suggestion is supposed to come from the hypnotist, but could the devil choose to make a move when you are in such a vulnerable, open state? I don’t know, but it would only make sense.
In any case I would not want to get involved in such stuff.
I would just like to point out that the website Wilma listed above has vehemently anti-Catholic content, at least in the section on Catholicism.
A quote from that website, concerning sacraments:
“So intent are the Catholics to hold this non- biblical view that they have anathematized themselves by condemning others.”
If my above response to Wilma seems snarky, it’s because I have seen anti-Catholic comments she has posted on other Catholic blogs.
It is interesting that in the religion Wicca, practices for inducing a hypnotic-like state, where with an EEG, alpha brain waves become dominant, and the person has a heightened “awareness” and suggestibility, are used for communication with your “familiar” – a spiritual entity that is explained away as just being a “part of yourself”, even though it may have a different gender when it comes to you…
I think that there are parallels in Christian contempative prayer to achieving this spiritually receptive state; i.e. the mystics, who heard voices or saw visions from God and the saints while deep in prayer.
I believe that altering our mental state is a neutral exercise, the way in which we are able to interact with the divine if you will, but when undertaken in an uninformed and vulnerable way can be used against us spiritually. I think it is a necessary personal exercise for having a deep prayer life, but someone who is not seeking to speak with the Lord or to his saints, and does not have a Christian orientation may become vulnerable to other influences while experiencing this mental state. Others, who practice occult religions, will purposely experience interaction with evil.
Just my humble opinion, but food for thought.
Pamela,
I think that there are parallels in Christian contempative prayer to achieving this spiritually receptive state; i.e. the mystics, who heard voices or saw visions from God and the saints while deep in prayer.
No offense, but that statement reveals a profoundignorance of what Christian contemplative prayer is.