Wolffram Heather
Centre for the History of European Discourses, Level 5, Forgan Smith Building University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia.
J Hist Med Allied Sci. 2012 Jan;67(1):149-76. doi: 10.1093/jhmas/jrq072. Epub 2010 Nov 9.
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, German medical hypnotists sought to gain a therapeutic and epistemological monopoly over hypnosis. In order to do this, however, these physicians were required to engage in a complex multi-dimensional form of boundary-work, which was intended on the one hand to convince the medical community of the legitimacy and efficacy of hypnosis and on the other to demarcate their use of suggestion from that of stage hypnotists, magnetic healers, and occultists. While the epistemological, professional, and legal boundaries that medical hypnotists erected helped both exclude lay practitioners from this field and sanitize the medical use of hypnosis, the esoteric interests, and sensational public experiments of some of these researchers, which mimicked the theatricality and occult interests of their lay competitors, blurred the distinctions that these professionals were attempting to draw between their "legitimate" medical use of hypnosis and the "illegitimate" lay and occult use of it.
在19世纪末20世纪初,德国医学催眠师试图在催眠领域获得治疗和认识论上的垄断地位。然而,为了实现这一目标,这些医生需要进行一种复杂的多维度边界工作,一方面是为了让医学界相信催眠的合法性和有效性,另一方面是为了将他们对暗示的使用与舞台催眠师、磁疗师和神秘主义者的使用区分开来。虽然医学催眠师建立的认识论、专业和法律边界既有助于将非专业从业者排除在这一领域之外,又有助于净化催眠在医学上的应用,但其中一些研究人员的神秘主义兴趣和耸人听闻的公开实验,模仿了他们非专业竞争对手的戏剧性和神秘主义兴趣,模糊了这些专业人员试图在催眠的“合法”医学用途与“非法”的非专业和神秘主义用途之间划出的界限。