Director, Liberal Studies Program, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA.
Yale J Biol Med. 2011 Mar;84(1):15-25.
Though we might suppose that our sensations are unaffected by the talk around us, the rhetoric surrounding a treatment can in fact color the experience of those having the treatment. So it is with both Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) and the 18th-century therapy that has been cited as its predecessor: mesmerism. In both cases, rhetoric itself is conscripted into the service of therapeutic ends. Reports of cures are advertised and celebrated in a way that builds the expectation and feeds the experience of more of the same. Precisely because they are rooted in and speak to their time and place, however, the efficacy of these therapies may be limited. An investigation of the kinship between the two healing movements - and the driving force of a movement is nothing other than rhetoric - throws light on possibly social sources of therapeutic efficacy.
尽管我们可能认为我们的感觉不受周围谈话的影响，但治疗周围的修辞实际上可以影响接受治疗的人的体验。眼动脱敏再处理 (EMDR) 和被认为是其前身的 18 世纪疗法就是如此：催眠术。在这两种情况下，修辞本身都被征召到治疗目的的服务中。治愈的报告以一种建立期望并助长更多相同体验的方式被宣传和庆祝。然而，正是因为它们植根于并针对其所处的时代和地点，这些疗法的疗效可能是有限的。对这两种治疗运动之间的亲缘关系以及运动的驱动力（即修辞）的调查，揭示了治疗效果可能存在的社会来源。
