O'Neil John A
a McGill University , Montreal , Québec , Canada.
Am J Clin Hypn. 2018 Jan;60(3):262-278. doi: 10.1080/00029157.2018.1400841.
Hypnosis predates psychoanalysis, when autohypnotic pathologies were identified through the lens of hypnosis, and labeled "hypnoid hysteria" in the language of the day. The broad spectrum of disorders then subsumed under that term is still reflected in ICD-10's subset, "F44-Dissociative (Conversion) Disorders." Freud initially embraced both hypnoid hysteria and hypnosis, but came to abandon hypnosis and, by extension, hypnoid hysteria as well. Since that fateful decision, which I term herein Freud's "Inaugural Category Mistake," references to both hypnosis and hypnoid pathology largely vanished from the psychoanalytic mainstream, thereby neglecting conditions afflicting a significant portion of the mentally ill, and needlessly restricting the therapeutic repertoire of psychoanalysis. This contribution argues that psychoanalysis could best re-embrace hypnosis and hypnoid pathology together, as a related pair, and would benefit from doing so. Two examples of the differences of understanding and interventions such a rapprochement might encourage are offered: (a) how hypnoid pathology alters the transference and countertransference; and (b) how the appropriate use of hypnosis alters the nature of interpretation.
催眠术早于精神分析学,当时通过催眠术的视角识别出了自我催眠病理学,并在当时的语言中将其标记为“类催眠癔症”。当时归入该术语的广泛疾病谱仍反映在国际疾病分类第十版(ICD - 10)的子类别“F44 - 分离性(转换性)障碍”中。弗洛伊德最初既接受类催眠癔症,也接受催眠术,但后来放弃了催眠术,进而也放弃了类催眠癔症。自从那个决定性的决定——我在此称之为弗洛伊德的“首次范畴错误”——以来,催眠术和类催眠病理学在精神分析主流中基本消失了,从而忽视了困扰相当一部分精神疾病患者的病症,并且不必要地限制了精神分析的治疗方法。本文认为,精神分析最好将催眠术和类催眠病理学作为一对相关的概念重新一起接纳,这样做会从中受益。文中给出了这种和解可能促使的理解和干预差异的两个例子:(a)类催眠病理学如何改变移情和反移情;(b)催眠术的恰当使用如何改变解释的性质。