Hypnotherapists tend to sit in a camp of some kind with
regards to their approach and their 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 certain styles and approaches too. 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 centered
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. Visit http://hypnotherapist.sydney/
No comments:
Post a Comment