PSYCHIATRISTS VIEWS

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27048, 25 May 1953, Page 10

PSYCHIATRISTS VIEWS

TUBLIC EXPLOITATION OF PERSONALITY’ OBJECTION TO STAGE PERFORMANCES The view that demonstrations of hypnotism for public entertainment should not be permitted in an enlightened society was expressed by Dr. M. Bevan-Brown, a Christchurch psychiatrist, when a series of questions on the subject were put to him. Hypnosis was essentially the influence of one person upon another, said Dr. Bevan-Brown when asked to explain for the layman how hypnotism was exercised. In all social relationships, he said, persons .influenced one another in greater or less degree. Sometimes the relationship was reciprocal, or two-way, sometimes it was predominantly one-way. Hypnosis was a special or intense form of relationship between persons in which the influence was essentially oneway. One person was active and dominating, and other was passive and dominated.

“There is nothing magic or myMerious about it, except in the sense That all personal influence and relationship is mysterious,” Dr. Bevan-Brown said. “It has nothing to do with magnetism. There is no essential difference between hypnosis and those situations in social life where one person dominates another. In these situations, however, the domipation may be largely unconscious to both parties. “In hypnosis, the domination is conscious and deliberate on the part of the active party, and it is also accepted by the dominated party,” Dr. Bevan-Brown said. “The degree of domination and surrender varies considerably in different cases. In the extreme form the domination is extensive and the hypnotised person is to a large degree in the power of the hypnotist as regards his behaviour.”

Asked if everyone was susceptible to hypnotism, Dr. Bevan-Brown said people varied considerably in their capacity tc surrender to another personality or to be hypnotised. That was, some people were easily hypnotised, others only with difficulty. "Has hypnotism a place in medicine?" was the third question asked

of Dr. Bevan-Brown. It was, he said, a very potent and useful thereapeutic weapon in medical treatment, but it should be used only by a skilled person who understood his own motives and also understood the personality of the patient, and was therefore able to foresee both the immediate and ultimate effects of the procedure.

“Hypnosis has no beneficial or therapeutic value in itself, and is in fact actually injurious in various degrees,” Dr. Beyan-Brown said. “It is only useful whpn devoted to some therapeutic aim. In this respect it can be compared with the knife of the surgeon. It is sometimes necessary that one should submit to having one’s abdomen opened by a surgeon. But before submitting to this, it is desirable to know that the surgeon knows clearly what he is doing, and the purpose of it, and also fully understands his own motives for the procedure. Also, having one’s abdomen cut open is clearly, in itself, injurious.”

Public Entertainment Asked for his opinion of demonstrations of hypnotism for public entertainment Dr. Bevan-Brown said they should not be permitted in an enlightened society. They represented a public exploitation of human personality for a motive that was not therapeutic. They were no more permissible than it would be permissible to perform surgical operations in public and charge a fee for admission. In many cases harm was done which was difficult to rectify afterwards. “For a certain type of person hypnotism under any conditions, public or private, has a marked fascination,” Dr. Bevan-Brown said. , “These are especially the people who should not be exposed to the risk. It is obvious that it is not desirable for anyone to surrender his whole personality to another person for a frivolous purpose. It is only justified if the purpose is a serious one.”