American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis

ISSN: 0002-9157 (Print) 2160-0562 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujhy20

Reconsidering Hypnosis and Psychoanalysis:

Toward Creating a Context for Understanding

Richard P. Kluft

To cite this article: Richard P. Kluft (2018) Reconsidering Hypnosis and Psychoanalysis: Toward
Creating a Context for Understanding, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 60:3, 201-215,
DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2018.1400810

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2018.1400810

Published online: 03 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5333

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujhy20
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 60: 201–215, 2018
Copyright © American Society of Clinical Hypnosis
ISSN: 0002-9157 print / 2160-0562 online
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2018.1400810

GUEST EDITORIAL

Reconsidering Hypnosis and Psychoanalysis: Toward

Creating a Context for Understanding
Richard P. Kluft
Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Sigmund Freud developed what became psychoanalysis in the context of his experiences with
hypnosis and the treatment of the grand hysterics of his era, conditions largely classified among
the dissociative disorders in contemporary systems of diagnosis. He rapidly constructed under-
standings of the human mind and human distress that replaced the concept of dissociation and a
model of pathology that was passive (associated with reduced psychic cohesion), with the paradigm
of an active defensive process he termed repression, and an understanding that psychological
discomfort was the outcome of intrapsychic conflict. In short order Freud repudiated hypnosis,
initiating the schisms that subsequently separated the study and practice of hypnosis from the study
and practice of psychoanalysis. It is timely to reexamine these schisms anew, challenge the basis of
the arguments thought to justify them, and explore whether these schisms have deprived psycho-
analysis and hypnosis alike of the potentially helpful ideas and approaches each might offer the
other. This contribution invites students of hypnosis and psychoanalysis alike to put aside both
traditional and stereotypic notions of each other’s field of endeavor, revisit the origins, rationales,
and outcomes of these schisms that have divided them, and explore their commonalities and their
differences from fresh perspectives.
Keywords: hypnosis, psychoanalysis, dissociation

The intellectual ferment of the late 18th century heralded and began the transfer of the
study and treatment of mental illnesses from the province of the clergy to the more
scientific and secular domain of physicians and other healers. This gave rise to what
Henri Ellenberger (1970) has described as the birth of dynamic psychiatry. In 1775,
Franz Mesmer demonstrated that his “scientific approaches,” based on speculations

Address correspondence to Richard P. Kluft, 111 Presidential Boulevard, Suite 238, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004. E-mail:
rpkluft@aol.com
202 KLUFT

drawn from magnetism among other phenomena, could achieve results similar to those
of the exorcist, Father Johann Joseph Gassner. Techniques drawn from the science of
the day, however, flawed its understanding of phenomena, matched Gassner’s efforts
without invoking supernatural explanations. Neither man appreciated that his now-
disproven theories were irrelevant, that both had unwittingly made use of the power
of suggestion. “Mesmerism,” soon to be called “magnetism,” rapidly became the iconic
vanguard of this emerging “scientific” era.
As a healing art, Mesmerism survived the French Royal Commission’s invalidation
of the underlying mechanisms its founder had postulated. The Commission did not
appreciate that by focusing on debunking Mesmer and dismissing the impact of his
efforts as due to suggestion, it overlooked the fact that it had discovered the therapeutic
power of interpersonal influence and persuasion. Years later, the same body acknowl-
edged that the fallacies in Mesmer’s theories did not undermine the reality of the effects
his approaches had achieved.
By the second half of the 19th century the contributions of Braid, among others, were
bringing about the metamorphosis of Mesmerism and magnetism into forms of hypnosis
more recognizable and familiar to modern scholars and clinicians. As the 19th century
progressed, interest in dissociation and hypnosis, along with spiritualism and psychic
phenomena, became prominent in the thinking of the healing professions, the discus-
sions of the intelligentsia, and the imagination of the lay public (e.g., Winter, 2000). It
would seem that interest in these phenomena was as prominent a thread in the discourse
of the day as psychoanalysis would become when its ideas permeated the culture of
post-World War II America.
Modern concepts of patients’ rights, confidentiality, and informed consent were
largely unknown in the 19th century. Hypnosis was demonstrated in lectures for the
public as well as for medical professionals. Some medical demonstrations and lectures
were attended by interested and/or voyeuristic parties, as if the subjects of these events
and the presentation of patients were cultural events, curiosities, or entertainments.
Further, such events and patients’ treatments might be reported in the press. In this
atmosphere, hypnosis and dissociation became part of the intellectual and social fabric
of the day (Ellenberger, 1970; Winter, 2000).
For example, it is well known that a demonstration by John Elliotson, famous for his
Mesmeric Hospital and his clashes with James Braid, so engrossed the novelist Charles
Dickens that he befriended Elliotson and studied hypnosis. Adam Eason (2017) recently
assembled additional details. Dickens and Elliotson became so close that Elliotson
became godfather to Dickens’ son. Dickens practiced hypnosis on his wife, gave at
least one public demonstration with her as his subject, and undertook to treat several
patients as a lay hypnotist. He actually became entangled in a transference/counter-
transference disaster not unlike those later confronted by Breuer and Freud. Many
websites discuss Dickens’ various connections with hypnosis.
 RECONSIDERING HYPNOSIS AND PSYCHOANALYSIS 203

I have done some research into the origins of Robert Louis Stevenson’s preoccupa-
tion with split polarities in the psyche, a pervasive preoccupation not limited to
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Kluft, 2006). I discovered serendipitously that while sojourn-
ing in France, Robert Louis Stevenson was seen carrying current issues of French
hypnosis journals (Kluft, 2006).
Sigmund Freud came to disagree with the great scholars of France, and with his own
senior colleague in Vienna, the eminent internist Josef Breuer. His emerging theories of
psychoanalysis parted company with both the suggestion-oriented school of Bernheim
in Nancy and the dissociation-centered and constitution-sensitive perspectives of
Charcot and then Janet, luminaries at the Salpetriére in Paris. Over time, tension, rivalry,
and contention developed between the sibling paradigms of hypnosis and psychoana-
lysis and their adherents. Once Freud’s mind had given birth to psychoanalysis, his
Isaac, Freud repeated the Biblical Abrahamic paradigm of casting out and effectively
exiling his Ishmael, hypnosis, from his increasingly elaborate model.
Psychoanalysis gradually assumed increasing prominence, while the stature of hyp-
nosis declined. Conflicts between proponents of psychoanalysis and hypnosis contin-
ued, often generating more heat than light. Those primarily allied with and identified
with one approach frequently found fault with the other both as a way of understanding
the functioning of the human mind, and as a modality of treatment. These disparage-
ments were expressed more openly within the oral lore of these disciplines than in their
scholarly discourse. When I was immersed in the study of both over 45 years ago, such
comments were frequent, persistent, and at times even strident. They were still being
voiced, albeit much less frequently and with minimal vehemence, at the hypnosis and
psychoanalytic meetings I attended during 2016.
Freud’s repudiation of hypnosis occurred in the contexts of both his observations of
the work of others and his own clinical experience with the grand hysterias of the late
19th century. Today’s clinicians might consider these conditions to fall within the
spectrum of the severe and chronic somatoform and psychoform dissociative disorders
(Niejenhuis, 2004; O’Neil, 2018/this issue).
The layers of irony that surround these schisms invite consideration from several
perspectives. They portray a fascinating moment in the intellectual history of the
Western world (a view endorsed without irony by mainstream psychoanalysis). They
constitute an opportunity to study the inevitable collateral damage that attends an
important idea’s departing from past paradigms and making its way into the mainstream
of Western culture (Kluft, 2016a; Kuhn, 2012; Laor, 1985). They also provide a chance
to acknowledge the bitter lessons to be learned from a lost opportunity to forge a rich
and nuanced synthesis of two powerful but incomplete approaches to understanding and
treating the human condition (Kluft, 2013a, 2013b).
Taken as a whole, the essays in this special issue of the American Journal of Clinical
Hypnosis address aspects of all three of these perspectives. They demonstrate, often
more implicitly than directly, that hypnosis-oriented practitioners have generally
204 KLUFT

attacked a caricatured straw man version of psychoanalysis, and psychoanalytic psy-

chotherapists have generally found fault with a caricatured straw man version of
hypnosis. Further, serious students of hypnosis/psychoanalysis difficulties have tended
to advocate for their perspectives either from highly theoretical arguments or clinical
anecdotes consistent with their preferred points-of-view. Such arguments are not obli-
gated to rise to the challenge of demonstrating either the reliability and/or validity of
their assertions. Nor are they expected to establish lines of thought or exploration that
are inclusive of and respectful toward all forms of available evidence. Advocacies of
this kind find it relatively easy to preach to the choir and to persuade those already more
or less convinced. Their efforts exemplify argumentation by means of enumerative
inductionalism, the listing of whatever seems to favor one’s point of view. However,
they evade subjecting their causes to the more stringent demands of eliminative
inductionalism, which attempts to demonstrate that one’s point-of-view eliminates the
need for and/or the credibility of the other perspective.
The destructive potential of such dismissive representations as portrayals of these
modalities becomes apparent upon examination of two extreme (mis-) representations of
these models, the impact of hypnosis in du Maurier’s novel Trilby (Du Maurier, 1895)
and the results of psychoanalysis in Woody Allen’s 1977 comedy/social commentary,
Annie Hall (Joffe & Allen, 1977). Trilby (Du Maurier, 1895) is a minimally disguised
anti-Semitic diatribe. The hypnotist Svengali, a sinister Eastern European Jew, exploits
Trilby, a lovely Western European singer. Svengali’s methods are not representative of
either fin de siècle or contemporary therapeutic hypnosis. Nor are Woody Allen’s
perpetually self-absorbed, boundary-challenged, infinitely neurotic protagonists,
enmeshed in futile “forever” treatments with fatuous analysts, reasonable exemplars
or demonstrations of either early or contemporary clinical psychoanalysis.
The contemporary reader is likely to be familiar with the work of Woody Allen. For
those unfamiliar with Trilby (beyond knowing that Svengali was an evil hypnotist),
George Orwell’s critique is enlightening. The author of Animal Farm and 1984 was
astonishingly open about his prejudices. He often took the curious stance that he
disliked pretty much all Jews, but strongly opposed anti-Semitism. Orwell considered
Trilby outrageously anti-Semitic (see Orwell, Orwell, & Angus, 2000).
Although few modern readers have read Trilby, they are likely to be conversant with
a derivative version of its story and themes in another medium. The Phantom of the
Opera, a world-renowned musical sensation, was developed from and takes its name
from a 1910 novel by Gaston Leroux (2007). Countless observers have noted that the
major themes and characters of Leroux’ novel are profoundly similar to those of de
Maurier’s Trilby. Kluft (2009) has argued that the replacement of an ugly, despised,
feared, and Jewish outsider with an ugly, despised, feared, and disfigured outsider is far
from subtle. Nor is the replacement of an expert in heterohypnosis using formal
inductions with an expert in heterohypnosis using waking hypnosis laced with seductive
persuasion a major change. Both employ their skills to dominate suggestible high
 RECONSIDERING HYPNOSIS AND PSYCHOANALYSIS 205

hypnotizable subjects in their pursuit of self-serving agendas. (It surprises many con-
temporary readers to learn that Bernheim’s methods included approaches modern
clinicians would call waking hypnosis, which was already well-known in Europe.)
This focus on commonalities of theme does an injustice to the complexities and
nuances of Lerouox’ work, often given short shrift. Leroux was an accomplished author
whose Joseph Rouletabille series of detective novels established him as the French
equivalent of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He was quite conversant with the subject with
the subject of hypnosis, and refers to hypnosis in many of his novels. Conan Doyle
himself was very familiar with hypnosis, but said little on the subject. His chief interest
in hypnosis was in its use as a gateway to the spiritualist phenomena with which he was
preoccupied. Conan Doyle had witnessed many hypnotic demonstrations because the
spiritualist séances of the day typically began with the induction of hypnosis in the
medium.
Notwithstanding the efforts of professional groups (such as the American Society of
Clinical Hypnosis, the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Division 30 of
the American Psychological Association, and the International Society of Hypnosis and
many allied groups) world-wide to present hypnosis to the public in a reasonable and
rational manner, irrationally strong beliefs in the coercive and potentially malevolent
power of hypnosis continue to exert an endless fascination that overshadows the
beneficial applications of hypnosis in the mind of the public. Both abuses of hypnosis
and the attribution of extraordinary powers to hypnosis continued (and continue) to be
celebrated in lay media even after the use of hypnosis by members of the healing
professions became marginalized and exiled from the professional and cultural main-
stream. These representations exert a profound influence both upon those in the helping
professions and academics in relevant domains of scholarship who neither invest the
effort required to understand hypnosis in depth nor inform themselves of relevant
advances.
As of this writing, the proliferation of superhero movies is a major trend in American
popular culture. In that connection, it is instructive to reflect that the first-ever comic
book superhero was Dr. Occult, a private investigator and magician who often affected
the alias, Dr. Mystic. His superpowers were activated by a magical talisman, the Mystic
Symbol of the Seven. They included, among others, hypnosis, clairvoyance, telekinesis,
astral projection, the ability to create illusions, and the power to battle possession. The
1935 debut of Dr. Occult introduced the public to a master hypnotist who (ironically)
also enjoyed many of the special powers once falsely ascribed to the grand hysterics of
the nineteenth century. Dr. Occult was a product of the creative team of Siegel and
Schuster. Aspects of the Dr. Occult theme have appeared since in several subsequent
superhero scenarios, most recently in the character of Dr. Strange. Siegel and Shuster
had created their greatest super hero two years earlier, but Superman, their “man of
steel,” whose special powers resided primarily in the physical realm, would not debut
on the printed page until 1938. It is also curious to note that when Marston and Peter’s
206 KLUFT

Wonder Woman made her 1941 debut as the first American female superhero, she also
had a powerful talisman that gave her coercive control over the minds of others, a
golden lasso that forced those entrapped within its coils to tell the truth.
Psychoanalysis, in contrast, has yet to be identified as the special power of any
superhero. No evil fictional psychoanalyst has ever achieved the legendary status of
Svengali. The infamous Hannibal Lecter was a forensic psychiatrist, but not a psycho-
analyst. The assimilation of psychoanalysis into Western culture is the subject of
considerable scholarship. It has been a stock topic for humor and comedy for three-
quarters of a century.
But Freud himself has remained such an overwhelming personification of things
psychoanalytic that he, rather than any fictional creation, remains the larger than life
exemplar of psychoanalysis. He may be considered its version of a superhero. In
contrast, the lack of a single historical or fictional paradigmatic constructive embodi-
ment of the practice of therapeutic hypnosis has created a cultural vacuum. Too often
this void has been filled by unfavorable media representations of hypnosis and hypno-
tists, dominated by sinister villains and charismatic entertainers. In the terse but
profoundly observant words of Deirdre Barrett, “When a hypnotist appears on screen,
expect evil” (2006, p. 13).
Further compromising hypnosis in the eyes of many, including otherwise thoughtful
psychoanalysts, has been the association of hypnosis, hypnosis-like, and hypnosis-
related phenomena with coercive and destructive practices; for example, mind control
by cultic groups (Hassan, 2015); alleged memory distortion via various influences (for a
balanced assessment, see Brown, Scheflin, & Hammond, 1998); and the activities of the
covert agencies of many countries (see Ross, 2011; Scheflin & Opton, 1978). Such
connections promote and perpetuate the representation of hypnosis as an instrument
easily suborned in the service of authoritarian control and malevolent intent, the
antithesis of psychoanalytic values.
A number of considerations make it particularly timely to re-examine many of the
longstanding schisms of theory and practice that have divided the study and practice of
hypnosis from the study and practice of psychoanalysis. Several contributors to this
issue find reason to question the legitimacy and meaningfulness of those schisms, and
argue against some of the basic assumptions held to have caused, justified, and/or
explained them. They have challenged themselves to suggest thoughtful revisions more
accommodating of and respectful toward currently available clinical and scientific
knowledge.
In approaching this interface, one humbling consideration is that many readers of the
Journal have been trained in programs that offered them minimal/superficial education
in psychoanalytic/psychodynamic approaches. An introduction to the relevance of
psychoanalytic thinking to the practice of hypnosis may serve to alert such readers to
a largely unfamiliar but vast and rich intellectual and clinical legacy. Several models of
analytic thought are applied to hypnosis by the authors of this issue.
 RECONSIDERING HYPNOSIS AND PSYCHOANALYSIS 207

A second consideration is that some of the most searching studies of the hypnosis/
psychoanalysis interface were made from positions, theories, and notions of practice
that either no longer prevail and/or are no longer are considered as comprehensive or
authoritative as they were in the past. Notwithstanding the outstanding quality and
thoughtfulness of several such contributions (e.g., Fromm & Nash, 1997; Gill &
Brenman, 1961), their focus is primarily ego psychological. They were written before
or without proportionate input from the relational and intersubjective perspectives so
influential in contemporary psychoanalytic thinking. Diamond’s papers (1984, 1987)
were an important step toward applying newer ideas to hypnosis. Others (e.g., Baker,
2000; Kluft, 2016b, 2016c) have added additional observations, but these contributions,
in sum, fall short of a more general exploration and explication. Two recent contribu-
tions are of special note. Nash (2008) summarizes aspects of the classic ego psycholo-
gical position and updates it with social psychological and neuropsychological insights.
Wall (2017) offers a postmodern formulation of many basic aspects of the hypnosis/
psychoanalysis interface.
A third consideration is that Breuer and Freud’s seminal Studies on Hysteria (1893-
1895) concerned the treatment of women suffering the grand hysteria of the day, a
classification that encompassed a wide range of mental disorders (O’Neil, 2018/this
issue). It would include the modern categories of the Dissociative Disorders and the
Somatic Symptom Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), described by
Niejenhuis (2004) as Psychoform Dissociation and Somatoform Dissociation. Further,
at the time of the schism, these patients were generally considered to be traumatized
individuals.
Freud turned away from hypnosis, spent some time evaluating forehead pressure as
its replacement, and finally moved toward what became the method of eliciting and
interpreting the products of free association. He also repudiated the seduction hypoth-
esis. In taking these steps, he distanced himself from both a dissociationist psychology
with an emphasis on constitutional factors and reduced his estimate of the importance of
external trauma in the etiology of his patients’ difficulties.
Consequently, there was a drastic reduction in the importance accorded to retelling
and abreacting accounts of traumata as steps toward healing. Instead, Freud moved
toward a conflict-based understanding of mental function, with major unconscious
components finding their foundations in certain classic paradigms of development
highly related to hypothesized unconscious fantasies, such as the Oedipus complex
and related constructs.
With the rise of psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and descriptive psychiatry, and the
decline in the prestige and practice of hypnosis, this group of patients became dispar-
aged as “hysterical” in the pejorative lay sense of the word. Their frequently quasi-
psychotic symptoms were dismissed or misdiagnosed as schizophrenic or merely atten-
tion seeking in the context of a character disorder, and their complaints of mistreatment
were usually dismissed as fantasies. In just over a generation, the classic hysteric fell
208 KLUFT

from being the paradigmatic mental patient about whom major theories were being
developed to the lowly status of a clinical “orphan,” excluded from emerging paradigms
and of minimal interest to any major school of thought.
Psychoanalysis wandered away from dealing with patients’ complaints about their
sexual abuse as children. Powerful voices fought to silence those who dared rethink
Freud’s rejection of the seduction theory and/or accord a crucial role to exogenous
trauma in either the formation of mental disorders or as an important consideration in
determining the treatment needs of those who suffered them. In doing so, they defended
an essentially Hermeneutic stance, defining relevant reality as that which transpired and/
or emerged within the special ambience of the treatment process. In the 1930s, Ferenczi
became an ostracized outcast and was defamed as insane for what are now recognized
as core contributions to the understanding of trauma (see Ferenczi, 1988, 1994).
Kuriloff (2013) has offered a brilliant exegesis of major components of this con-
servative theoretical and clinical stance in post-World War II American psychoanalysis.
In the 21st century Jeffrey Masson, an analyst and curator of the Freud Archives, was
attacked viciously and virtually driven out of psychoanalysis for challenging the
correctness of Freud’s repudiation of the seduction hypothesis (Masson, 2003, 2017).
These disorders and the trauma histories associated with them fared only slightly
better in the world of hypnosis. While a small number of well-regarded individuals
remained prepared to acknowledge such conditions and discuss their treatment, others
were skeptical about their naturalistic occurrence. Many of this latter group also lent
their efforts to the support of polarized adversarial positions. They often were openly
disparaging of those with different points of view during the so-called “Memory Wars”
that raged throughout the 1990s and continue, although much abated, into the present.
Their efforts to undermine those who disagreed with their views are discussed in two
books in preparation (Crook, in preparation; Kluft, in preparation). The available
evidence, reviewed recently by Brand et al. (2016), fails to support their polarized
skeptical positions.
Notwithstanding these battles, the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 (2013)
continues to include the dissociative disorder classifications, and has revised their
subcategories to include rather than exclude or leave unspecified those with a subclini-
cal Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) structure. In declaring the 12-month prevalence
rate of DID to be 1.5% in the general population, DSM-5 relied on solid research
findings rather than shrill protests that the condition is rare or iatrogenic. For sake of
comparison, the lifetime prevalence rate for Schizophrenia is estimated at 0.3–0.7%.
What brings these concerns to the forefront of any contemporary discussion of the
interface of psychoanalysis and hypnosis is that both fields are currently confronted
with their histories of generations of paradigm-driven myopia about a group of
conditions that are characterized by high hypnotizability (Frischholz, Lipman,
Braun, & Sachs, 1992). Hypnotizability has a genetic, biological substrate (e.g.,
Raz, Fan, & Posner, 2006) that involves the various attentional systems. Neither
 RECONSIDERING HYPNOSIS AND PSYCHOANALYSIS 209

dissociation nor hypnotizability can be explained away as regression in the transfer-

ence or allied phenomena, or as a purely socio-cognitive phenomenon. Further, the
histories of patients with DID and related disorders are replete with childhood
traumatization, often well documented or later acknowledged by perpetrators (e.g.,
Kluft, 1995, 1999). Two fields, many of whose members and major scholars have
taken strong positions that cannot be sustained, must come to grips with these
oversights. This is a population of patients whose condition occurs naturalistically,
is characterized by high hypnotizability, and has generally (and perhaps universally)
suffered antecedent childhood traumatization. It cannot be explained completely by
psychodynamic or relational or social psychological concepts, and rarely responds
completely either to interpretation, empathy, or suggestion as primary interventions.
As Brenner (2001, 2004, 2014), Kluft (1991, 1999, 2000), and O’Neil (2018/this
issue), among others have noted, any attempt to force such conditions into a treat-
ment that holds true to a single paradigm of intervention is likely to fail. As if to
underscore this observation, in the Brand et al. (2009a, 2009b) studies of the
outcome of treatment for DID, the most successfully treated series of DID patients
ever reported had received a combination of psychodynamic psychotherapy and
hypnosis (e.g., Coons, 1986; Kluft, 1984, 1986, 1993).
It is timely, then, to summarize the best of prior understandings of the interface of
psychoanalysis and hypnosis, and to update those understandings with more recent
contributions. Their venerable rifts deserve reassessment from a balanced perspective.
In addition, it is appropriate to look across this long divide between psychoanalysis and
hypnosis and acknowledge that it might be both better understood and somewhat
mitigated by a reconsideration of the patient population in connection with which
these longstanding schisms developed.

Introduction to The Hypnosis and Psychoanalysis Project

The considerations noted above led Stephen Lankton, Editor-in-Chief of the American
Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, to invite a Special Issue on the subject of Hypnosis and
Psychoanalysis. He appointed psychoanalyst Richard P. Kluft as Guest Editor. The
participants in what came to be called the “Hypnosis and Psychoanalysis Project”
have chosen topics that address how hypnosis and psychoanalysis both relate to each
other, and how they hold the potential to enrich each other. Most address matters
directly concerned with clinical practice. Others undertake both historical and theore-
tical explorations. Most of the Project’s articles noted briefly below are presented in the
current Special Issue. The remainder will appear in subsequent issues of the Journal.
The importance of traditional ego psychological approaches to understanding the
interface of hypnosis and psychoanalysis is represented by Stephen Kahn and Daniel
Brown’s summary of and reflections upon the work of Erika Fromm, Ph.D. (Kahn &
210 KLUFT

Brown, in press). Their mentor, the late Erika Fromm, was perhaps the most outstanding
translator of that interface into clinical practice. A classical psychoanalyst, at first
Dr. Fromm was profoundly skeptical about hypnosis. She came to develop remarkable
skill in the use of hypnosis and became teacher, mentor, advisor, and ego idea to
countless contributors to the field of hypnosis. She embodied the best in the hypnoa-
nalytic tradition. Combining sophisticated understanding of both psychoanalysis and
hypnosis in her work, she remains one of the most highly respected and beloved
individuals in the field of hypnosis.
I took particular pleasure in inviting an article on Erika Fromm’s contributions from
two of her most distinguished students not only because of my admiration and affection
for this remarkable colleague and my respect for her distinguished former students, but
also because Erika Fromm directed the first introductory hypnosis workshop I ever
attended. She presented me with living proof that I need not sacrifice my interest in
hypnosis to my analytic training, nor give up my investment in psychoanalysis to
become skilled in the use of hypnosis. Approximately two months later I found myself
using both with my first DID patient.
Daniel Brown has made landmark contributions in many areas of the mental health
sciences. He studied with Ericka Fromm, and joined her in writing one of the most
highly regarded texts of modern therapeutic hypnosis, Hypnotherapy and
Hypnoanalysis (1986), as well as Hypnosis and Behavioral Medicine (1987). He was
first author, along with Alan Scheflin and D. Corydon Hammond, of the Guttmacher
Award winning text, Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law (1998).
Stephen Kahn was interested in hypnosis, but had found no suitable tutor. After
his training in psychoanalytic psychotherapy, he moved on to the University of
Chicago where he both studied and did research with Dr. Fromm. Together they
wrote Self-hypnosis: The Chicago Paradigm (1990) and edited Changes in the
Therapist (2001).
The task of updating our discourse on the relationship between hypnosis and psycho-
analysis fell to Tom Wall, a student of post-modern perspectives in both areas of
scholarship (Wall, 2017). Long a stalwart figure in the field of hypnosis, Wall came
late to the study of psychoanalysis. He exemplifies the careful study of the therapeutic
relationship so typical of those who start in hypnosis, and, as their understanding of the
human condition deepens, find themselves moving toward the insights offered by a
psychoanalytic perspective. In progressing to take psychoanalytic training, he followed
the paths of noted contributors such as A. A. Mason and Michael J. Diamond.
It is no accident that several contributors focus squarely upon the third consideration
noted above, the importance of acknowledging and actualizing the therapeutic potential
of both psychoanalytic thinking and hypnosis in the treatment of the traumatized,
especially those who suffer severe chronic dissociative disorders. Few recall that as
Freud thought through the challenges of working with such patients, he hypothesized
that a second personality might exist, in some form, in every severe hysteric (Breuer &
 RECONSIDERING HYPNOSIS AND PSYCHOANALYSIS 211

Freud, 1893-1895). Further, the index case of psychoanalysis, Anna O., suffered DID.
Freud’s eminent biographer, Ernest Jones (1953), observed that Freud’s circle referred to
Anna O. as Freud’s “Miss Beauchamps,” analogizing her to the famous case treated by
Morton Prince.
It could be argued that by reconnecting with dissociation, hysteria, and hypnosis,
psychoanalysis is coming home, welcoming its Ishmaels back into the tent. There is a
certain Back to the Future quality to revisiting the problems with which Freud grappled
when he treated patients with major dissociative disorders prior to the turn of the 20th
century.
Ira Brenner and John O’Neil trained as classical psychoanalysts. Their clinical work
with traumatized patients and their increasing familiarity with the dissociative disorders
impressed upon them the importance of dissociation in the trauma response. They took
note of the crucial roles played by hypnotizability and autohypnosis in the formation of
the complex chronic forms of dissociative disorders. They came to appreciate the
importance of being prepared to bring hypnotically facilitated interventions into their
therapeutic armamentaria. The magnetizer, Despine, was the first secular clinician to
bring what would now be called DID to complete integration (Ellenberger, 1970). He
understood in the 1830s that he was dealing with a “magnetic” psychopathology (see
Ellenberger, 1970; McKeown & Fine, 2008), what modern scholars might term a
“hypnotic” psychopathology (Dell, 2017).
Brenner is the author of substantial contributions to Holocaust studies and the
treatment of the dissociative disorders. His several books include The Dissociation of
Trauma (2001) and most recently, Dark Matters (2014). He demonstrates how a
sophisticated knowledge of hypnosis allows an analyst to work more effectively with
aspects of hypnotic psychopathology. He illustrates how knowledge drawn from a
paradigm not directly employed in a treatment, but exerting a subtle influence in the
background, can nonetheless enhance the effectiveness of that treatment.
O’Neil is author of numerous scientific articles, Co-Editor of Dissociation: DSM-5
and Beyond (Dell & O’Neil, 2009), and Editor of the chapters in the Psychodynamic
Diagnostic Manual, Second Edition (Lingiardi & McWilliams, 2017) most relevant to
the hypnosis/psychoanalysis interface. He draws upon his wide-ranging scholarship and
study of logic to explore the complications that arise when errors in thinking take on a
life of their own, and confuse our conceptions of the issues and conditions with which
we are dealing. His review of the problems in thinking that schools of thought endorse
and leave unexamined is trenchant, unsettling, and thought provoking.
Mary Jo Peebles studied hypnosis and psychoanalysis as two approaches to under-
standing and treating human suffering. She developed a special interest in working with
the traumatized. She came to the Menninger Foundation with a background in psy-
chotherapy research and an interest in psychoanalysis, but at a time when psychologists
were not accepted for clinical training in the institutes affiliated with the American
Psychoanalytic Association. As she and others fought the system, she was mentored in
212 KLUFT

hypnosis by William Smith, Ph.D. She continued her study of hypnosis even after she
became the first psychologist proposed for psychoanalytic training by the Topeka
Institute, and won the right to become a candidate there. The author of many publica-
tions, including Beginnings: The Art and Science of Planning Psychotherapy (Peebles,
2012), now in its second edition, she offers a perspective on understanding negative
outcomes in treatment, and explores what psychoanalysis and hypnosis have to offer in
understanding and addressing them.
If I may be permitted to present myself in the third person, Richard P. Kluft pursued
psychoanalytic training and the study of hypnosis and became deeply involved in the
study of trauma and dissociation, all simultaneously. While still in training, a chance
encounter with one of his intellectual heroes, Henri Ellenberger, inspired him to value
open-mindedness and incessant learning above the security and sense of rightness that
often accompanies staunch allegiance to a particular model or paradigm. Erika Fromm
modeled the thoughtful synthesis of the insights and therapeutic opportunities afforded
by allowing psychoanalysis and hypnosis to inform and enrich each other, a theme he
addressed in earlier papers (2000) and passim in his 2013 Shelter from the Storm. Kluft
honors their perspectives in his writings on dissociation. His contributions, to be
published in subsequent issues of the Journal, challenge many commonly accepted
understandings regarding why Freud abandoned hypnosis (Kluft, in press a, in press b),
and conclude by demonstrating that knowledge drawn from the theories and practice of
hypnosis has the potential to bestow many gifts upon the practice of psychoanalysis,
and that knowledge drawn from the theories and practice of psychoanalysis has the
potential to bestow many gifts upon the practice of hypnosis (Kluft, in press c).
It is timely to begin to heal the longstanding rifts between hypnosis and
psychoanalysis.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th
edition. DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Baker, E. (2000). Reflections on the hypnotic relationship: Projective identification, containment, and
attunement. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 48, 56–69. doi:10.1080/
00207140008410361
Barrett, D. (2006). Hypnosis in film and television. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 49, 13–30.
doi:10.1080/00029157.2006.10401549
Brand, B., Classen, C., Lanius, R., Loewenstein, R., McNary, S., Pain, C., & Putnam, F. (2009b). A
naturalistic study of dissociative identity disorder and dissociative disorder not otherwise specified
patients treated by community clinicians. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and
Policy, 1, 153–171. doi:10.1037/a0016210
Brand, B., Classen, C., McNary, S., & Zaveri, P. (2009a). A review of dissociative disorders treatment
studies. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 197, 646–654. doi:10.1097/
NMD.0b013e3181b3afaa
 RECONSIDERING HYPNOSIS AND PSYCHOANALYSIS 213

Brand, B., Sar, V., Stavropoulos, P., Krüger, C., Korzekwa, M., Martínez-Taboas, A., & Middleton, W.
(2016). Separating fact from fiction: An empirical examination of six myths about Dissociative Identity
Disorder. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 24, 257–270. doi:10.1097/HRP.0000000000000100
Brenner, I. (2001). Dissociation of trauma: Theory, phenomenology and technique. Madison, CT:
International Universities Press.
Brenner, I. (2004). Psychic trauma: Dynamics, symptoms, and treatment. Lanham, MD: Aronson.
Brenner, I. (2014). Dark matters: Exploring the realm of psychic devastation. London, UK: Karnac.
Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1893-1895). Studies on hysteria. In J. Strachey (Trans. & Ed.), Standard edition of
the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 2. London, UK: Hogarth.
Brown, D., & Fromm, E. (1986). Hypnotherapy and hypnoanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, D., & Fromm, E. (1987). Hypnosis and behavioral medicine. New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, D., Scheflin, A., & Hammond, D. C. (1998). Memory, trauma treatment, and the law. New York,
NY: Norton.
Coons, P. (1986). Treatment progress in 20 patients with multiple personality disorder. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, 174, 715–721. doi:10.1097/00005053-198612000-00002
Crook, L. (in preparation). Backstage in the memory wars.
Dell, P. (2017). Is high hypnotizability a necessary diathesis for pathological dissociation? Journal of
Trauma and Dissociation, 18, 56–87. doi:10.1080/15299732.2016.1191579
Dell, P., & O’Neil, J. (Eds.). (2009). Dissociation and the dissociative disorders: DSM-V and beyond.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Diamond, M. (1984). It takes two to tango: Some thoughts on the neglected importance of the hypnotist in
an interactive hypnotherapeutic relationship. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 27, 3–13.
doi:10.1080/00029157.1984.10402582
Diamond, M. (1987). The interactional basis of hypnotic experience: On the relational dimensions of
hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 35, 95–115. doi:10.1080/
00207148708416046
Du Maurier, G. (1895). Trilby (Reprint ed.). London, UK: Osgood, MCilvaine. (Printed as a serial in 1894).
Eason, A. (2017, March 7). Charles dickens, hypnosis, and mesmerism. Retrieved from http://www.adam-
eason.com/charles-dickens-hypnosis-and-mesmerism/
Ellenberger, H. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Ferenczi, S. (1988). The clinical diary of Sándor Ferenczi (J. Dupont, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. (Original work 1932 [in Hungarian]).
Ferenczi, S. (1994). Confusion of tongues between adults and the child–The language of tenderness and of
passion. In M. Balint (Ed.), Final contributions to the problems and methods of psycho-analysis (pp.
156-167). (E. Mosbacher and others, Trans.). London, UK: Hogarth.
Frischholz, E., Lipman, L., Braun, B., & Sachs, R. (1992). Psychopathology hypnotizability, and
dissociation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 1521–1525. doi:10.1176/ajp.149.11.1521
Fromm, E., & Kahn, S. (1990). Self-hypnosis: The Chicago paradigm. New York, NY: Guilford.
Fromm, E., & Kahn, S. (Eds.). (2000). Changes in the therapist. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fromm, E., & Nash, M. (1997). Psychoanalysis and hypnosis. Madison, CT: International University Press,
Inc.
Gill, M., & Brenman, M. (1961). Hypnosis and related states – Psychoanalytic studies in regression.
New York, NY: International Universities Press, Inc.
Hassan, S. (2015). Combating Cult Mind Control, 3rd Edition (25th anniversary ed.). Newton, MA:
Freedom of Mind Press.
Joffe, (Producer), C. H., & Allen, (Director), W. (1977). Annie Hall. United States of America: United
Artists.
Jones, E. (1953). The life and work of Sigmund Freud, three volume set. New York, NY: Basic Books.
214 KLUFT

Kahn, S., & Brown, D. (in press). Ericka Fromm: Explorations in hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical
Hypnosis.
Kluft, R. P. (1984). Treatment of multiple personality. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 7, 9–29.
Kluft, R. P. (1986). Personality unification in multiple personality disorder. In B. Braun (Ed.), Treatment of
multiple personality disorder (pp. 29–60). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Kluft, R. P. (1991). Multiple personality disorder. In A. Tasman & S. Goldfinger (Eds.), Annual review of
psychiatry (Vol. 10, pp. 161–188). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Kluft, R. P. (1993). Treatment of dissociative disorder patients: An overview of discoveries, successes, and
failures. Dissociation, 6, 87–101.
Kluft, R. P. (1995). The confirmation and discontinuation of memories of abuse in dissociative identity
disorder patients: A naturalistic clinical study. Dissociation, 8, 253–258.
Kluft, R. P. (1999). Current issues in dissociative identity disorder. Journal of Practical Psychiatry and
Behavioral Health, 5, 3–19.
Kluft, R. P. (2000). The psychoanalytic psychotherapy of dissociative identity disorder in the context of
trauma therapy. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 20, 259–286. doi:10.1080/07351692009348887
Kluft, R. P. (2006, November 9). The long shadow of Deacon Brodie: Robert Louis Stevenson’s inspiration
for depicting duality in “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” and other works. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Dissociation, Los
Angeles, CA.
Kluft, R. P. (2009). What do we permit when we are permissive? Reexamining a core value in contem-
porary hypnosis. Presidential Address at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis.
Kluft, R. P. (2012). Hypnosis in the treatment of Dissociative Identity Disorder and allied states: An
overview and case study. South African Journal of Psychology, 42, 146–155. doi:10.1177/
008124631204200202
Kluft, R. P. (2013a, April 27). “That’s why they’re called lessons,” said the Gryphon. “because they
lessen day by day.” Reflections on the treatment of DID 1970–2013. Baltimore, MD: Lecture presented
at Sheppard Pratt Hospital.
Kluft, R. P. (2013b). Shelter from the storm. North Charleston, SC: Kindle Independent publishing
Platform.
Kluft, R. P. (2016a). You have to be carefully taught: Dignity considerations in clinical practice, scholar-
ship, and trauma treatment. In S. Levine (Ed.), Dignity matters: Psychoanalytic and psychosocial
perspectives (pp. 141–158). London, UK: Karnac Books.
Kluft, R. P. (2016b). The wounded self in trauma treatment. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 59,
69–87. doi:10.1080/00029157.2016.1163659
Kluft, R. P. (2016c). Perspectives on pathways to induction: Confronting unexpected challenges. American
Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 59, 186–203. doi:10.1080/00029157.2016.1193721
Kluft, R.P. (in press a). Freud’s rejection of hypnosis: Perspectives old and new, Part I of III – The genesis
of a rift: Reexamining Freud’s stated rationales. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis.
Kluft, R.P. (in press b). Freud’s rejection of hypnosis: Perspectives old and new, Part II–The perpetuation of
a rift: Examining relevant psychoanalytic oral lore. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis.
Kluft, R.P. (in press c). Freud’s rejection of hypnosis: Perspectives old and new, Part III of III–Toward
healing the rift: Enriching both hypnosis and psychoanalysis American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis.
Kluft, R. P. (in preparation). Mountebank’s Gambit.
 RECONSIDERING HYPNOSIS AND PSYCHOANALYSIS 215

Kuhn, T. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (50th anniversary edition, with an introduction by
Ian Hacking). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kuriloff, E. (2013). Contemporary psychoanalysis and the legacy of the Third Reich: History, memory,
tradition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Laor, N. (1985). Prometheus the impostor. British Medical Journal, 290, 681–684. doi:10.1136/
bmj.290.6469.681
Leroux, G. (2007). The phantom of the opera. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble Classics. (Original work
published in 1910).
Lingiardi, V., & McWilliams, N. (2017). Psychodynamic diagnostic manual, second edition (PDM-2).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Masson, J. (2003). The assault on truth: Freud’s suppression of the seduction theory. New York, NY:
Ballantine.
Masson, J. (2017). A personal perspective: The response to child abuse then and now. Journal of Trauma
and Dissociation, 18, 476–482. doi:10.1080/15299732.2017.1295429
McKeown, J., & Fine, C. G. (Eds. & Trans.). (2008). Despine and the evolution of psychology: Historical
and medical perspectives on dissociative disorders. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Nash, M. (2008). A psychoanalytic theory of hypnosis: A clinically-informed approach. In N. Nash & A.
Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of hypnosis (pp. 201–224). New York, NY: Oxford.
Niejenhuis, E. (2004). Somatoform dissociation: Phenomena, measurement, and theoretical issues.
New York, NY: Norton.
O’Neil, J. (2018/this issue). Hypnosis and psychoanalysis: Undoing Freud’s primal category mistake.
American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 60(3), 262–278.
Orwell, G., Orwell, S., & Angus, I. (2000). George Orwell: In front of your nose, 1946-1950. Boston, MA:
David R. Godine Publisher.
Peebles, M. J. (2012). Beginnings: The art and science of planning psychotherapy (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Raz, A., Fan, J., & Posner, M. (2006). Neuroimaging and genetic association in attentional and hypnotic
processes. Journal of Physiology, 99, 483–491.
Ross, C. (2011). The CIA doctors: Human rights violations by American psychiatrists. Austin, TX:
Greenleaf Book Group Press.
Scheflin, A., & Opton, E. (1978). The mind manipulators: A non-fiction account. New York, NY:
Paddington Press.
Wall, T. (2017). Hypnoanalysis. In G. Elkins (Ed.), Handbook of medical and psychological hypnosis
(pp. 133–146). New York, NY: Springer.
Winter, A. (2000). Mesmerized: Powers of mind in Victorian Britain. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.