Beyond
the ‘magical circle’ of traditional epistemology
Although Erickson and Reich
came from different clinical and theoretical backgrounds, through their uncommon
therapeutic approaches, similar in some respects, they contributed greatly to
break new ground in psychotherapy and in the theory of therapy.
If Reich refused to use
schematic techniques and to conform to a school and to a rigid theory (Ripetti-Pacchini,1985), Erickson even more radical and more or less
consciously, questioned the theoretical monism and the ‘enchanted cage’ of
methodology, going beyond the epistemology of Thomas Khun and perhaps that of
Imre Lakatos.
“He developed a new theory for each person" (Stern,1985) and “spoke many theoretical languages” (Haley,1982).
Aware of the fact that “the
theory often becomes a learned limitation” (Stern,1985), Erickson came closer
with his theory of no-theory and his multifarious approaches, to the
theoretical anarchism and the ‘Dadaism’ of Paul Feyerabend.
Of course just as it is
necessary to “examine without prejudice what Erickson did” (Haley,1967), so it
is necessary to read Reich without
reducing the complexity of his work.
Evolution
of the therapeutic setting
Another element which this two
therapists have in common, is the fact they were concerned with producing
changes in their clients’ current situation focusing on the context, on the
interpersonal nature of psychological distress.
It was Erickson however, by
using more sophisticated language patterns, who developed the psychotherapeutic
setting even farther.
He unveiled indirectly,
through the metaphorical ‘veil’ of his original hypnotherapy, that the
so-called ‘psychotherapy’ is mainly an art of communication and rhetoric.
Both in Erickson and in Reich we
also find a decrease in importance of the method of ‘interpretation' which in
Reich became ever more decentralised compared to the weakening of
‘resistances’, while in Erickson it was abandoned, at least in its original
form. (May be we can consider the ‘reframing’ as a form of interpretation).
After establishing the appropriate
context, both of them preferred to activate new alternatives and an ‘experiential’ awareness in their patients rather than a purely intellectual
consciousness, leaving as much room as possible to their clients’ self-regulatory
inner resources.
Erickson and Reich have in
fact another point in common : trust in the Unconscious and its ‘alternative’
autoregulatory capabilities, both of them having overcome some limitations of
Freud’s Unconscious theory. (Actually this theory implies antagonist relations
between the conscious and the unconscious mind). And in this they were validated
by an extensive scientific literature.
These two authors had clearly
understood the subtlety and plasticity of the automatic behaviour, whose rigidity
would merely be a dysfunction and a pathology.
Erickson used similar processes to place the patient in a state of fluctuation, in a 'dissipative’ condition (to quote a term by Ilya Prigogine).
The open-ended suggestions of
Milton Erickson or the emphasis laid on flexibility by him and Reich were not
fortuitous.
Making therapy therefore means
drawing from the source of the Unconscious, overcoming rigidities,
one-sidedness and reintegrating.
And is this not one of the
aims of the religious process, whose etymological meaning is also to ‘re-bind’,
to ‘tie together again’?
And is this not, for example,
the sense of the interpenetration of Yin and Yang or the function of certain
Yoga exercises with the flexible utilization of various types of representation and symbolic systems and the
interchangeable use of the left and right sides of the brain?
Indeed is this not also, in
many aspects, the function of the lyrical synthesis and of the bipolar or
multipolar structure of every genuine cultural creation?
More than in other practices
we find expressed this vital function of resynthesis in Erickson’s and Reich’
strategies.
But in order to reactivate the
inter-intrapersonal contact by means of the therapeutic process, it seems to be
necessary, as in other strategies of change, first to ‘pace’ the client’s
experience which one wants to change, then in some cases to ‘disrupt’ a pattern
of unwanted behaviour, and finally to
‘lead’ or ‘allow’ the process of ‘re-binding’.
Language games and creative ploys
Languages games explored by
the two therapists were numerous and original with this aim in view.
Erickson above all was master
of the unexpected and of flexibility in his ‘ploys’. He often used such
unexpectedness to achieve change.
A reading of the patient’s
overall language, verbal and non verbal, is important in order to ‘pace’ him.
Both authors provided examples
of great perceptiveness in reading and answering the many and
contradictory paramessages they received.
They were also masters at
utilizing their clients’ behaviour.
This tactic, like some moves
found in the martial arts of the Far East, can serve to weaken the
‘resistances’ (understood as attitudes which contrast with and limit the
fullness of a particular and creative way of being).
‘Pacing’ and the ‘utilization
techniques’ are characteristic of all Erickson’s approaches.
As far as Reich is concerned ,
I would like to recall as an example, the case of the masochist patient (“Der
masochistische karakter”, 1932).
Reich blocked this patient’s repetitive behavioural pattern, by using imitation. In other words, by mirroring non verbally his attitude of resistance.
He facilitated new forms of interaction, by, in a certain sense, ‘stealing’ the symptom.
Reich blocked this patient’s repetitive behavioural pattern, by using imitation. In other words, by mirroring non verbally his attitude of resistance.
He facilitated new forms of interaction, by, in a certain sense, ‘stealing’ the symptom.
In this ploy we also find the
use of ‘surprise’, ‘confusion’ and ‘shock’ caused by the sudden change in the
interaction patterns, a tactic which was also fundamental in Erickson work. It
was important however in in Reich’s work as well.
As early as 1922, he was using
the ‘analytic shock’ based on the circumscription of the contrary attitudes
and resistances of ‘narcissistic types’ of patients in the therapeutic
Temenos.
Erickson used similar processes to place the patient in a state of fluctuation, in a 'dissipative’ condition (to quote a term by Ilya Prigogine).
If necessary, he strengthened tensions present in his patient, to then discharge them along more
appropriate paths.
And with this, he created the
psycho-physiological context of the emotional-behavioural learning.
But this closely resembles
also Reich’s ‘vegetotherapeutic technique’ of letting the ‘vegetative brakes
intensify’ and then releasing them.
This tactic is, by the way,
very similar to those in other practices for regulating tension, for instance E.
Jacobson’s “Progressive relaxation”.
Apart from ‘shock’, other communication patterns
used by Erickson (paradoxes, nonsense, homogeneity and heterogeneity saturation, etc.),
tend to cause ‘disruptions’ and ‘shifts’ in the integration circuits, producing
moments of depression and elicitation of the functions of both the left and
right hemispheres.
Ernest Rossi quite rightly points out that the phenomena of trance are analogous to dysfunctions of the left and right hemispheres (Rossi,1976).
And also the very ritual of hypnotic induction favoured Erickson in this process of destructuring.
Thus for example, on the importance in hypnosis of keeping arms and legs apart, Erickson said : “One thing I found important, is not to allow hands to be in contact with each other. I don’t know how this contact precisely interferes.”
See also my video :
"Milton H. Erickson & Wilhelm Reich : The Art of Psychotherapy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_TLBaZFFxo
Ernest Rossi quite rightly points out that the phenomena of trance are analogous to dysfunctions of the left and right hemispheres (Rossi,1976).
And also the very ritual of hypnotic induction favoured Erickson in this process of destructuring.
Thus for example, on the importance in hypnosis of keeping arms and legs apart, Erickson said : “One thing I found important, is not to allow hands to be in contact with each other. I don’t know how this contact precisely interferes.”
I
believe that letting one’s arms and legs lie loose or staring fixedly, serve
above all to produce a momentary reduction in the capacity for dialogue between
the right and the left hemispheres. In fact, in this way, unifying factors such
as body movements (which allow each hemisphere to be informed immediately about
what is happening in the other), are prevented.
On one
side there is then this dissociative action of hypnosis, on the other there is
a function of resynthesis, because the various stages and degrees of the
hypnotic process, thanks to their resemblance to other hypnoid, oneiric states
and to older modes of neural integration, give the opportunity to transfer, process and integrate, various
types of experiences ( see the ‘state bound learning’).
The
‘shock’ as well, may create a
neurophysiological context facilitating the transfer between emotional
experiences of the waking state and the paradoxical stage of sleep.
During
these states, in fact, similar phenomena like the rhythmicalization of the allocortex
and the electrophysiological flattening of the isocortex occur (Jung,1976). Therapeutic shock would therefore predispose the nervous structure and the appropriate
relationship framework for a deep emotional processing and a ‘second-order
change’.
Indirect approaches : Erickson the
Storyteller
While
Reich in his methods ‘disruption’ and ‘resynthesis’ was sometimes too
intrusive, Erickson produced a great technical innovation thanks to the
richness of his indirect approaches.
In a
certain way he put into practice that ‘indirect communication’ theorized in the
West by Soren Kierkegaard in his “Exercise of Christianity”.
The
wide variety of such indirect approaches forces me to mention only one other,
which he expressed magnificently : the ‘method’ of storytelling.
This
approach distingueshed him from nearly all traditional Western therapists,
making him seem closer to certain Zen masters (geniuses in paradox, surprise
and anecdote) and showed further how his extremely modern therapeutic narration,
the breath, the way of telling it, was rooted in ancient initiation practices,
prayer and healing 1). It also showed him to be a subtle and rare storyteller
(in Walter Benjamin’s sense) of short endless stories, which I have defined
‘circular creative narrations’, facilitating, because of their circularity, amnesias
and space-time distortions.
But as
is probable (see for example the mandala dreams referred to by Carl Gustav
Jung, the soft round movements of Tai Chi, or the researches of the school of
Tartu and Mosca) the circle also reconnects to the right hemisphere and like
some ‘circular narratives’ of F. Chopin,
Erickson’s induction is a special form of...music.
So he
is a sort of Dylan Thomas of hypnotic narrative, and listening to his
inductions is like “entering a building, with a serious of rooms, one after
another, where one comes across objects seen before and others whose use one
cannot recognize, with openings onto wide views, real or false, with constant
repetitions of wholes and details in the furnishings…Where one turns, looks,
touches, listens…One’s memory is constantly stimulated by similarities, one’s
imagination by oddities…Once
outside again, one may not understand the layout of the maze, or its
purpose…but the perception of a feeling remains vivid.” 2)
1) For
example, the way of exhaling sometimes used by Erickson is similar to that
suggested by Ignatius of Loyola.
2) Variation
on the Preface by Ariodante Marianni to The
Poems of Dylan Thomas.
See also my video :
"Milton H. Erickson & Wilhelm Reich : The Art of Psychotherapy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_TLBaZFFxo
Italian
version of this paper (versione italiana) on Academia.edu :
http://www.academia.edu/7843401/Milton_H._Erickson_and_Wilhelm_Reich_-_Affinit%C3%A0_e_Differenze._Dal_Congresso_Internazionale_di_Ipnosi_e_Terapia_della_Famiglia_Il_modello_terapeutico_di_M.H.Erickson_ 
