METHODS IN MADNESS
Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H Erickson, MD, Volume I – Richard Bandler and John Grinder
Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H Erickson, MD, Volume II – Richard Bandler, Judith Delozier and John Grinder
Okay, okay – I’ve been dragging my heels on these NLP ‘source books’… But I was so dreading tackling the patterns and techniques of hypno-legend Milton Erickson that I decided to do them as our first double-whammy review.
Why the reticence? Well, three reasons…
Firstly, studying the strategies, actions, suggestions and turns-of-phrase of a white, male, American medical doctor working in the 1950s to 1970s in any great detail has never made much sense to me. Don’t get me wrong; there is much wisdom, wiliness and joy to glean from Erickson’s story and stories.
But I – and probably you and every Tom, Dick and Harriet studying ‘conversational’ or ‘Ericksonian’ hypnosis – can never replicate the prestige, power dynamics and newness of Erickson’s practice, position and persona, nor benefit from the time and place in America and Americana he occupied.
Sure, be inspired. But, in terms of the detail that Bandler and Grinder claim to proffer in these books (and beyond), you would, IMHO, be better off understanding the methods in your own madness, and the unique dynamics at play in your own time and space.
Secondly, Erickson himself was not enamoured by Bandler and Grinder’s ‘codification’ of his work and ways. I attended a 'Secrets of Hypnosis’ NLP seminar in 2016, led by Bandler; he talked about how he and Erickson were not friends, and how reluctant Erickson was to meet – to the point of hostility.
Indeed, Erickson’s preface to Volume I, published in 1975, comes across as gracious but a tad shady – he concedes he’s “learned a great deal about the things that I’ve done without knowing about them” through this work. He illustrates this with an anecdote about his medical student daughter. After reading a paper on the double bind, penned by her father and Ernest Rossi, she is enlightened as to the strategy behind her ability, during a physical examination, to persuade patients to go through with a final (optional) rectal examination!
His closing words sum up his hopes for the work/book:
“It has been a pleasure and a privilege to write the Preface to this book. I say this, not because it centers around my hypnotic techniques, but because long overdue is the fulfillment of the need to recognize that meaningful communication should replace repetitious verbigerations, direct suggestions, and authoritarian commands.”
I’m not sure he believed Bandler and Grinder’s work delivered on that..? Volume II, published in 1977, is devoid of any special message from Erickson. And when reflecting on Bandler and Grinder’s work in the late 70s, Erickson is rumoured to have said that they “really cracked the nut on my work… the trouble is, they took the shell and left the nut.”* So, Erickson’s own scepticism, hesitancy, disapproval – whatever – of this work has also long given me pause for making an especial study of it.
Thirdly, The Structure of Magic II is so utterly boring and charmless that I expected as much from these books. This was based on the surfeit of ‘sciency’ breakdowns, equations, arrows and blah-blah-blah I could see buttressing the firsthand Erickson content as I mustered up the will to tackle them.
That said, I did enjoy Volume I. Bandler and Grinder have sourced much of Erickson’s quoted material from the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, as well as from tapes and manuscripts provided by Rossi, so there is plenty of fresh content. Since I’ve confessed to being an occasional psychonaut, it won’t surprise you to learn that a highlight for me was the insight into Erickson’s sessions with Aldous Huxley, the English writer and philosopher famed for his psychedelic adventures. It’s worth skimming the books for such content alone.
However, I found Volume II a cynical and pointless reprise. The best of the Erickson stuff is clearly in Volume I. And so half the book is detailed breakdowns of transcripts. Now, I don’t buy that people communicate, consciously, consistently and purposely, on three set different levels, plus I find the context (therapy), time and place (1970s America) and metaphors (we’re all computers who can be re/programmed) irrelevant. But I appreciate the promise of learning such magick is part of the lure to The Church of NLP, and that many people claim this is all real and true and effective.
I commented to Kev that perhaps I was/am being unfair to NLP by not making a detailed study of Bandler and Grinder’s codification of Erickson’s work. But he said he spent a lot of time breaking down the patterns and models of Volume I back during his Head Hacking days, and found them to be a nonsense.
Ultimately, I just felt: roll on Frogs into Princes, an infinitely more engaging and charming book. If anything, Patterns I and II are surely Bandler and Grinder figuring out if you’re going to seduce people with the hypno-derring-do of, say, tricking secretaries out of their period pains or mental hospital patients out of their psychoses, then you may as well do that via your own stories, thus building your own prestige, legend – and cult.
*We’d love to crack – pun intended! – the veracity of this quote! Insights most welcome!
