Nonvolition in Hypnosis: A Semiotic Analysis
- 1 Downloads
- 36 Citations
Abstract
Heeding the counsel of the late J. R. Kantor, I conceptualize hypnosis as an interesting conversation and that the interactants are performing social roles. From this perspective, I apply a semiotic analysis to one of the puzzles of hypnosis: the disclaimer of agency by some subjects.
I show that the hypnosis monologue is a grand metaphor, the literal and figurative terms of which are tacit and must be construed by the subject. Three kinds of construals are identified, one of which facilitates the disclaimer of agency. The subjects who disclaim agency fit the criteria for self-deception. I put forth two notions to aid our understanding of how one goes about the difficult task of deceiving oneself: (a) the compelling features of the self-narrative, and (b) the adoption of a metaphysical posture such that the disclaimer of agency does not appear irrational to the actor.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- BOWERS, K. W. (1981). Do the Stanford Scales tap the “classic suggestion effect”? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 29, 42–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- BOWERS, P. (1982). The classic suggestion effect: Relationship with scales of hypnotizability, effortless experiencing, and imagery vividness. iitInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 30, 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- FARTHING, G. W., BROWN, S. W., & VENTURINO, M. (1983). Involuntariness of response on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 31, 170–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- FINGARETTE, H. (1971). Self-deception. ondon, Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
- FRIEDLANDER, J. W., & SARBIN, T. R. (1938). The death of hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 33, 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- GLASER, B. G., & STRAUSS, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
- HEIDER, F., & SIMMEL, E. (1944). A study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- KANTOR, J. R. (1935). An objective psychology of grammar. Bloomington, IN: Principia Press.Google Scholar
- LYNN, S. J., NASH, M. R., RHUE, J.W., FRAUMAN, D., & STANLEY, S. (1983). Hypnosis and the experience of non volition. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 31, 293–308.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- MICHOTTE, A. E. (1946/1963). The perception of causality. London: Methuen. In T. R. Miles & E. Miles (Trans.), La perception de la causalité. Louvain, France.Google Scholar
- PERRINE, L. (1971). Four forms of metaphor. College English, 33, 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- SARBIN, T. R. (1980). Hypnosis: Metaphorical encounters of the fourth kind. Semiotica, 30, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- SARBIN, T. R. (1981). On self-deception. In T. A. Sebeok & R. Rosenthal (Eds.), The Clever Hans phenomenon: Communication with horses, whales, apes, and people. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 364, 220–235.Google Scholar
- SARBIN, T. R. (1982). A preface to a psychological theory of metaphor. In V. L. Allen & K. E. Scheibe, The social context of conduct: The psychological writings of T. R. Sarbin. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
- SARBIN, T. R., & COE, W. C. (1972). Hypnosis; the social psychology of influence communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
- SPANOS, N. P., & CHAVES, J. F. (1970). Hypnosis research: A methodological critique of experiments generated by two alternative paradigms. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 13, 108–127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- WEDEMEYER, C., & COE, W. C. (1981). Hypnotic state reports: Contextual variation and phenomenological criteria. Journal of Mental Imagery, 5, 107–118.Google Scholar
- WEITZENHOFFER, A. M. (1978). Hypnotism and altered states of consciousness. In A. Sugarman & R. E. Tarter (Eds.), Expanding dimensions of consciousness. New York: Springer.Google Scholar