=^..^= Are REGRESSIVE and/or ABREACTIVE THERAPIES Sacred Cows? =^..^=

[Michael Ellner]

Are REGRESSIVE and/or ABREACTIVE THERAPIES Sacred Cows?

I want to make it clear -- I honor and respect the fact that many "Regressionists" on hypnothoughts.com are quite effective in helping their clients. I am in no way, shape or form trying to discount their effectiveness. However, being effective does not validate one's opinions and beliefs and quite frankly, I am really getting tired of all the "regressionists" on HT.com who seem to believe their training is superior to everyone else's training and habitually confuse their beliefs and opinions with fact!



This discussion is not about the EFFECTIVENESS of Regressive and/or Abreactive hypnotic approaches. In my opinion, a masterful hypnosis practitioner should easily be able to make just about any technique effective. Like most of my generation, Hypno-Analysis was part of my training and I used it and can use it quite effectively. But again, this is not about effectiveness.



This discussion is about the underlying beliefs about Regressive and/or Abreactive hypnotic approaches



Some hypnosis practitioners believe that Regressive Therapies are different than other suggestive approaches used to hypnotically assist our clients and are always saying so.



I say that belief is a SACRED COW. In my opinion, "Regressive" therapies are powered by a combination of implied suggestions, direct suggestions, indirect suggestions and unintended suggestions just like every other hypnotic process! Let us not forget that our maps and models for hypnotic healing are not the territory and inform this discussion with the awareness that the "Mind" and "Subconscious Mind" are metaphors!



The world has changed dramatically in the last 50 years and the regressionists seem unaware that all of the regressive-abreactive approaches to healing are based on Freud's theories and psychotherapeutic practices. Most licensed health care professionals stopped using Regressive and Abreactive therapies 20 years ago... Modern day Cognitive and Behavioral Therapists focus on developing their patient's coping skills and abilities and changing their beliefs. In my opinion, if Elman were alive today and teaching he would be teaching a CBT-based model of hypno-healing. After all, he modeled his therapeutic approaches around the prevailing therapeutic model of his era.

I am just posting my opinion and I hope that my post generates a friendly discussion that we can all learn from.

I will rejoin this discussion when I return from teaching in South Africa



Respectfully,



Michael E.

[Kent Fullarton]

I think you are right. My approach is to start with the gentlest approach. Emotion and habit replacement without any confrontation of feelings. I prefer the "no drama" approach. Many of the people who use the ab-reactive therapy chose it because they can fit it to most clients without having to learn alternatives. They chose it because of the hypnotist and not for the client.

[Art Long CHt. Traditional Doctor]

Hi michael looking forward to meeting up with you in Johburg, Tom Budhe has my number and I live and work close to him. I have many things I would like to run past yoiu and look forward to meeting...Regards
Art Long [e-mail] [phone]
I also belive in therapy for therapies sake, no abreactions not much regression, just plain relaxation, association of relaxed feelings with words ands reinforcing ones belief in themselves...works like a bomb every time.
Meet up when you are in Johburg Michael, looking forward Best Regards Art Long

[Michael Ellner]

Hi Art,

I am not sure my cell will work in Africa but it might -- 646-306-4546
If you don't hear from me -- please contact me care of Claudia Klein --

27-21 557 8447
27-82 6767919

See you in JoBurg

Art Long CHt. Traditional Doctor said:

Hi michael looking forward to meeting up with you in Johburg, Tom Budhe has my number and I live and work close to him. I have many things I would like to run past yoiu and look forward to meeting...Regards
Art Long [e-mail] [phone] I also belive in therapy for therapies sake, no abreactions not much regression, just plain relaxation, association of relaxed feelings with words ands reinforcing ones belief in themselves...works like a bomb every time. Meet up when you are in Johburg Michael, looking forward Best Regards Art Long

[Melissa J. Roth]

Personally, I have not found regression and abreaction to be any more effective than non-abreactive techniques. And, it is more hurtful and demoralizing to the client. Why put the client through that when you can achieve the same therapeutic goals without it? It has never made sense to me. Also, just to add my 2 cents, I think as therapists we get way too voyeuristic. We don't have to know "the story" (content) to help someone change to a more comfortable and resourceful state. Maybe I'm not the brightest bulb in the box but if I listen to the client's story I sometimes get lost and lose sight of what needs to be done.

[Dave Parke]

Michael,

I like using regression. I don't go looking for abreaction but it comes up quite often. I don't pretend to know whether the memories in age regression or PLR are true or confabulation and I don't particularly care. It's not the abreaction that I think is the main goal in regression work although it can be a catalyst for change. I think that giving the person perspective on their regression and possibly a vicarious experience goes a long way for creating lasting change. I think when a person can re-experience their ISE it can help them develop new ideas about themselves and help create new maps. I don't want to say too much because I just typed a paper on this subject for the next Journal of Experiential Trance and don't want to retype it here. Even though I enjoy regression work I by no means believe it is superior to any other form of trance work. In fact, I believe that regression work is only half the solution if other methods (parts, suggestion, etc) aren't included. It's just one more tool in the box.

Cheers
Dave

[Fable Goodman]

I agree with you Michael,

It is not a question of whether or not
a regression technique will work,
and or be effective as a healing tool,
it is the question of just how and why it is working,
that most people seem to miss.

Those with an understanding of the dynamics of hypnosis, and therapy
(as opposed to a training in hypnosis).
will see that it works by metaphor,
and either direct or indirect suggestion
that using this technique will resolve the issue,

It works much better if the therapist believes that too,
and therefore acts congruently,
and so trainers train their classes to believe this story,
that regression to cause is the way, the truth and the light.

I have not actively used regression for many years now,

But would happilly do so,
if it seemed appropriate for the client.

LOve and hugs,


Fable

[John Cleesattel]

This Sacred Cow, or Dogma as it were, is specific to certain schools of training.

I have heard the concept that is taught to some people is that abreactions are "necessary" to effect positive change, and that they view any other regression technique that does not involve abreaction as simply "repressing" the associated emotions.

I, of course, disagree from aspect of the training and experiences I have had. I view emotional responses as learned reactions. The ISE of an issue is simply when the emotional response was learned. If you regress to the ISE and change the event to one with a more positive outcome (realizing of course that the past is not really changed, and while in trance, the "critical factor" that tells us what is real and true is not present so it makes no difference) the original learning is modified or even completely dissolved, meaning the corresponding emotional reaction (or the result of the learning) is also.

This does not change the past, but rather, just changes how we feel about it and react to it.

Just my two cents
John

[bruce]

I don't think that you can seprate effectiveness from this discussion. My experience is that regression work can often-times be dramatically effective - moreso than other techniques.

The reason for this, I believe, is that a person gains a special kind of rapport, or intimate empathy with themselves, especially when you combine regression with inner-child work.

However, I think Fable's point is well made: creating that kind of empathy could possibly be done some other way - I don't necessarily believe that it's ' regression ' or revivification of past events that's doing the healing. It's the self-relationship.

So far, regression is the best way I've found to create that state. Cal Banyan believes the self empathy creates a state of plasticity in the mind... I'd agree with that. When sombody is in self-empathy, they can really dump old baggage. And with that dumping comes renewal.

I also have to agree that techniques that are informed by CBT certainly have their place. Regression is a great way to dump stuff, but clearly there's a need for more constructive techniques. In other words, what do you do once you've dumped stuff?!

Still, I'll put in my 2cents for regression. In my view, it's the most powerful thing we have so far.

[GIL BOYNE]

Michael said---Most licensed health care professionals stopped using Regressive and Abreactive therapies 20 years ago.
..
My reply----What are your sources for this overly broad statement?

[Fable Goodman]

Gil,

You should know by now, that if you ask Michael tyo furnishevidence to back up his opinions, he can do it by the shedload... is that what you really want?


Love and hugs,

Fable

[Sheila M. Street, CH CI T.NLP]

Personally, I tend to take the middle road on this one. To me, each client coming to see me is unique, and their problems, habits, and response to the work are also unique.

As to regression work being "voyeuristic": I think we need to have a fairly good idea at times as to what occurred with the client, to be better informed of their particular situation and desire for change. Knowing how to separate oneself from what is happening with the client is also part of knowing how to do a particular therapy (in this case regression) properly, so that we don't lose sight of our part in this process. That doesn't, then, mean that the the regression therapy part is useless - it just means we need to keep ourselves, personally, out of the solution. For some empathic individuals this may prove more difficult - so a clear sense of "us" and "them" needs to be established for the hypnotist to do this effectively.

I don't, however, agree with the regression school of thought that ALL regressions need to start with abreaction. For some situations, it may be more effective, but I think as professionals we need to keep in mind that we are there to help, not re-wound, our clients. There are other just as effective methods of regression (the calendar method, for one) that can assist in finding an ISE, that doesn't pull a negative charge back into the aura of the client. I have found that clients can still go back to where things started with other kinds of direction, and re-living (revivification of) the event doesn't always provide re-learning to the extent that just observing the event from a safe location can provide. If a client slips from the observing level into the revivified level themselves as the regression progresses, I do take that as a sign that the informed Soul of the client has a reason for allowing that to happen - and I work with whatever arises at that time, to achieve the relief and lessons needed for the client.

On the other hand, I also agree that not all client situations require regression, and aggressive direct-suggestion and metaphor based work can achieve great results.

I think, too, it depends on the type of practice that a hypnotist wants for themselves, their working style, etc. If you are the type that has a very filled practice, with hourly apointments scheduled back-to-back, then regression work, coupled with the other parts that go with it (forgiveness, parts therapy, etc.) does tend to take longer, and may not fit with your vision of how you want to conduct business. For good regression work, sufficient trance levels to do the work need to be established, which generally takes a while longer, even using rapid induction methods to initially establish trance, so a full regression probably doesn't fit well into an hour-long time slot. Also, it does take more of an energy effort on the part of the hypnotist to do this kind of work, so it's definitely not for those who only want to follow a set script and practice assembly-line style hypnosis.

I have to disagree strongly with Michaels "suggestion" that these "therapies are powered by a combination of implied suggestions, direct suggestions, indirect suggestions and unintended suggestions just like every other hypnotic process!" Regression therapy is investigative - and anyone properly trained in regression techniques knows that it is improper to "suggest", directly or implied, anything to the client about what they are viewing or experiencing. It is properly left for the "adult" part of the client to make their own assumptions as to the best course of learning to be achieved from any material gleaned in the regression process. Once regression has been completed, and hearing from the emerged adult as to what they want to change with their NEW learning is established, THEN appropriate suggestions can be provided.

In order to change beliefs, sometimes it is necessary for the client to understand (by regression) how they acquired those beliefs. Otherwise you may have "temporarily" fixed the problem - dressing the wound without properly cleaning it - or worse - providing suggestions for something the client doesn't want and won't act upon anyways - and I guess it would be good for some, from a business standpoint, to do this. On the whole I think doing the BEST we can by our clients in all circumstances is fitting the work to their unique needs, and if that doesn't fit into YOUR beliefs/structure of your sessions, then do the right thing by your client and refer them to someone else who will take the time to address the problem thoroughly and without delay of cookie-cutter, beat the clock strategies.

Bottom-line - I don't see regression to cause as a Sacred Cow. It is simply another tool to use - and using it a skill well worth learning and using in daily practice if it fits your "model" for your practice.

Respectfully,
Sheila

[Fable Goodman]

Sheila M. Street, CH CI T.NLP said:

I have to disagree strongly with Michaels "suggestion" that these "therapies are powered by a combination of implied suggestions, direct suggestions, indirect suggestions and unintended suggestions just like every other hypnotic process!" Regression therapy is investigative - and anyone properly trained in regression techniques knows that it is improper to "suggest", directly or implied, anything to the client about what they are viewing or experiencing. It is properly left for the "adult" part of the client to make their own assumptions as to the best course of learning to be achieved from any material gleaned in the regression process./div>

Hello Sheila,

I pretty much agree with most of what you say.

But I think you may have misinterpreted michaels meaning.

I did not imagine that he meant that a regression therapist would use suggestion to the client about what they are viewing or experiencing.

I was assuming that what he meant was that the whole process works on the client accepting the direct or indirect suggestion (from the therapist, or perhaps elsehwere) that this is what will work.


Like you, I see regression is another potential tool that can be used to help, but that does not preclude it being also a sacred cow, in the way that many hypnotists have been indoctrinated to see it as the be all and end all of therapy.

Love and hugs,


Fable