The aim of clinical hypnosis—intelligence or compliance?

The turn of the century brought with it a mini-revolution in the cognitive sciences. Equipped with impressive new technology and methodology, researchers are now able to systematically observe and measure unconscious processes, resulting in what Hassin, Uleman, and Bargh (2004) call the New Unconscious. While some scholars, such as Rodolfa and Schaffer (2021), argue against the underlying assumption of “the existence of the unconscious as a specific and modifiable entity” (p. 293), the well-established use of hypnosis to mediate goal-oriented processes, without conscious oversight (e.g., post-hypnotic suggestion), implicates the involvement of higher cognition (i.e., evaluating circumstances and implementing goal-oriented behavior). Though we could attribute these automatic behaviors (that are novel, purposeful, and contextually relevant) to the conscious intelligence of an external operator (absolute compliance), it is doubtful that enough instructions from a therapist could be offered to cover every possible contingency associated with a complex life problem. If experts define intelligence as the creative use of knowledge to overcome problems (Kaufman, 2013), then might the creative use of suggestion to solve problems (without conscious involvement) be recognized as unconscious intelligence? This brings us to Milton Erickson who was one of the first to argue that the therapeutic agency of hypnosis cannot rest entirely on compliance with suggestion. Instead, Erickson emphasized the importance of achieving an inner re-synthesis of the patient’s behavior (self-organizing change) as achieved by the patient him or herself (see Lankton, 2020; Short, 2021a). Another important innovator in hypnosis, Theodore Sarbin, similarly argued that the future of hypnosis depends on redefining hypnosis as a dialogue in which patients participate as agents of their actions, rather than as objects of suggestion (Sarbin, 1999). In other words, intelligence and a sense of internal agency are more crucial to individual thriving than is compliance. If the use of suggestion is to be redefined as an ancillary element in clinical hypnosis, then we need to recognize and develop strategies for use as primary therapeutic devices. More specifically, can hypnosis activate intelligent mental operations that are not dependent on conscious intention? And if so, what are the limits of this special intelligence? To address questions about the relevance of hypnosis within the rapidly evolving fields of cognitive neuroscience and clinical psychology, I enlisted the help of leading researchers and clinicians who have shared their perspectives, research, and recommendations for applied practice. In this special issue, we include five articles addressing the potentials of unconscious intelligence. This discussion begins with a cross-disciplinary review of literature on unconscious intelligence and the implications for hypnosis.