International Handbook of Clinical Hypnosis - E-Lib FK UWKS

86 INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS
this is the Lothario who says, `Come up and see my etchings.' The social level
appears to be a straightforward interest in ®ne art: the psychological level of this
communication suggests something else entirely. For Berne, the outcome of communication
was determined on the psychological level.
Chomsky Bandler & Grinder, 1975) offered still another variation on communication
dualities, suggesting that every communication has both a surface structure
and a deep structure. Often, multiple transformations of surface structure can share
the same underlying deep structure. It is the task of the receiver to decipher deep
structure.
Finally, Watzlawick 1985) posited that communication is both indicative and
injunctive, consisting of both denotation and connotation. He maintained that the
injunctive aspect of communication promotes change. It is this prospect that
Ericksonian therapists ®nd most intriguing and pertinent to their work.
INJUNCTIVE COMMUNICATION
Erickson was a master of injunctive language. In fact, his style of therapy, and
especially hypnosis, can be characterized as building responsiveness to injunctive
communication. Applying Watzlawick's ideas to Erickson's work affords a useful
insight into the mechanisms activated in a typical induction. A good illustration of
this is Erickson's well-known early learning set induction Erickson & Rossi,
1979). A close reading of the induction reveals an indicative level howa child
learns to write the alphabet), and an injunctive level Erickson's implied instructions
about hypnosis directed to the patient). Table 6.1 illustrates this.
The reader should note that in Table 6.1, the message sent is not necessarily the
message received. In¯uence communication should be judged by the response it
elicits, not by the cleverness of its structure. In his inductions, Erickson worked to
develop responses to injunction. If the patient did not respond to his alembicated
methods, he would modify his technique to promote that responsiveness.
Let's consider the covert messages contained in the early learning set induction
to which the recipient could respond. The overall injunction, `Go into a trance!' is
presented nonverbally. Erickson offered this injunction by changing the locus and
tone of his voice. When speaking to the ¯oor in a `hypnotic' style, Erickson
indicated, `The time for trance is now!' The allusion to the dif®culty in learning to
write is a parallel communication in which the patient could associate the dif®culty
of learning to write with perceived dif®culty in achieving trance. At one time,
learning to write was dif®cult; now it is second nature. In parallel, the same can be
true of trance.
Questioning whether the child dotted the `t' or crossed the `i' can confuse the
patient. Confusion is part of every hypnosis induction Haley, 1963), and is used to
depotentiate conscious sets Erickson & Rossi, 1979).
When Erickson queried, `Howmany bumps are there in an ``n'' and an ``m''?' he