When we talk about hypnosis or hypnotherapy, we often hear the terms subconscious mind or unconscious mind. It’s become clear to me that there is some degree of confusion over the meaning of the terms, and the difference between the two.

It bears clarifying where the terms came from and how and why the terminology has evolved from the Freudian term subconscious mind which society naturally adopted, to the more indicative term unconscious mind.

In actual fact, in the context of hypnosis, the two terms refer to precisely the same thing, it’s just a matter of which term more appropriately describes the state of being. I am of the opinion that unconscious is the more appropriate choice of word.

Some feel more strongly about it than me. I remember a couple of years ago attending a seminar on hypnosis by my friend who is a very well known hypnotist. Not long after his introduction speech he told the audience of assembled hypnotherapists “If I hear anyone refer to the unconscious mind as the subconscious mind then I will throw them out of this room”. Of course it was said with a little humour, but his point was clearly made.

I can totally understand the public’s use of the word subconscious as the Freudian term was readily adopted by society when the concept of unacknowledged mental activity was discovered. Traditional therapists have historically used the word subconscious, which in my opinion, implies a place that is somehow lessened or belittled, and undermines the power of the unconscious mind. The prefix ‘sub” suggests something that is somehow beneath par. On the other hand, the term unconscious spells out clearly that it is in fact a part of the mind that is active without our being aware of it.

Outside of the context of hypnosis, people most commonly associate the word unconscious with the state of having completely lost consciousness, or being quite literally knocked out. This is in essence the state of being unaware. By this logic, making reference to the unconscious mind quite appropriately describes the portion of our mind of which we are unaware.

The theory that we only utilize a small part of our brain is misleading in that, we are certainly only consciously aware of what 10% of our brain is doing at any given moment, but the other 90% is certainly active, we are simply not conscious of it. So when you next hear someone say “we only use 10% of our brains”, challenge them. It’s simply not true!

Anyway, back to the point. To me, the term unconscious is more complimentary, and more effectively defines the power of this part of our mind that we aren’t consciously attentive to. To call it subconscious is to suggest that it has less significance or that it doesn’t serve us to an equivalent degree as does our conscious mind. In reality, there is cause to speculate that out unconscious mind may in fact hold greater power than that which we are aware of in our conscious state.

The whole idea of eye fixation has some merit. It’s true that concentration and focus are key ingredients in achieving hypnosis. And eye fixation was in fact used commonly, decades ago, in inducing hypnosis. The desired state of a hypnotic subject is to have them completely relaxed, eyes closed, so that their focus is internal, rather than external. To really shut out the external channels, you need to eliminate your visual sense temporarily, your external visual sense that is. Eliminate what you see on the outside, so that you can focus on what you see inside your own psyche. So that means having your eyes closed. Eye fixation achieves this. It helps someone’s eyes to become tired, and eventually close. A hypnotist might ask a client to focus on any specific object or point in the room. Obviously something above eye level will tire the eyes more quickly, and that’s the whole point of using eye fixation.

Some clients expect that I will ask them to look straight into my eyes during an induction, or that I will produce some sort of visual tool like a swinging watch to induce hypnosis and begin their therapy session. I personally do not usually employ this method of induction. The theory that there needs to be complete visual focus in order to achieve hypnosis is essentially false. It doesn’t get you there any faster nor does it induce a deeper state of trance. In the event a client expects to be subjected to that visual focus, or believes it will help in some way, I do carry around something in my briefcase, which I have in fact used once or twice.

The image of the swinging watch is a visual reference that most people readily associate with hypnotic induction. It’s a pop culture classic, really. That’s because it’s been frequently used in television and movies, and for many people who’ve never experienced hypnosis or self-hypnosis, they know only what they’ve seen or been exposed to. Watching an induction on television would be rather boring if it didn’t have some sort of visual element for the audience to witness and capture. Watching someone lying silently on a sofa with their eyes closed is not nearly as engaging as the image of the swinging watch. A viewer almost feels like he is part of the experience too. There have been many variations represented as well, it’s not always a watch or pendulum, but all have the same basic premise, which is that eye fixation is the route to achieving that hypnotic state. In the movies it’s always done in such a way that it suggests an element of strangeness, or mystery, almost fear.

I personally believe that there is a strong connection between the eyes and the brain. But I don’t think eye fixation is necessary to induce hypnosis. In fact I know that it is not. I’ve induced hundreds of clients to various levels of hypnotic depth without the use of any visual concentration off the top. None of our recordings dictate any kind of eye fixation, either. It’s a method that hasn’t been used in years. In fact, rather than advancing the hypnotic state, it actually takes longer to achieve it when you use eye fixation because you are starting with the eyes open. Most current methods of induction simply require that the client start by closing their eyes. This essentially bypasses that whole stage, the whole process of getting the eyes to shut. We skip right over that and go straight to vocal induction with eyes already closed, thereby achieving hypnosis much more quickly and deeply.

There are many different methods of induction. Verbal induction can sometimes include what I call the internal external experience, to help with hypnosis. This is where I might suggest to my client during induction that he should concentrate on how the palm of his hand feels, for example, as he listens to my voice. No matter the approach, the common practice in inducing hypnosis is progressive relaxation. The more relaxed your subject becomes, the deeper the hypnotic state they will achieve. And progressive relaxation can be achieved in different ways, including with the use of eye fixation.

When someone asks me about eye fixation or the swinging pendulum, I just tell them what I truly believe: that it’s an old fashioned approach, and that it takes time, and has no benefit in terms of improving the outcome. It may have been thought to be necessary at one time, but it isn’t so in modern times, and can be bypassed in favor of a simpler and more rapid execution. There is absolutely no benefit to the results in using eye fixation, nor is there any compromise in not using it.

When you see a hypnotist portrayed in a movie, the script was presumably not written by a professional hypnotist, but rather by a writer who is calling upon his own interpretation of hypnosis. Presumably, that interpretation has been fed over the years by misconception. The product of his script continues to perpetuate that misconception. And so on it goes. It becomes a self propelling cycle of misinformation.

As for the media, we can’t really expect to see or read stories about the successes of clinical hypnotherapy. There’s no media value to such a story. It isn’t sensational and it doesn’t merit a space in the newscast. We already know that media is fundamentally a business, and that producers have a mandate to achieve a certain readership level, and therefore choose their features based on what they know will get ratings. They have to be selective about the angle they choose to feature. This is true of any news story or subject, and hypnosis is no exception. It’s an unfortunate reality in society that we feed on bad news and negativity, and drama. So what you see in the media is the sensationalism, and the burden of reporting factually on clinical hypnotherapy is left to those of us who know the difference, because everyone else is happy to believe what they hear.

We’ve come a long way, no doubt about it. But the dated impressions certainly continue to prevail. While both stage hypnosis and clinical hypnosis continue to build in popularity, clinical hypnosis does not elicit the same kind of mainstream media attention as stage hypnosis does. Entire campaigns are conceived to promote the theatrical effects of stage hypnosis. That’s the purpose, to entertain.

But clinical hypnotherapy doesn’t elicit that kind of attention because it’s not at all newsworthy, or dramatic, or sensational. It isn’t intended to awe an audience. Therefore it fades in the background and fails to make its essence understood, except to those who make an effort to find out.

The ongoing lack of awareness, lack of knowledge, or education on the subject is often evident in my therapy sessions. I usually investigate my client’s starting point before I proceed with their therapy. I like to assess their interpretations when they come to me, to identify what their expectations or fears may be. That way I know exactly where I have to start from, how many myths I have to dispel, how much foundation work I have to do before we can really proceed with therapy.