Advancing Psychotherapy
Excerpt from Jeffrey Zeig’s New Title
Written by Jeffrey Zeig
Introduction
I am blessed to have had personal contact with masters whose work immeasurably advanced psychotherapy in both the latter part of the 20th century and in this century. These notables include Aaron Beck, Albert Ellis, Milton Erickson, Viktor Frankl, Bob and Mary Goulding, Jay Haley, Cloé Madanes, Erv Polster, Carl Rogers, Virginia Satir, Paul Watzlawick, John Weakland, Carl Whitaker, and Irving Yalom. I learned from each one, but none inflluenced me as much as Erickson, with whom I studied intermittently from 1973 to 1980. Erickson was not only an impressive teacher, but he was the most impressive human being I had ever met. Much of my professional life has been promoting and advancing Erickson’s contributions and legacy. This book is a continuation of that effort.
Hypnosis was central to Erickson. It is not hyperbole to suggest that Erickson began the modern practice of hypnosis. He is certainly one of history’s most important contributors in the fields of hypnosis and psychotherapy.
I have written extensively about Erickson and his therapy (Zeig, 1980, 1985, 2000, 2014, 2018, 2019). I am currently writing biographical books about him. (Zeig, 2022.)
In my book, Experiencing Erickson (Zeig, 1985), I write about Erickson’s method of teaching me. Interested readers can observe similarities in how Erickson taught Haley and Weakland. Annotating Erickson’s work has become a central part of my professional contribution. I deconstruct Erickson’s methods and illustrate his dynamic processes. I have done this in other books and with videos of Erickson. (See erickson-foundation.org for examples.)
When I first visited Milton Erickson in 1973, I had a list of questions about hypnosis. But I soon discovered that Erickson devoted more effort to promoting personal development than he did bolstering one’s knowledge. He was essentially a “people builder,” and I left his offices a better person. I believe Jay Haley and John Weakland did too after they met Erickson in 1955. The transcript of their time together is the centerpiece of this book. And perhaps it can serve as inspiration.
The Transcript
Jay Haley and John Weakland met with Milton Erickson to discuss matters of professional concern. Their discussions with Erickson were transcribed and they comprise the bulk of this book. I have added annotations. Although the transcript was never intended to become a book, it is a treasure trove of practical information with historical relevance. It is record of a pivotal moment in the history of psychotherapy. From it, Haley and Weakland became important figures in the development of psychotherapy. It is also an engaging and informative read. It deserves a place in the literature because it will help students of psychotherapy learn about psychotherapy through interesting cases. They will also learn hypnotic processes, which are demonstrated in the transcript, and be exposed to Erickson’s teaching style and his process of developing ideas and promoting personal growth.
Haley (1985) explained the purpose of his and Weakland’s meetings with Erickson:
These conversations were the product of Gregory Bateson’s research project on communication.... The conversations with Erickson were primarily about the nature of therapy, about hypnosis, and about ways of describing human interaction, because the project focused on those topics. Bateson had introduced the cybernetic perspective of the self-correcting system into the field of psychology and psychiatry after attending the Macy Foundation meetings on that subject in the 1940s. By the mid-1950s, our research project was attempting to explain schizophrenia as a product of a family system, and we were beginning to do therapy with entire families. We were also explaining the kinds of symptomatic behavior as systemic responses to intimates, partly as a result of observations in our private practices.... (Haley, 1985, pp. viii)
In these conversations, it seems obvious that Erickson had to be patient with our obtuseness, as we had difficutly in understanding some of his premises. Many readers today will find a similar difficulty with Erickson’s ideas. In the 1950s, he was particularly difficult to understand because the therapy at that time was primarily oriented toward the development of insight and uncovering of psychodynamics. The therapist was expected to be only an explorer with a patient of the ideas behind, and their roots and childhood….
Another problem for John Weakland and I at the time was the fact that we were developing the theory that symptoms were functional in a family system. We were concerned with elaborating the homeostatic idea that people governed each other’s behavior by the responses to one another. Inevitably, this view suggests that a family member reacts against, or must adapt to, a change in another family member. (p. x)
Although they came as colleagues to discuss potential areas of mutual interest—primarily patterns of communication—to Erickson, Haley and Weakland were students. Subsequently, the two men made yearly visits and when they both became psychotherapists, they sought Erickson’s advice with patients.
Erickson was radically different from his contemporaries, both as a clinican and as a teacher. Traditionally, and especially in the 1950s, therapists were trained to be non-directive listeners who delved into a patient’s history wanting to understand the root causes of presenting problems. Psychotherapy evolved from philosophy, and at the time, psychological theories attempted to illuminate the human condition. But Erickson did not develop an overt theory about the human condition. He was more of a tour guide in the patient’s life, prompting change and adaptivity, exploring possibilities rather than causes.
A few portions of the transcript in this book appear in Jay Haley’s three-volume collection, Conversations with Milton H. Erickson, M.D. (Haley, 1985 a. b. & c.). In the collection, Haley extracts and groups Erickson’s cases to illustrate Erickson’s approach to clinical conditions. Haley does not add commentary.
You may like…
