Thoughts on the Differences Between Stage Hypnosis and One-On-One Hypnosis

I was confused about the seemingly extreme differences between stage hypnotism & the non-stage variety.

My experience with hypnotism (doing it unto others & being done to) is that it's a gradual process of mental focus & physical relaxation. All the material I've read goes further to suggest that (and this has been my experience) as someone gets further into trance you have to speak more slowly, and with vocal tonality for emphasis. Some sources suggest that you should approach a trance state yourself as you hypnotise someone.

Stage hypnotists (the one I recently saw on TV, anyway) seem to work in a totally contrary way. I understand that the subject's expectations will accelerate the trance induction, but I was amazed to see how far & fast it goes. He seemed to be able to issue commands to someone in an somnambulistic state using a very rapid, monotone voice. Moreover, the 'fun' of the performance was in getting these subjects to do things that are completely opposite to the nature of the individual, and their amnesia to it afterwards.

To which I replied:

As a guy who does stage hypnosis in front of audiences, stage hypnosis on tape for later viewing, hypnosis in front of small groups of people, and hypnosis one on one, all for the purposes of entertainment, I think that I am in a, if not unique, at least uncommon position to help you explore some of your questions.

When I do my stage hypnosis in front of an audience, I start my show by talking about stage hypnosis. Before I started doing stage shows, I sat down and did a lot of thinking about the nature of a stage show, who goes to them, what they're getting out of it, what social mechanisms tend to be present and so on and so forth. Because I wanted my show to be different, and more in line with my personality and style, as opposed to rehashing what others are doing (I like what other's are doing, by the way, so I'm not criticizing, but I am analyzing), I felt this was important.

I came to the conclusion that there are going to be four types of people at a stage show. First, there are people who are in to hypnosis it's self. That is to say, other hypnotists and hypnotists to be. It only makes sense that hypnotists would be interested in seeing the techniques of other hypnotists. Second, you're going to have support staff. These are the people who are working hard to keep the environment where the show is running operational. This includes stage hands, waiters or waitresses if it's in a setting that requires them, stage managers, ticket takers, security, what have you. Sometimes they're involved, sometimes not. Sometimes they are there to do a job and are invisible. Sometimes they get to have a few minutes to have fun too, you never know. Third, you have people who have come out to be hypnotized and fourth, you have people who have come out to see other people get hypnotized. (In my shows, I make no distinction between the third and fourth group by the way.)

Why is it important to consider those four categories? Mainly, I find it helpful to use those categories to determine who is your audience under what circumstances.

If you have a stage show that is oriented around the idea of "the metaphysical power of control" of the hypnotist, then you're probably going to have an environment where the one hypnotist is special and others are ignored. The support crew tends to be invisible. Those who are there to be hypnotized are going to be turned in to puppets, and those there to watch are going to be in awe. Keep in mind, this description is what I think of as the extreme archetype of this type of performance, the actual style of the individual hypnotist and the circumstances can vary a great deal. A lot of mass media demonstrations fall in to this category.

If you have a stage show that is oriented around the interesting and quirky and fun nature of hypnosis, oriented around the idea of "the hypnotist has a skill that brings out the unusual," then you're going to have an environment where the hypnotist is the center of attention, but may or may not acknowledge the presence of other hypnotists (since the hypnotist is not representing him or herself as some sort of vaguely supernatural special entity, but more as a member of a select group of artisans, the presence of others does nothing to detract, and may in fact lend additional credibility, in the sense that skilled artisans that respect the work of other skilled artisans serve as an endorsement). The support staff may or may not be invisible. Those who are there to be hypnotized are asked to come up on stage and are taken to some extremes, but generally in a gentle manner. Those who have come out to watch are for the most part left to enjoy the show. A lot of small to large event hypnotists fall in to this category. My friend David Fonteneau with his Hooters and Fantasm shows and Jim Szeles with his College and Fair shows are good examples of this category (in my opinion).

If you have a stage show that is loosely oriented around the idea that we're not precisely sure what this hypnosis stuff is, but that the hypnotist will share with you what he's figured out so far, and will serve as a guide to a group exploration of these phenomena with as much structure as is necessary, but with as much flexibility to adapt to the individual characteristics of the audience as both a whole and as a group of individuals, then you have my personal style of stage hypnosis. The presence of other hypnotist is noticed, announced, and a microphone is handed over so that they can say a few words. The support staff has attention brought to them at every opportunity, and credit is given where it is due. If it doesn't interfere with their duties, participation is encouraged. People who are there to get hypnotized are welcome as are people who are there to watch. However, at the same time, all ideas, pre-decided notions, plans and conceptions are explored, revealed and challenged. The use of hypnosis to make people "do" things isn't so much stressed, as the experiential and perceptual aspect of being in a hypnosis environment is explored. My stage shows fit in to this category, reluctantly as I like to stay as flexible as possible. Many informal hypnosis demonstrations at a small scale can fit in to this category (but then again, the same is true for the other two categories).

So does this really address any of the "extreme differences between stage hypnosis and the non stage variety?" Well, maybe yes, maybe no.

For the most part, these three archetypes establish a range of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and environments that will shape and color the hypnotism experience. Or, as I like to say in Leary-speak, the set and setting of the hypnotist and the set and setting of the audience. With stage hypnotism, the hypnotist needs to make a connection with the audience in context with the environment to create an entertaining show. There are many ways of doing this from the spectacular to the down to earth, from the grandstanding to the subtle, from the external behavior of people to the internal behavior of people...

At this point, I'd also like to point out that there are FCC regulations governing how much hypnosis can be demonstrated on television and radio. Generally speaking full hypnotic inductions are forbidden, as statistically you'll have a percentage of the audience caught along with it. I don't exactly see this as a bad thing, as televisions and to a lesser extent radios are devices that are primarily used to induce a state of suggestibility for the purpose of circumventing rational thought... but the point is moot. That's why I like being able to do what I do with my websites on the Internet, because people get to actually see the entire process. This regulation, combined with the fact that in the world of programming like America's most blank, and Outrageous Stunt Number X, mean that for anything to make it to television it must be over the top, in our mass media and our culture, there doesn't seem to be room for anything moderate any more.

You also need to understand that in a stage show environment, half the people who show up are already in a trance. Expectation combined with autohypnosis is a very potent combination. Furthermore, people generally are expecting the context of the experience to lend it's self to more "extreme" behavior, along with responsibility transference mechanisms, peer pressure, and the shifting of acceptability norms based on environment, tend to modify what governs the hidden observer's evaluation of "am I doing something I normally wouldn't do?"

Now when you consider the quintessential small audience, one hypnotist and one subject, the experience, techniques, satisfaction, etc. of the session is determined by the hypnotist and the subject. Since there isn't an audience, a lot of the stuff that plays to an audience is not necessary. (In fact, this one sentence probably could stand on it's own to answer the question about why there seems to be an extreme difference between stage hypnotism and the non stage variety.)

I do believe that frequently the hypnotist will achieve a state of mind that may be a full on trance, or could merely be trance like in nature. This is a good example of rapport. In a stage environment, this may or may not happen, it really depends. Remember, one on one, the hypnotist only needs to be focused on the response of the subject. In a stage environment, a hypnotist needs to establish a degree of rapport with as many people (ideally all) that are present as possible.... unless...

Unless the hypnotist adopts more of a broadcast style of hypnosis. You see, in doing hypnosis, you can take two approaches. One approach is broadcast. That's where you just do your thing and let statistics and environment run it's course. A bored grad student reading a hypnosis script for the first time in a room full of 300 psych 101 students is going to statistically get a couple in to a trance. Where as the other approach is empathic, where you focus on the subject, and try to relate with them in a state of rapport, and try and plug in to what they're feeling and so on. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, both approaches have their time and place. A skilled hypnotist makes use of both as necessary.