It is significant that neither the "
Salpêtrière School" (a.k.a. the "Paris School"), or "Hysteria School", nor the "
Nancy School", or "Suggestion School", as they are widely known, were "
Schools" in the classical sense; neither, for instance, had an undisputed "master". However, as Mathieu Touzeil-Divina (2024a) observes, whilst the members of each group displayed as many differences of approach between themselves as points of agreement (that is, apart from the Nancy School's agreed-upon views on hypnotism and suggestion, and their opposition to the views of Charcot and the Salpêtrière School), it is still useful to speak of the two groups as competing "schools of thought", on the basis that the members of each group shared entirely different geographic, thematic, and chronological linkages from those that were shared by the members of the other group; and, also, all the research and experimentation of each was conducted entirely independent of the other. Peter (2024, p. 6) draws attention to the fact that, despite all of the subject-centred research conducted by a wide range of researchers with a wide range of theoretical orientations and disciplinary allegiances in the last 150 years into "[what] has always been regarded as a hallmark of hypnosis" namely, "a non-judgemental, involuntary acceptance of suggestions", which, "[when] seen as a negative characteristic" is "a loss of control" the question of "whether such a suggestive-hypnotically induced loss of control is also possible in normal everyday life, [and] whether the hypnotized person is then helplessly at the mercy of the hypnotist" has never been unequivocally settled.
"Hypnotism" and "hypnosis" There is no objective evidence of any kind that the various allusions made by either of the Schools to "somnambulism", "artificial somnambulism", "hypnotism", or "hypnosis" were, in fact, speaking of the same psychological circumstances and physiological arrangements; and, so, the two may well have been "
talking past each other", rather than engaging in an actual dispute.
Imagination At the time of their (1784) inquiries, the two
Royal Commissions on Animal Magnetism one was from the
Paris Faculty of Medicine) and the
French Royal Academy of Sciences (i.e., Bailly, 1784a; 1800; 1784b), and the other from the
Royal Society of Medicine of Paris (i.e., Poissonnier, et al., 1784) independently and emphatically concluded from their
controlled trials and
"blind" experiments that the (metaphysical) claims made by Mesmer's former associate,
Charles d’Eslon, for the substantial existence of "animal magnetism" (
le magnétisme animal) and of a substantial (rather than metaphorical) "magnetic fluid" (
le fluide magnétique) were nothing more than a case (as Mesmer himself had argued) of the inappropriate
reification of metaphor (i.e,
Alfred Whitehead's "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"), and were, therefore, entirely without foundation.
Dominant ideas Anticipating the (c.1820) work of
Thomas Brown, the Chair of Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh University,
James Braid's teacher, in relation to the suggestive influence of "dominant ideas", and the work of Braid himself, in relation to the "mono-ideo-dynamic principle of action" concept (Braid, 1855) that he had developed from the work of his associates
William Benjamin Carpenter, and
Daniel Noble, both of the (1784) investigatory committees concluded that having excluded any potential influence from either
contact, or
imitation all of the observed phenomena could be attributed to the psycho-physiological agency of
imagination.
Suggestion It is significant that, a century later, and despite their significant differences in relation to "hypnotism", "hypnosis" etc. (see below), both Charcot (Salpêtrière School) and Bernheim (Nancy School) were united in their overall interest in "suggestion".
"Miracles" Both Schools were entirely convinced that the so-called "miracles" i.e., "
counter-intuitive events" attributed to "
counterintuitive agents" (Pyysiäinen, 2002) reported to have taken place at
Lourdes were entirely attributable to each individual pilgrim's "imagination" (see Charcot, 1892; and Bernheim, 1889, pp. 196-202); and, as well, as Charcot noted (1893, p.31), "the faith-cure demands special subjects and special complaints — those, namely, which are amenable to the influence of the mind over the body". In a similar vein, Beaunis, of the Nancy School, replicated the earlier work of Prof. Henri Bourru (1840-1914) and M. Prosper Ferdinand Burot (1849-1921) of the , in producing "
stigmata"
per medium of "suggestion" (Liégeois 1889a, pp. 294-299).
"Hysteria School of Hypnosis" at the Salpêtrière, Paris (fl.1878–1893) produced by a tuning fork's sound (
Iconography of the Salpêtrière). (1891) diagram of his "
hypnogenetic zones" (subject's left side) and "
hypno-arresting zones" (subject's right side) ::"At the very outset my studies dealt with hysterical women, and ever since I have always employed hysterical subjects. ... [and] I have chosen rather to deal almost always with the female sex, because females are more sensitive and more manageable than males in the hypnotic state." Jean-Martin Charcot (January 1890). ::"[Unlike Liébeault and Bernheim] Charcot never personally hypnotized any subject. The younger physicians worked with the subjects, and Charcot used them as demonstration subjects after they had learned what was expected of them and had seen other subjects perform. They were unwittingly trained by the physicians and by each other." Frank Pattie (1967). ::"One point that to me appears to be established by incontestable observations, is that the persons, whether men or women, who are susceptible of hypnotization, are nervous creatures, capable of becoming hysterical, if not actually hysterical at the beginning of the experiments. ... The training of the subjects is no easy thing and takes time; and besides, fit subjects are by no means so plentiful as some authors would have us believe." Jean-Martin Charcot (April 1890). The "
Hysteria School", or "Salpêtrière School", was centred on the theories and practices of
Jean-Martin Charcot, a neurologist at the
Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris. The procedures were used upon a very small, limited number of the female "hysteria" inpatients of the
Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital i.e., as "
hysteria" was understood at the time. Members of the school held given that its experimental subjects were all "hysteria" patients, perhaps
mistaking correlation for causation that "hypnosis" was an
artificially produced pathological state similar to
hysteria. From this, they also argued that, given the pathological nature of the hypnotic state, only medical/neurological professionals had the expertise required to avoid the potential dangers of its application: viz., that of "violently unleashing pathological states in persons of labile disposition" (Mayer, 2013, p. 104). The means of induction employed by Charcot's assistants included those derived from
Braid's upwards and inwards squint, as well as wide range of auditory and tactile stimuli: ::"[In relation to the means of hypnotization] Charcot's school at La Salpetiere has modified the Braid method, by placing pieces of glass close to the bridge of the nose, by which procedure the convergency of the eyes is increased and sleep comes more rapidly. A blow on a gong or a pressure on some "hypnogenic or hysterogenic" zone such as an ovary, the top of the head, etc. (see:
The "zones" of Albert Pitres) or the app[r]oaching of a magnet will act on hysterical women." (1887).
"Suggestion School of Hypnosis" at Nancy (fl.1864—1907) Inspired by the theories and practices of the
Nancy physician and medical hypnotist,
Ambroise-Auguste Liébeault (1823–1904), who had already been independently working with hypnotism and "suggestion" for twenty-five years delivering his hypnotic treatments to all and sundry free of charge and united by their opposition to the "hysteria", views of Charcot and his followers at the Salpêtrière, those in the "Suggestion School" collectively held that (i) "hypnosis" was a state similar to
sleep, (ii) it was not a diagnostic feature of "hysteria", (iii) it was produced by
suggestion, (iv) that the capacity to be "hypnotized" was a normal, natural (and non-pathogenic) ability shared by all, and (v) that the well-attested efficacy of "suggestion", on its own, was significantly enhanced by "hypnotism". ::"The hypnotic condition is not an abnormal one, it does not create new functions nor extraordinary phenomena; it develops those which are produced in the waking condition; because of a new psychical modality, it exaggerates the normal susceptibility to suggestion, which we all possess to some extent; our psychical condition is modified so as to carry out the images and impressions evoked with greater boldness and distinctness." Hippolyte Bernheim (1888). ::"Hypnotism, like natural sleep, exalts the imagination, and makes the brain more susceptible to suggestion. ... It is a physiological law, that sleep puts the brain into such a psychical condition that the imagination accepts and recognizes as real the impressions transmitted to it.
To provoke this special psychical condition by means of hypnotism, and to cultivate the suggestibility thus artificially increased with the aim of cure or relief, this is the role of psychotherapeutics." Hippolyte Bernheim (1888, emphasis in original). Of the foundation members of "Suggestion School" Prof. Jules Liégeois (faculty of Law), Prof.
Hippolyte Bernheim (1840–1919) (faculty of Medicine), and Prof.
Henri-Étienne Beaunis (1830–1921) (chair of Physiology), from the University of Nancy the first to associate himself with the experiments, principles, and practices of Liébeault was the legal expert, Liégeois, "who had learned of Liébeault's practices by chance, and whose scientific curiosity had led him there", then, somewhat later, came the (initially sceptical)
neurologist and physician, Bernheim, who had also learned of Liébeault's practices by chance, In addition to their extensive personal experience of the successful hypnotization of a wide range of subjects in a wide range of circumstances, and their practical and theoretical studies of the phenomena of hypnotism and hypnotic suggestion in general, the members of the Nancy School also investigated the medical and legal aspects of their application: with Berheim concentrating on their therapeutic aspects, Liégeois on their (civil and criminal) legal aspects, and Beaunis on their physiological and psychological aspects. ==Liégeois, hypnotism and suggestion==