The perspective of a teacher and clinician: the 2003 APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis.

Much appreciation is due to Green, Barabasz, Barrett and Montgomery (2005) for the collegial and inviting spirit of their article introducing the 2003 APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis. Their title, “Forging ahead,” is exactly right if we are to craft from our still diverse understandings of hypnosis a working definition to guide further dialogue. They suggest we treat this definition as a living document. They throw down the gauntlet and invite all of us, as members of professional hypnosis organizations, to pick it up. The committee that produced this new definition also deserves thanks and respect. They have stayed the course and held up the mirror to the professional hypnosis community, asking that we look at what we, collectively, are able and willing to say. The fact that the definition cannot say more, and say it with strength and clarity, reflects more on the state of our theories and our discourse than on the committee. The definition takes one step toward its goal of theoretical neutrality. However, it continues a confusion between what Weitzenhoffer (2002) calls “hypnosis” and “hypnotism”—it describes hypnotism and calls this a definition of hypnosis. It is thus vulnerable to the same criticism that Spiegel (1994) offered in response to the 1993 definition – it lacks a definition. Most importantly, it fails in its stated goal of being “user friendly” for clinicians and the lay public (Green et al., 2005, p. 261). Each of these criticisms is discussed in turn.