One year after those two sessions, three years after the first hypnosis, she came in for one session to process a trigger event: a man accidentally had barged into her changing room in a clothing store. She did not freeze but rather reprimanded the man, though she was shaken, and exited the store quickly. She used the hypnosis session again for strengthening and affirming her previous work and the action she took in the store.
In both these follow-up events we used the familiar protocol of eye fixation induction, affirming her sense of control over her own bodily and emotional responses, affirming her read of the triggers and situations, and visiting of safe place coupled with future projections of successful management of self and situations. Finally, in our last meeting a few months after that session, the patient sought a nonhypnosis consultation for a new surprising event: she had “met a man.
” While she felt some apprehension and could acknowledge information and developmental gaps in pursuing a relationship, the flavor of terror was absent, replaced by what appeared to be both predictable nervousness and excitement at this new dimension of life for her. In the few, spread-out sessions subsequent to the initial hypnosis work the patient met solely with me since she had successfully terminated her other therapy, and she reported feeling strong enough to proceed on her own. Theoretical Support and Propositions
This case may be understood within at least three theoretical domains involving brain and affective science studies for trauma and its register, thus presenting both a foundation and map for future research. First, that the right hemisphere is central-specifically the right parieto-temporal associative area-in altering consciousness as in hypnosis (Tassi & Muzet, 2001, p. 186) and in accommodating trauma as noted above, suggests an affinity between these phenomena by virtue of their locus in brain (see Rainville, et al. , 1999 for a comprehensive view).
Beyond such speculation, however, some research has elaborated the collaboration between higher right brain regions and more fundamental ones. Hariri, Bookheimer, and Mazziotta (2000), for example, suggest a neural network exists for this collaboration, and while modulating mechanisms may be impaired in emotional disorders they also “may provide the basis for therapies to these same disorders” (p. 48). Second, research has supported the right hemisphere’s role in accommodating and recording stark events like trauma and its connection with the limbic system in this regard (Joseph, 1982; Nadel & Moscovitch, 1997; Tranel & Hyman, 1990).
Specifically, certain perceptual memories such as those incurred during trauma leave long-term residues or traces (Christianson, S. A. , 1992; James, 1890; Janet, 1904; Pillemer, 1998; Terr, 1990; van der Hart & Horst, 1989; van der Kolk & van der Hart, 1991). Further, Damasio (1994) alleges that “dispositional representations” form during powerful events like trauma (p. 102) and, in state-dependent fashion, may be activated later by triggers or cues to the trauma. While Damasio (1994, 1999) nowhere expounds specifically about abuse trauma, the relevance of his findings appears clear.