1. Sandtray Hypnosis©
Julie H. Linden, Ph.D.
A form of this paper was presented in Rome for ESH Sept. 2002
Hypnosis and The Other Therapeutic Modalities in The New Millennium
Abstract:
The author presents a new useful hypnotic technique called Sandtray Hypnosis which
combines hypnosis with a well known treatment modality called sandtray.
The parallels between these two therapeutic modalities are reviewed. Hypnosis and
sandtray utilize the imagination and creativity of the client as well as foster the
dissociation often vital to dealing with difficult clinical material. The theoretical
foundation of sandplay, its alliance with hypnosis, and the combined technique of
sandtray hypnosis will be explained and exemplified in several case examples.
On images
The study and interest in images, also referred to as visualization, or guided imagery, has
grown exponentially in the last two decades. A cursory search on the internet revealed
124,000 sites for guided imagery. Spurred by the study of the eastern meditative
traditions, the trauma literature of recurrent and intrusive images, the improvement of
health, creativity and performance, right/left brain study, as well as the hypnotic
contributions to guided imagery, there are few in the helping fields who discount the
significance of utilizing images, whether iatrogenic (coming from the patient) or
introduced (suggested by the therapist), in the treatment of individuals. Images are
necessary and effective in both our internal communication (how we think) and our
external communication (how we relate). While hypnosis stands apart from guided
imagery in that it does not depend on images alone, but can use simple thoughts and
suggestions to achieve its goals (Naparstek, 2000), the third most commonly used
hypnotic induction is guided imagery.
The road to Sandtray
The absorption with hypnosis and images is what inevitably led me from the single case
individual’s experience to the universality of experience and images. One cannot use
hypnosis and imagery for years with hundreds of patients, without noticing similarities,
and patterns in the unconscious, and, like Jung, I was led to the study of symbols and
archetypes (Kalsched, 1996). It is this associative route combined with my clinical
experience of play therapy with children that created interest in sandtray theory. In many
activities of play therapy, internal images (both conscious and unconscious) are
concretized with objects, toys, drawings, and drama. In children’s play therapy, when
given a choice about play, children usually drift towards play with concrete objects which
permit “picture telling”, i.e. non verbal communication of their internal stories, feelings,
1

2. affect and problems through the use of toys and concrete objects. Sandtray is a unique
form of therapeutic play which uses concrete objects placed in a sand box of particular
dimensions. The inclusion of sand is thought to connect one to the “primordial elements”
(Mitchell & Freidman, 1994, p.53) and research has confirmed its importance
therapeutically (ibid, p. 68-69.) The objects chosen and their placement by children,
hypothetically representing internal images, reminded me of the power of spontaneously
produced hypnotic imagery I encountered in deep psychotherapy work with traumatized
adults. I wondered how to adapt this experiential form of treatment with children,
sandtray, into a form that would be more palatable for adults. While sandtray is used
increasingly with adults, couples, families and groups, it was honed on children. I
wondered if it could be made available to adults in “imaginative” form. I was attracted to
the metaconstruct of taking an image of a concrete object, placing it in an imagined
sandtray and combining it with hypnosis to achieve similar results of affect expression,
affect containment and resolution of symptoms that I had observed in children during
play with concrete objects and sandplay. I shall review briefly the origins of the sandtray
technique.
Origins of Sandtray
After World War I, when psychology received its first stupendous growth spurt from the
psychoanalytic group of Freud and his followers, the importance of child development,
child psychoanalysis and treatment of children were studied by such notable women, as
Anna Freud (1926-27), Melanie Klein (1984), Maria Montessori (1965)and Margaret
Lowenfeld (1935). Each of these women made contributions to the importance of the
play of children and its healing potential. Melanie Klein first introduced the use of toys in
treatment of children, while Lowenfeld was a leader in developing and studying a
technique which utilized sand called “The World Technique” (Lowenfeld, 1979). The
literature from such leaders in child therapy and development as Piaget (1951), M. Klein
(1984), Slavson (1947) and Eric Erikson (1950) note the importance of different natural
mediums, water, sand, clay, which stimulate kinesthetic and sensory development in
children.
Sand play was first mentioned in the counseling literature by Margaret Lowenfeld, a
British pediatrician, in 1939 (Allen & Berry, 1993). It was brought to the USA by
Charlotte Buhler in the 50’s (Allan and Berry, 1993) but mostly for assessment and
research purposes (Mitchell & Friedman, 1994). The real expansion of the technique is
credited to Dora Kalff (1980), a Swiss Jungian analyst, who developed the theory of
therapeutic sand play and trained practitioners worldwide. “Kalffian Sandplay may be an
experiential extension of Jungian psychology”, a relative of dream interpretation and
active imagination (Mitchell & Freidman, 1884, p.76). Her work with disturbed children
led her to postulate that a break in the attachment bonding of child to mother weakened
ego functioning in the developing child. Like most analysts at that time there was focus
on drives, instincts and the inner psyche as the source for healing. She believed that this
traumatized internal condition could be externalized in the sand through fantasy play with
concrete objects, and lead to resolution of the trauma by the child’s development of
mastery and control of impulses. This method of therapeutic play utilized sandplay as the
2

3. process, the sandtray as the medium and the sand world as the product (Allan & Berry,
1993, p.118).
Definition of sandplay
What is sandplay therapy? Sandplay usually refers to Kalff’s technique, while sandtray is
the more generic term for use of miniature objects in a shallow box of sand (Mitchell &
Freidman, 1994). I have used the terms sandtray and sandplay interchangeably except
when capitalizing, which always refers to Kalffian Sandplay. Trays of sand of certain
dimensions are the containers for the concrete objects. Usually the trays are oblong or
round and of a size to create containment and boundaries. Utilized in this technique are
toys and objects from a variety of categories: people, buildings, vehicles, nature, religion,
symbols, a list of possibilities without limit. In sandplay the therapist provides the place
of safety and unconditional acceptance, where the child’s unconscious may unfold in the
drama of the sandtray. Nonverbal play, i.e., action, is preferred by most children. So the
technique of sandplay allows psychological issues to be symbolized at the unconscious
level without interpretation (Hunter, 1998).
For example, the child creates a picture in the sand, a projection of his worries, needs,
defenses, etc. These usually begin as spontaneous trays in which affect, behavior and
cognition are expressed in object format. This may transition to directed trays, suggested
by the therapist. This brief description of sandplay therapy captures only the essence and
is not meant to describe the details of this important therapeutic modality. Fuller
descriptions are provided in two outstanding books on the topic, Sandplay (Mitchell &
Freidman, 1994) and Sandplay Therapy (Boik & Goodwin, 2000). To continue, the
movement of objects, the change in the sand world, correlates with the child’s
unconscious images and outward change.
Parallels of sandtray and hypnosis
This is the juncture where sandtray and hypnosis come together. Hypnosis allows much
work to be done at an unconscious level. Bloom (2002) has noted the usefulness of
hypnosis to achieve change in clients without conscious insight or interpretation. This
characteristic of resolving problems at an unconscious level is one feature shared by
sandplay and hypnosis.
Sandplay therapy has grown beyond the child’s play room and therapists now use it with
adults, couples, families and groups (Boik & Goodwin, 2000) for all kinds of therapeutic
issues. This is another characteristic hypnosis and sandplay therapy share- each technique
is useful across age, groupings, and therapeutic presentations. Absorption in the process
is another shared feature, and as I have mentioned imagery is key to both techniques.
Another element critical to hypnosis and sandplay is the dissociation experienced in both.
(Cardena, 2000; Boik & Goodwin, 2000). The person in trance may dissociate from the
physical surroundings to be attentive to the inner world, or conversely escape out of his
or her body to be relieved of the inner world’s pain (Linden, 2002). The person absorbed
in sandplay dissociates, too, from either the outside world to enter the sandtray that has
3

4. been created, or conversely (and sometimes simultaneously), escapes the inner world by
entering the newly created sandworld where needs are met or impulses allowed.
“The power of the symbol can be seen in Sandplay as well as in dreams, fantasies, myths
and religion” (Ibid, p. 77) and one might add, in hypnosis. Both sandtray work and
hypnosis share this veneration for the image and its healing power.
Sandtray hypnosis technique
So what is sandtray hypnosis? It is, put simply, the combination of the process of
sandplay, applied without the concrete objects and toys, and hypnosis with imagery
utilization, which supplies the objects and symbols through imagery to create the
sandtray world. Instead of using concrete images, the hypnotized individual, an adult or
adolescent, is able to choose any symbol, object, or image he/she creates or is suggested
to him/her internally.
The procedure for the technique
The procedure involves several steps. First, the client is placed in trance. This step may
be done formally or informally, i.e., taking advantage of naturally occurring trance
behavior. Second, the client is asked to imagine a sand tray. (Consistent with permissive
hypnosis, the dimensions of the tray are vague, so as to allow the production of what the
client needs.) The usual verbalization for this is: “Please imagine that you have in front of
you a small tray, it may be rectangular, round or square, about 3 inches deep that is filled
with sand. It is lovely sand. Notice the color of the sand and feel its’ grain. You may want
to take a moment to just let the sand run through your fingers as you feel its’ texture, its’
temperature and sense it through your fingertips.”
Third, the client is asked to choose an object, symbol or image to put in the tray that best
describes the situation or problem. This step requires a formulation on the part of the
therapist, just as in any hypnotic technique or treatment, of what the goal of the
intervention is to be. For example, I have used this technique to reduce distress, to
achieve containment of otherwise overwhelming affect, to explore the meaning of a
feeling or an experience, to both assess and strengthen ego-functioning, and to create
transformative experiences. This first object chosen and its placement, just as in
traditional sandtray, are of particular significance and often are key to the treatment
outcome. The client is invited to place other objects in the tray until an “adequate” (as
defined by the client) portrayal of the problem is achieved. During this step the client is
invited to verbalize aloud what objects they have chosen and where they are located.
This may be frustrating to some therapists who are used to working in sandtray and
seeing the concrete objects chosen from the shelves rather than imagining the inner
psyche’s archetypes of their clients, but I think it is the strength of the technique that it
continues to remind the therapist of the importance of the client’s internal image.
Fourth, the client and therapist “work” with the sandtray picture. During this step, the
client may view the tray from various perspectives, and may briefly enter the tray for an
“emotive check”. Such verbalizations are used as: “Take the time to walk around the
sandtray and view it from each side. Each perspective may provide you with different
4

5. information. Is there anything you want to change about the arrangement of the objects
you have placed in the sandtray? If so, go ahead and make the change.” Or, “In a
moment you may step into the tray as I count to 5 (time is determined by the therapist’s
assessment of what the client is ready to experience) and experience what it feels like to
be inside this picture you have created. One…, Two…Three…Four…Five…Step inside,
notice the feeling, look around. Now step outside. What did you experience, feel and
notice”. For example, to change the feeling or situation to a more acceptable one, a client
would be invited to change the object chosen, add another object or change its placement.
To provide ego strengthening, the client might be invited to stay inside the tray and
luxuriate in a pleasant emotion. The “work” in this step is repeated until a change occurs.
It has been my experience that change is usually rapid in this step.
Fifth, the client observes this new tray and stores it in a “safe place” for later access. This
mental picture storage is the equivalent of taking a photograph of the tray as is done in
therapeutic sandtray work. The sandtray literature reports the image of the actual sandtray
becoming a “transitional object” (Mitchell & Freidman, 1994, p. 80) when it is carried
around in the head of the client. This step may facilitate the integration of new learning.
Sixth, the client is realerted. At this time s/he may chose to discuss the experience, but
interpretation is not done by the therapist. Often there is spontaneous understanding of
material that has previously stymied the client.
Benefits of the technique
I do not utilize this technique with children, since I believe that developmentally they still
require the concreteness of sandtray work, and it may be beyond their developmental
ability to both hold and work with memory in this way (Levine, 2003). However, with
adolescents and adults, it has proven very successful in my clinical work and what
follows is an accounting of its benefits.
There are several advantages to the replacement of concrete objects with an imagined
one. In traditional sand play, the subject is sometimes frustrated by the lack of an object
to represent accurately a feeling or experience being portrayed in the sand world. While a
client may bring objects from home, or even make them in the therapy room, there is
sometimes a disappointment in the outside representation’s mismatch with the internal
representation. For example, what object captures the smell of a rose, or the winds of a
hurricane?
In other instances an internal image can be rich with affect, behavior and cognitions that
cannot be adequately replicated with any miniature object. This is similar to the
frustration experienced by the artist who attempts to translate an internal picture onto
paper and fails to achieve what he/she is after. We are not all Michelangelo’s in the
external world. However, internally we can all be gifted artists, who are not limited by
talent or genetics, nor by just the visual. This is one of the attractions to hypnosis many
therapists share. Sandtray hypnosis encourages the internal artist in all of us, because we
can create the sensory experience needed to resolve problems, strengthen the ego, and
activate the unconscious processes.
5

6. In guided imagery many fine clinicians experience the dilemma (sometimes the
embarrassment) of being caught in their own image rather than that of the client. With
sandtray hypnosis, just as in Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR)
(Shapiro, 1995), this may be avoided since the clients use their own internal image,
concretize it, and place it in the sand tray for further therapeutic work.
Some sandtray research has found that the “concretization of inner archetypes” (Mitchell
& Friedman, 1994, p.98) (i.e., the use of concrete objects in sandtray) often leads to an
insight or a new perspective. Hypnosis may serve as the concretizer in sandtray
hypnosis, since the vividness of imagined objects may replace the use of actual objects.
For those clinicians familiar with the reliable developmental markers of sandtray work
with children (Mitchell & Freidman, 1994), inquiry into the content and spatial
organization of the imagined sandtray may provide information on the developmental
stage of the client’s presenting problem. Understanding child development in work with
adults is in general a benefit, and often underutilized in hypnotic work but this notion is
beyond the scope of this particular paper. Related to this, is the usefulness of sandtray
hypnosis for traumas which happened in early development and remain non-verbal for
the adult. Most adults can describe the concrete objects that they place in the imagined
sandtray, while the content, feelings or knowledge of the trauma remain non-verbal.
In addition, it is less messy than the traditional use of sandplay. The therapist does not
need to supply sand, water, trays and objects, provide physical space for the equipment
nor clean up after a client’s visit. And, like hypnosis, which is often “marketed” to
patients because of its portability and cost effectiveness (you can take the skill of
hypnosis with you anywhere, and it costs nothing once developed, unlike prescription
drugs, or biofeedback machines) sandtray hypnosis utilizes imagined sandtrays and
objects and is very “portable and cheap”.
Sandtray hypnosis also has the elements of novelty and surprise that Rossi (2000) posits
as requisites to change in the psychobiology of human healing. His theoretical
speculations about the numinous experience echo another very important feature of
sandtray hypnosis: the client’s passionate description of the experience. Kalff’s premise,
based on her Jungian orientation, that when the self is expressed symbolically “it can be
experienced as a deeply personal and numinous moment” (Mitchell & Freidman, 1994, p.
60) may explain these passionate descriptions when clients share the resolution they feel
after sandtray hypnosis work.
But how, you may ask, is this different from ordinary hypnosis? There are several ways
in which sandtray hypnosis is different. First, it creates a contained space which the
unconscious seems to experience as safe and protected. This does not seem to rely on the
internalization of the therapist’s safeness nor on the projection or transference of the
therapist’s safeness to the sandtray. This is not to say that the rapport with the client is
unimportant. But, rather, it is to emphasize that the visual image of a tray, the geometric
space itself, may transport the adult into that contained space in such a way as to separate
6

7. fantasy and reality, the past and the present, the conscious and the unconscious processes
while allowing the dichotomies to both be present. This visual separation or boundary in
itself seems to create safety, over and above that provided by the therapeutic relationship.
(This may be why Lowenfeld emphasized the importance of “transference” to the
sandtray rather than the therapist. {Mitchell & Freidman, 1994}). Janet, for example, in
his “sandwich technique” (van der hart et al, 1993) encouraged the subject to move
between present and past, with the safeguards of time orientation as a method of
containment. It is a powerful technique, that relies on “actual” memories rather than the
unconscious symbolism of memory, which I believe requires the presence of the therapist
to create safety because of the risk that the clients affect may regress so quickly as to
frighten them. Some of the early work in EMDR was controversial because of this same
risk of overwhelming the client with affect without safeguards of containment of the
affect. Kluft (1989) has written extensively about containment techniques in work with
dissociatve disorders to avoid this risk of retraumatizing, flooding, or otherwise causing
further distress to the already scared individual, while doing the uncovering work
necessary to healing. Watson’s “affect bridge” technique (1971) is another example of a
powerful therapeutic tool that uses movement and may lack adequate containment. The
TV technique comes closest to providing an imposed boundary, the outline of the TV set,
but the action of the show being watched, again, may move the client full speed into
affect not ready to be handled. When a client is asked to picture a tray full of sand and to
create a picture of what the problem is, of what he/she is thinking or experiencing, or of
what he/she wishes for, and to stand outside that tray and observe it, the images, symbols,
affect placed inside the tray are naturally dissociated from the client. It also seems
possible to manage the movement inside of the tray, if there is any, or the imagined
movement of the client into and out of the tray, without disrupting trance, or
overwhelming the client with conscious awareness of his/her own psychical process.
One might poetically say it allows the primitive to ooze up from the unconscious and be
thrown on the primordial sandy shore to be contained in its own archetypal desert.
Sacerdote’s (1967) work with dream hypnotherapy shares the use of symbolic and
archetypal images that sandtray hypnosis utilizes, and the reliance on the unconscious,
but while a significant contributor to insight and uncovery work, it lacks the more
objective containment of a boundaried world defined by the outline of the tray. His
suggestions also imply the action of the dreams are important in contrast to the static
picture which can be achieved in a tray. In addition, in dream hypnoanalyisis movement
between “reality” and “fantasy” relies on the movement in and out of trance, which we
now know is not always predictable or complete.
A second way in which sandtray hypnosis is different from ordinary hypnosis is, of
course, the use of symbols by the client as directed by the therapist’s suggestion. Here, I
want to differentiate the use of the term symbols and objects, from that of imagery.
Visualizations, mental images are representations of the world, which imply accuracy.
For example, and here I will refer to the pictorial sense only, I ask the reader to picture
the ocean and you see some representation of the ocean. If I ask you to choose a symbol
for the ocean, you may see the ocean, or you may see a cup of water, a stylelized wave, a
sea shell, a boat on the water, etc. The request for the symbolic taps into the archetypal in
7

8. the unconscious. If I ask for an object to be placed in the sandtray, that object may be
either an image or a symbol. I believe that the request for an object, image or symbol,
rather than visualization, influences what the client produces and is important to the
process of sandtray hypnosis. Previous experience with actual sandplay, sand and
objects, does not seem to be required for this technique.
A few case illustrations will be useful to clarify this technique. The names and details of
clients have been changed to preserve anonymity.
Case 1
Maria is a middle aged woman in treatment because of mild depression, concerns about
her marriage and what she describes as a neurotic attachment to a high school romance.
She is a therapist with a great deal of insight and sees many of her unproductive patterns
which she has been able to change but the latter has plagued her for some years and she
believes is part of the marital unhappiness. She described the neurotic attachment as a
fantasy that this person would be a perfect partner, of course having all the qualities
missing in her marital partner, although the original romance was full of disappointments
and ended with her being rejected. Meeting this boyfriend at a high school reunion had
created significant anxiety and longing for her, and was the reason to return to therapy.
Uncovery work focused on her relationship with her parents, hypnotic work to age
progress her to a wished for outcome, desensitization to reduce the thought obsessions
about the old romance, and lots of talking therapy were unable to shift this neurotic
attachment. She recognized that something unconscious was at work which eluded her. I
decided to try sandtray hypnosis with her, explaining that it was a new induction I had
created.
Maria went into trance and was instructed to see a tray full of sand. She was then asked to
think of the problem bothering her, the longing and obsessions for this ex-boyfriend.
Then she was instructed to place in the box a symbol for herself. She chose a magnet.
Next she was asked to choose an object or symbol to represent the boyfriend. This too
was a magnet. At first she placed them near the side of the sandtray, and described the
energy she could see between the two magnets. I then instructed Maria to move the
magnets in a way that made the uncomfortable affect lessen. She placed the magnet,
symbolizing herself at the front center of the box, and dressed it in flowing white clothes,
which she described as goddess like. The other magnet, was placed in back of the now
goddess figure, in a worshiping stance. When asked how it felt to look at this sandtray
she said she felt much better with the magnets thus arranged. I made no verbal
interpretation, but was marveling to myself at the way her unconscious was healing her
wound from the rejection. I gave her a suggestion that whenever she had one of the
thought obsessions to picture this sandtray. Maria did not interpret this sandtray image,
but reported how powerful it was to see the magnets and to move them. Clearly the sense
of control she gained in this exercise was significant. In addition to the relief she
reported immediately, over the following weeks she found the obsessions lessened and
then stopped and she began to do work on her relationship with her husband. While I am
tempted to comment on the analysis of her therapeutic change, I will resist and instead
point out that Maria never noted conscious awareness of what her sandtray meant. And as
8

9. many of us in hypnosis have learned (Bloom, 2002) conscious awareness is not needed
for change.
Case 2
Here is another case illustration, but in this example conscious awareness was achieved,
but only after the sandtray experience was over. Linda is a 40 year old therapist who
consulted with me from time to time on hypnosis cases, and came in for personal work
when she felt stuck. Significant pieces of Linda’s background include the loss of her
mother when she was a teenager, and feeling she had to parent herself and an older sister
into adulthood. This current presentation involved both a client with whom she had
worked for years, and a personal situation, and as you might well imagine the two were
related.
Linda described the current transference issue with the client, who had a Dissociative
Identity Disorder (DID) and had responded to years of renurturing, as being fed up with
the constant demands of the client and the way it pulled at her to “do something” for the
client. She had shown good clinical judgment in the management of boundaries with the
client, but the feelings she experienced were sometimes overwhelming. For example, she
experienced unusually strong anger when a phone message from the client was ten
minutes long, worry and anxiety when the client was threatened with being thrown out of
her apartment, or exhilaration, bordering on manic feelings, when the client was accepted
into a graduate program. When I asked if there were other clients or people in her life
with whom she experienced these same intense feelings, she responded with, “Funny,
you should ask.” She then launched into a story about her sister whom she described as
entitled, who had spent all of her inheritance money, was out of work, and had called her
to borrow money.
She wanted to say no to the sister, but was sure if she was that direct with the sister, past
history, suggested the sister would reject her and they would be alienated. Through
discussion about the feelings generated with the sister and the client Linda saw there was
a pattern to her reactions, and began to remember times from the past when she had felt
this same way, of wanting to say no, and feeling she could not. We agreed she would
enter hypnosis and do some work with this feeling, and again, I said I had a new
induction I thought would be useful. Once in trance, I asked Linda to imagine a deep
tray, filled with sand, and to stand outside this tray and to place a symbol of herself as a
little girl wanting to say no and not being able to. She described an image of herself in a
special outfit, wearing a blue hooded top similar to her friends. She added details of the
kind of day it was, the sun was shining, it was bright and clear. I point this out because
the sensory details were significant to her, and undoubtedly tapped in to an implicit,
physical memory. This symbol of herself was one of strength, confidence and agency
rather than the helplessness I expected her to symbolize. This girl in the sandtray was
able, in control and what we would call full of a sense of mastery. Linda had
spontaneously placed her childhood friends in the sand tray with her, all dressed in the
same blue clothes. I then asked Linda to place what other objects she needed in the
sandtray to allow her to say no to her sister or client without experiencing bad feelings.
Linda then placed a figure on either side of the “sandtray blue-hooded self”. One was her
husband and the other her grandmother, both significant sources of love and ego
development for her. She stood outside the tray and observed it and said that was all she
9

10. needed. She commented, still in trance, that it was good to be a child while adults were in
charge. She stored this sandtray image in a safe place and came out of trance. She
immediately said how powerful the symbols in the sandtray had been, that she had
remembered a time when her needs had been indulged and how good it felt. What
followed was the insight that she needed to first have her own narcissistic needs met
before she could meet those of others, and was not the mother of either her sister or client
and under no obligation to meet all of their needs. She kept talking about how wonderful
the feeling was of being that little girl on the day she was allowed to buy a blue top, with
all of her friends and be just like them.
Case 3
This illustration of sandtray use involves a woman who was part of a workshop training
in which I used the technique with a group. After induction into hypnotic trance I asked
each participant to make a picture in a sandtray using symbols, objects and images, of
how they would see themselves if they were of the opposite gender. I did not have
background information on this woman, but following the exercise she said that she had
seen a long sword and placed it in the sandtray and felt empowered and strong with this
symbol of strength. She said she was pleased to discover this inner strength and glad to
keep it with her.
Summary and conclusion
These samples of sandtray hypnosis, while brief, illustrate this technique and its potential
usefulness clinically. In no way is this technique meant to replace either traditional
sandtray work or other forms of hypnotic work. It is presented here as an additionally
useful technique to add to one’s repertoire. I was delighted to read, sometime after I had
started using this technique, the following comment by Jung:
When a patient presented with a certain mood, or a confusing dissociated affect-
“I therefore took up a dream image or an association of the patient’s, and, with this as a
point of departure, set him the task of elaborating or developing his theme by giving free
rein to his fantasy. This, according to individual taste and talent, could be done in any
number of ways, dramatic, dialectic, visual, acoustic, or in the form of dancing, painting,
drawing or modeling,. {Finally} I was able to recognize that in this method I was
witnessing the spontaneous manifestation of an unconscious process which was merely
assisted by the technical ability of the patient, and to which I later gave the name
“individuation process” ….In many cases, this brought a large measure of therapeutic
success, which encouraged both myself and the patient to press forward despite the
baffling nature of the results. I felt bound to insist that they were baffling, if only to stop
myself from framing, on the basis of certain theoretical assumptions, interpretations
which I felt were not only inadequate but liable to prejudice the ingenious productions of
the patient….And so it is with the hand that guides the crayon or brush, the foot that
executes the dance-step, with the eye and the ear, with the word and the thought: a dark
impulse is the ultimate arbiter of the pattern, an unconscious a priori precipitates itself
into plastic form… Over the whole procedure there seems to reign a dim foreknowledge
not only of the pattern but of its meaning. Image and meaning are identical; and as the
10

11. first takes shape, so the latter becomes clear…the pattern needs no interpretation, it
portrays its own meaning. Jung 1947, paras 400-2.” (Kalsched, 1996, pp.199-200)
Therapists who are not equipped to do sandtray work, but are impressed by the elements
of containment inherent in the sandtray structure, and its access to unconscious material
which it shares with hypnosis, will be impressed by the union of sandtray and hypnosis.
Intertwining traditional sandplay therapy with the hypnotic trance may nourish our
clinical work and open us to exploring other therapeutic modalities which would benefit
from the understanding of trance phenomenon.
References
Allan, J. and Berry, P. (1993). “Sandplay” in Schaefer, C. and Cangelosi, D. (Eds.) Play
Therapy Techniques. London: Jason Aronson Inc.
Bloom, P. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Brain and Behavior: Hypnotic Routes to
Permanent Change. YT1 Audiotape 2002 ASCH Annual Meeting. Sound of Knowledge,
Inc.
Boik, B. L. & Goodwin, E. A. (2000). Sandplay Therapy: A step-by-step manual for
psychotherapists of diverse orientations. New York: W. W. Norton.
Bradway, K.; Signell, K.; Spare, G.; Stewart, C.; Stewart, L.; & Thompson,C. (1990).
Sandplay Studies. Boston: Sigo Press.
Cardena, E. (2000). “Hypnosis in the Treatment of Trauma.” The International Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 48, 2, .225-238.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.
Freud, A. (1926-27) “Introduction to the technique of child analysis.” In The
Pscyhoanalytical Treatment of children. New York: International Universities Press,
1955.
Gil, E. (1998). Play Therapy for Severe Psychological Trauma (Videotape and Manual).
New York: Guilford Press.
Hunter, L. (1998). Images of Resiliency: Troubled Children Create Healing Stories In
The Language of Sandplay. Palm Beach: Behavioral Communications Institute.
Kalff, D. M. (1980). Sandplay: A psychotherapeutic approach to the psyche. Boston:
Sigo Press.
Kalsched, D. (1996). The Inner World of Trauma: Archetypal defenses of the personal
spirit. London, New York: Routledge.
11

12. Klein, M. (1984). “The Psychoanalysis of Children” (A. Strachey, Trans.) In R. Money-
Kyrle (Ed.),The Writings of Melanie Klein, Vol. 1. New York: Free Press.
Kluft, R.P. (1989). “Playing for Time: Temporizing techniques in the treatment of
multiple personality disorder”. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 12, (2), 90-98.
Levine, M. (2003). The Myth of Laziness. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Linden, J. (2002) The Application of Hypnosis to Children and Adolescents Traumatized
by War in Munich 2000, the 15th International Congress of Hypnosis, Eds. Peter, B. et al.
Hypnosis International Monographs Number 6, MEG: Germany, 2002, pp. 21-29.
Lowenfeld, M. (1935). Play in Childhood. London: Victor Collancz. Reprinted (1976)
New York: John Wiley & Sons. Reprinted (1991) London: Mac Keith Press.
Lowenfeld, M. (1979). The World Technique. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Mitchell, R.R. & Friedman, H. (1994) Sandplay. Past, Present & Future. New York:
Routledge.
Montesorri, M. (1965). Dr. Montesorri’s Own Handbook. New York: Schocken Books.
Naparstek, B. (2002). “What’s Guided Imagery” in
www.healthjourneys.com/guidedimagery.asp
Piaget, J. (1951). Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. London: Routledge.
Rossi, E. (2000). “In Search of Deep Psychobiology of hypnosis:
Visionary hypotheses for a New Millennium.” American Journal Of Clinical
Hypnosis, 42:3/42:4, pp178-207.
Sacerdote, P. (1967). Induced Dreams. New York: Vantage Press.
Shapiro, F.S. (1995). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing. New York:
Guildford Press.
Slavson, S. (1947) The Practice of Group therapy. New York: International Universities
Press.
van der Hart, O., Steele, K., Boon, S., Brown, P. (1993). “The Treatment of Traumatic
Memories, Synthesis, Realization, and Integration.” Dissociation, VI, 2/3, 162-180).
Watkins, J.G. (1971). “The Affect Bridge: A hypno-analytic technique.” International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 19, 21-27.
12