The psychoanalytic theory of automatization and deautomatization is concerned with formulating a general theory of structure formation, maintenance, disintegration, and re-formation as regards the dynamics of the psyche. In this conception, functions, once established, form steady states which resist change. The steady state formation of functional activity is termed the automatization of a function. Automatized functions are conceived to behave as structures. These stabilized structures (automatized functions) become the foundation for new structures in an increasingly complex developing hierarchy. It is maintained that these automatized structures are the means through which relative autonomy of the personality is established. But flexibility of function requires that these structures undergo adaptive change. This change involves the deautomatization of an already automatized function. Thus, the deautomatization of structures is considered to be a part of normative functioning.
Gill and Brenman (Hypnosis and Related States, International Universities Press, New York, 1959) used these concepts to develop a metapsychological theory of hypnotic induction. In this theory, deautomatization is considered to be a state that can lead to a change in relative autonomy. Deautomatization requires for its onset that the attention, which is directed toward the functioning of a structure, be manipulated. When this manipulation of attention is associated with diminished environmental input a structural shake-up occurs which can lead to a higher or lower level of functional integration. It is further maintained that deautomatization is associated with a “regression in the service of the ego”, a concept originated by E. Kris. In his words (as quoted by Gill and Brenman): “The general assumption says that under certain conditions the ego regulates its own capacity to regression, that the organizing functions of the ego include the function of voluntary and temporary withdrawal of cathexis… in order later to regain improved control.”
The theoretical attributes of the state of deautomatization appear to have much in common with the phenomena and theory associated with the autogenic state and autogenic shift. [[The autogenic state is a psychophysiologic state associated with the practice of autogenic training and characterized by a shift in various physiologic parameters such as heart rate, respiration, EEG, PRG, EMG, ECG, blood pressure, and skin temperature. It is hypothesized that the passive concentration used in autogenic training inhibits ergotropic brain mechanisms and stimulates trophotropic mechanisms.]] The autogenic state is hypothesized to involve a regressive tendency in the functioning of the phylo- and ontogenetically younger parts of the brain; is initiated by a manipulation of attention (i.e., passive concentration) to the functioning of prescribed psychophysiologic structures; and leads to a psychophysiologic shift in the level of homeostatic functioning. It is also suggestive to consider that the hypothetical self-regulatory “centrencephalic safety-discharge-system” (CSDS) may be involved in initiating “regression in the service of the ego.” [[The CSDS is the hypothesized ganglionic system which is believed to play a governing role in allowing self-regulatory autogenic discharge activity to unfold. The system is thought to involve parts of the centrencephalic system of the higher brain stem.]]