The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple Catch-22 situation, where the victim is trapped by two conflicting demands. While it is true that at the core of the double bind are two conflicting demands, the difference lies in how they are imposed upon the victim, what the victim's understanding of the situation is, and who imposes these demands upon the victim. Unlike the usual no-win situation, the victim is largely unaware of the exact nature of the paradoxical situation he or she is in. This is because a demand is imposed upon them by someone they regard with respect, and the demand itself is inherently impossible to fulfill. Bateson defines the double bind as follows (paraphrased):

1. The situation involves two or more people, one of whom is designated, for the purposes of definition, as the "victim." The others are people who are in some way in a higher position relative to the victim, a figure of authority, such as a parent, whom the victim respects.
2. Repeated experience. The double bind is a recurrent theme in the experience of the victim and as such cannot be resolved as a single traumatic experience.
3. A primary injunction is imposed upon the victim by the other person in one of two forms: (a) Do "X" or I will punish you. (b) Do not do "X" or I will punish you. The punishment is assumed to be either the withdrawing of love, the expression of hate and anger, or abandonment resulting from the authority figure's expression of extreme helplessness.
4. A secondary injunction is imposed upon the victim that conflicts with the first at a higher and more abstract level. For example, "Do what I told you but only do it because you want to." It is not necessary that this injunction be expressed verbally.
5. If necessary, a tertiary injunction is imposed upon the victim to prevent them from escaping the dilemma.
6. Finally, Bateson states that the complete list of the previous requirements may be unnecessary in the event that the victim is already viewing their world in double bind patterns. Bateson goes on to give the general characteristics of such a relationship:
   1. When the victim is involved in an intense relationship; that is, a relationship in which he feels it is vitally important that he discriminate accurately what sort of message is being communicated so that he may respond appropriately;
   2. And, the victim is caught in a situation in which the other person in the relationship is expressing two orders of message and one of these denies the other;
   3. And, the victim is unable to comment on the messages being expressed to correct his discrimination of what order of message to respond to, i.e., he cannot make a metacommunicative statement.

Thus the essence of a double-bind is two conflicting demands, neither of which can be ignored, which leave the victim torn both ways in such a way that whichever demand they try to meet, the other demand cannot be met. "I must do it but I can't do it" is a typical description of the double-bind experience.

For a double bind to be effective, the victim cannot plainly see that the demand placed on them by the primary injunction is in direct conflict with the secondary injunction. In this sense the double bind differentiates itself from a simple contradictory Catch-22 to a more inexpressible internal conflict where the victim vigorously wants to meet the demands of the primary injunction but fails each time because the victim fails to see that the situation is completely incompatible with the demands of the secondary injunction. Thus victims may express feelings of extreme anxiety in such a situation as they attempt to fulfill the demands of the primary injunction, but are met with obvious contradictions in their actions.

For example, a common double bind in western culture is the marriage vows taken by the bride and groom when they make an oath to love each other until death. In this situation, the primary injunction is the oath itself, and the secondary injunction is that which is imposed onto them by their society, that their love must be true. Thus a conflict arises in their relationship if either party falls out of love with the other, but attempts to fulfill their obligation to the oath.

The double bind was originally presented as a situation that could possibly lead to schizophrenia if imposed upon young children, or simply those with unstable and weak personalities. Creating a situation where the victim could not make any comment or "metacommunicative statement" about their dilemma would, in theory, escalate their state of mental anxiety. Today, it is more important as an example of Bateson's approach to the complexities of communication.

The solution to a double-bind is to place the problem in a larger context, a state Bateson identified as Learning III, a step up from Learning II, which requires only learned responses to reward/consequence situations. In Learning III, the double bind is contextualized and understood as an impossible, no-win scenario. Bateson maintained that in the case of the schizophrenic, the double bind is presented continually and habitually within the family context. By the time the child is old enough to have identified the double bind situation, it has already been internalized and the child is unable to confront it. The solution, then, is to create an escape from the conflicting logical demands of the double bind in the world of the delusional system.

This is from wikipedia.

I have been reading a book all weekend about controlling men.  I see the exA now as very controlling and manipulative. He went to any lengths to get "his" way.  I feel very used and betrayed.

maresie.

Don't drop into the victim role Maresie. It s not healthy and leads no where good that I can recall. I looked at the Wiki that post came out of. I don't like it anymore than anybody else. Maybe we've all been in them. It seems to have two meanings though. If you read deeper. It was originally a term used to describe a theory of how schizophrenia developed. That theory is not current anymore.

Its used in the study of communication now.??? We are bombarded by double binds in media, politics and the workplace. It standard practice and I still don't like it and I still feel its an abusive form of control. Its also used in religions. Some for control but in others to force the person to breakthrough to out of the box realizations.

If you look at Catch 22's, Dilemmas and Double Binds, you'll see the way out is to see the conflict in a broader context. In a double bind what is used to keep us inside our small box are lies and deception and denial. In Alanon we use the 1st step and the disease concept to expand our view. we learn the truth and we smash through the denial and silence. Instead of a small world of inner conflict, We can see that we are operating inside a disease type model. Most chronic and terminal diseases put us into double binds that we are not supposed to speak of. This is common in double binds it seems. There are a lot of unwritten rules that button our lips and put us on eggshells. We are shushed by the well meaning people around us even in our families more so than the other party. When we break out of the double Bind, it has a ripple effect. At least for me, all the truth rippled outward like a stone in a pond and dissolved the denial and silence....and control. Let it begin with Me. :) Your new book sounds like quite a rock. :)


-- Edited by Tuggboat at 22:46, 2008-03-10