The Subtext Trap: What Is A Double Binding

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

Source: theoryandpractice.r

Sometimes in communication there is confusion between what the interlocutor says literally, what he really means, and what he wants to convey. As a result, we can find ourselves in a disorienting stream of conflicting signals, and the attempt to adapt to them leads to strange mental shifts. We talk about the principle of "double bind", the abuse of which not only destroys relationships, but, according to scientists, leads to schizophrenia

The key to understanding

The concept of "double bind" originated in the 1950s, when the famous Anglo-American polymath scientist Gregory Bateson, together with his colleagues, psychiatrist Don D. Jackson and psychotherapists John Weekland and Jay Haley, began to investigate the problem of logical distortions in communication.

Bason's reasoning was based on the fact that in human communication the correct logical classification of arguments is constantly violated, which leads to misunderstandings. After talking with each other, we use not only the literal meanings of phrases, but also various communicative modes: play, fantasy, ritual, metaphor, humor. They create contexts in which a message can be interpreted. If both participants in the communication interpret the context in the same way, they reach mutual understanding, but very often, unfortunately, this does not happen. In addition, we can skillfully simulate these modal identifiers by expressing fake friendliness or insincerely laughing at someone's joke. A person is able to do this unconsciously, hiding from himself the real emotions and motives of his own actions.

Haley noted that a schizophrenic is distinguished from a healthy person, among other things, by serious problems with recognizing communicative modalities: he does not understand what other people mean and does not know how to correctly formulate his own messages so that those around him can understand him. He may not recognize a joke or a metaphor, or use them in inappropriate situations - as if he completely lacks the key to understanding contexts. Bateson was the first person to suggest that this "key" is lost not due to a single childhood trauma, but in the process of adapting to repetitive situations of the same type. But what can you adapt to at such a cost?

The absence of rules of interpretation would be appropriate in a world where communication is devoid of logic - where a person loses the connection between the declared and the real state of affairs. Therefore, the scientist tried to simulate a situation that, repeating itself, could form such a perception - which led him to the idea of a "double bind".

Here's how to briefly describe the essence of the double bind concept: a person receives a double bind from a “significant other” (family member, partner, close friend) at different communicative levels: one thing is expressed in words, and another in intonation or non-verbal behavior. For example, in words, tenderness is expressed, non-verbal - rejection, in words - approval, and non-verbal - condemnation, etc. In his article "Towards a Theory of Schizophrenia," Bateson provides a typical outline for this message:

The primary negative prescription is communicated to the subject. It can take one of two forms:

a) "Do not do this or that, otherwise I will punish you" or

b) "If you do not do this and that, I will punish you."

At the same time, a secondary prescription is transmitted that conflicts with the first. It arises at a more abstract level of communication: it can be posture, gesture, tone of voice, message context. For example: "do not consider this a punishment", "do not consider that I am punishing you", "do not obey my prohibitions", "do not think about what you should not do."Both prescriptions are categorical enough that the addressee is afraid to violate them - in addition, it is important for him to maintain a good relationship with a communication partner. At the same time, he can neither avoid the paradox, nor clarify which of the prescriptions is true - because incriminating the interlocutor in a contradiction, as a rule, also leads to conflict (“You don’t trust me?”, “You think I don’t know myself, what do I want? "," You are ready to invent anything to annoy me ", etc.)

For example, if a mother experiences both hostility and attachment to her son and at the end of the day wants to take a break from his presence, she might say, “Go to sleep, you're tired. I want you to sleep. " These words outwardly express concern, but in fact they mask another message: "I'm tired of you, get out of my sight!" If the child understands the subtext correctly, he discovers that the mother does not want to see him, but for some reason deceives him, feigning love and care. But the discovery of this discovery is fraught with the anger of the mother ("Shame on you to accuse me that I do not love you!"). Therefore, it is easier for a child to accept as fact that they are being cared for in such a strange way than to convict mother of insincerity.

Impossibility of feedback

On one occasion, many parents do this, and this does not always lead to serious consequences. But if such situations are repeated too often, the child becomes disoriented - it is vitally important for him to respond correctly to the messages of mom and dad, but at the same time he regularly receives two different-level messages, one of which denies the other. After some time, he begins to perceive such a situation as a familiar state of affairs and tries to adapt to it. And then interesting changes take place with his flexible psyche. An individual who grew up in such conditions may eventually completely lose the ability for metacommunication - the exchange of clarifying messages about communication. But feedback is the most important part of social interaction, and we prevent many potential conflicts and unpleasant mistakes with phrases like “What do you mean?”, “Why did you do this?”, “Did I understand you correctly?”.

The loss of this ability leads to complete confusion in communication. “If a person is told,“What would you like to do today?” And in general, what do you mean? - gives an example of Bateson.

In order to somehow clarify the surrounding reality, a chronic double bind victim usually resorts to one of three basic strategies, which manifest themselves as schizophrenic symptoms.

The first is a literal interpretation of everything that is said by others, when a person generally abandons attempts to understand the context and considers all metacommunicative messages as unworthy of attention.

The second option is exactly the opposite: the patient gets used to ignoring the literal meaning of the messages and looks for a hidden meaning in everything, reaching the point of absurdity in his search. And finally, the third possibility is escapism: you can try to completely get rid of communication in order to avoid the problems associated with it.

But those who are fortunate enough to grow up in families where it is customary to express their desires very clearly and unambiguously are not immune from double binds in adulthood. Unfortunately, this is a common practice in communication - primarily because people often have contradictions between ideas about how they should feel / how they should behave and what they actually do or feel. For example, a person believes that in order to “be good,” he must show warm emotions to another, which he does not actually feel, but is afraid to admit. Or, on the contrary, he has an unwanted attachment, which he considers it his duty to suppress and which manifests itself on a non-verbal level.

Broadcasting a nominal message that contradicts the real state of affairs, the speaker is faced with an unwanted reaction from the addressee, and cannot always contain his irritation. The addressee, in turn, finds himself in an equally stupid position - it seems that he acted in full accordance with the expectations of his partner, but instead of approval, he is punished for some unknown reason.

The path to power and enlightenmen

Bateson did not support his idea that it is double bind that causes schizophrenia with serious statistical studies: his evidence base was based mainly on the analysis of written and oral reports of psychotherapists, sound recordings of psychotherapeutic interviews and the testimony of parents of schizophrenic patients. This theory has not yet received unequivocal confirmation - according to modern scientific concepts, schizophrenia can be caused by a whole set of factors, from heredity to problems in the family.

But Bateson's concept not only became an alternative theory of the origin of schizophrenia, but also helped psychotherapists better understand the internal conflicts of patients, and also gave impetus to the development of NLP. True, in NLP "double bind" is interpreted a little differently: the interlocutor is presented with an illusory choice of two options, of which both are beneficial to the speaker. A classic example that has migrated into the arsenal of sales managers - "Will you pay with cash or credit card?" (there is no question that a visitor may not make a purchase at all).

However, Bateson himself believed that double bind can be not only a means of manipulation, but also a completely healthy stimulus to development. He cited Buddhist koans as an example: Zen masters often put students in paradoxical situations in order to induce a transition to a new level of perception and enlightenment. The difference between a good student and a potential schizophrenic is the ability to solve a problem creatively and see not only two conflicting options, but also the "third way." This is helped by the lack of emotional connections with the source of the paradox: it is the emotional dependence on loved ones that often prevents us from rising above the situation and avoiding the trap of a double bind.