Double bind – the destructive power of moral ambiguity

In Zen Buddhism, the spiritual master often confronts the meditating student with a koan, a seemingly meaningless question, for which no reasonable answer exists. A koan is supposed to help the students to advance in their practice. A master might for instance show a stick to the student and tell them: “If you say this stick is real, I will beat you with it. If you say this stick is not real, I will beat you with it. If you don’t say anything, I will beat you with it.” What might help to advance in meditation by breaking the rational thinking of the Zen student can create highly destructive situations in other social contexts, as the anthropologist and early system thinker Gregory Bateson already argued in the late 1950s. The Zen student might just take away the stick from the master and that would be a meaningful response. However, what happens outside such spiritual contexts when people are confronted with contradictory and unsolvable expectations where each option they can chose would be problematic not just metaphorically as for the Zen student but threatening to them in a much more material sense? What if taking away the stick is not possible, and the beating is unavoidable? According to Gregory Bateson, such a situation that can occur in any social system, from families to organizations, would trigger fear and despair and over time might lead to mental problems. He called this phenomenon a double-bind.

The concept of the double bind, as explained by Gregory Bateson, is a complex and insidious form of psychological manipulation and contradictory communication. It involves three key dimensions:

1. Negative Injunction: In the first step, a person with power or authority communicates a negative injunction, which is a command or demand that conveys a threat or punishment if not obeyed. This negative message often takes the form of "do not do x, or I will punish you."
2. Contradictory Injunction: In the second step, the same person or a different authority figure sends a contradictory, positive injunction, which commands the individual to do the opposite of the negative injunction. For example, they might say, "Do x." Both obeying and disobeying these contradictory injunctions can potentially lead to negative consequences, creating a no-win situation.
3. Inescapability: The final element of the double bind is the individual's belief that there is no way to escape the situation. They feel trapped within the system and perceive no alternative or safe course of action. This sense of inescapability is a fundamental aspect of the double bind and contributes to the emotional distress it causes. In essence, the individual is placed in a situation where they cannot make a decision that will satisfy the conflicting demands, and they often cannot communicate openly about the tension and contradictions they face. This type of manipulation can be particularly harmful, as it forces individuals to choose between two undesirable outcomes and undermines their confidence, emotional well-being, and ethical decision-making.

References:

Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of the mind: A revolutionary approach to man’s understanding of himself. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 215-16;

Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J. & Weakland, J., 1956, Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, Vol. 1, 251–264.