The Communication Framework of the Double Bind

In 1956, in their text Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia, Bateson and his collaborators Jay Haley, Don D. Jackson, and John H. Weakland used the term “double bind” for the first time in an attempt to describe the complexity of the communicational context of schizophrenia. It represents an interpretative model of schizophrenic behavior within families, developed within the frameworks of communication theory and Russell’s theory of logical types.

A double bind is a communicational dilemma involving two contradictory messages that simultaneously cancel each other out. It is a situation in which the individual is required to “respond” to a paradoxical statement or relational invitation, where any response will lead to punishment.

Beyond the appearance of schizophrenic symptoms, double-bind communications can occur in everyday interactions. For example, a mother may clench her teeth on an unspoken level while simultaneously saying to her child, “Come here, I want to hug you because I love you” (Kouria, n.d.). Another example is a woman telling her husband, “What can I do now that you brought me the bouquet? You brought it because I told you yesterday you never bring me flowers,” leaving the husband unable to “win” regardless of his choice (Kouria, n.d.).

There are certain basic conditions for the creation of the double bind communication framework:

1. There must be two or more individuals, where one can be considered in the role of the victim and the other exercises some form of power interaction over the former (Bateson, 2017: 229).

2. The conditions must represent a repeated experience rather than an isolated incident, functioning as a habitual expectation (Bateson, 2017: 230).

3. Communication must involve a primary negative injunction, such as “Do not do this or you will be punished” or “If you do not do this, you will be punished” (Bateson, 2017: 230). In this context, learning arises from the subject’s attempt to avoid punishment rather than from reward. Punishment may include expressions of anger, violence, physical or emotional exclusion, rejection, or other consequences, depending on the context.

4. A secondary injunction must exist that contradicts or counters the primary message on a more abstract level of communication (Bateson, 2017: 230). This secondary message is also conveyed through punishment or communication signals that are threatening to the subject’s survival within the context of their reality (Bateson, 2017: 230).

5. The secondary message is usually expressed on an unspoken, nonverbal level, such as gestures, body posture, actions with significant meaning for the interaction, as well as implied verbal messages and consequences (Bateson, 2017: 230). Bateson (2017: 230) writes:

“The secondary injunction may conflict with any element of the primary prohibition. Therefore, the verbal expression of the secondary injunction may take various forms, for example: ‘Do not see this as punishment,’ ‘Do not see me as the bearer of punishment,’ ‘Do not succumb to my prohibitions,’ ‘Do not think of what you must not do,’ ‘Do not question my love, of which the primary prohibition is an expression (or not),’ and so on.”

6. There must also be a tertiary injunction with a negative character that forbids the subject from leaving the frame (Bateson, 2017: 230). This tertiary injunction can be included within the previous messages without necessarily being a separate element of the communication (Bateson, 2017: 230).

7. Finally, once communication has been structured through conflicting injunctions, it can exist and reproduce itself without the clear presence of the previous individual stages, as it has become established as an interactional relationship in the present frame (Bateson, 2017: 230).

This type of communication is significant for the frame because it not only defines interactions between participants but also structures the conditions of presence and existence of the subject acting as the victim, determining the role and identity elements within that specific frame. It is important to note that the subject is unable to meta-communicate about the relationship, as any attempt to communicate will be lost within the double bind.

The communicational network of the double bind can appear in frames where relationships are structured with these characteristics, regardless of the frame’s content, with the logic that an increase and a simultaneous decrease of the same factor is demanded. Interactions of this type can create and maintain relationships of significance and dependence between members.

References

Bateson, G. (2017). Steps to an Ecology of Mind [Βήματα για μια Οικολογία του Νου]. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.

Kouria, I. (n.d.). Double Binds in the Family: Whatever You Do, You’re Guilty! Retrieved April 10, 2022, from: https://www.ioannakouria.gr/arthrografia/psychologia-enhlikwn/diploi-desmoi-sthn-oikogeneia-oti-kai-na-kaneis-eisai-enoxos.html