Let me take you into the “way-back” machine for a moment to appreciate the innovative origin and continued potency of these terms in helping us to understand communication patterns that become not only toxic but, like most toxic agents eventually, they become life-destroying. As a student at the University of Michigan School of Social Work in the early 1980’s, I was fortunate to enjoy a particular area of study called systems theory, owing to the fact that the university had privileged this expertise with the recruitment of several pioneers in the field of systems theory.
As an eager and curious student of this perspective, I came into contact with the work of Gregory Bateson, Paul Watzlawick, and John Weakland, who were studying the roots of schizophrenia. Bateson studied the “psychological roots of schizophrenia (putting aside the theories relating to brain dysfunction and the body itself).” In this endeavor, they made potent insights about communication. “To Bateson, communication was what made human relationships possible. In other words, it acted like a support beam… Bateson said that we have to get rid of the double bind that occasionally comes up in communication.” [see article referenced below]
So, let’s clarify. The double message is a series of conflicting or opposite messages given in any number of ways and insidious combinations that sets up a dilemma for the person or people receiving them. In other words, the dilemma is that no matter which message I respond to, I will remain in conflict with the other message. The other message will then be the cause of a problem that will cause me to experience conflict, loss or devaluation. This is classically the “lose/lose” scenario. Let’s break it down.
- The double message – the communication of two opposite or conflicting messages that are either given in sequence (sometimes repetitive alternating sequences) or given simultaneously.
- The receiver has the dilemma of not knowing which one represents the truth or the authentic opinion of the person sending the message.
- As the receiver attempts to respond to one of the messages, the opposite message is utilized to gain the upper hand by making the responder wrong for the one they have chosen.
To offer a break in the analytic nature of this analysis, let me offer you a somewhat subtle example from my early adult life with my step-father. One day when he was visiting, I returned from a day-long seminar on a subject of interest and importance for me related to my profession. At the dinner table he asked in a seemingly casual manner without looking at me, “So how was your wing-ding?” At this moment, the confusion and negative energy of the double message felt just like a bee sting. I immediately noticed the need to decode and decide, “Should I respond because he has demonstrated the effort of showing interest in my day?,” or “Should I ignore the question because of the implied devaluing treatment of its importance by calling it a ‘wing-ding’?” At this point in life, I was at least able to utilize my caution and claim some inner boundaries, so I took my time. As I thought this through, I realized that there would be no point in confronting the devaluing insinuation of his comment, realizing he would simply take exception and turn the tables calling me over-sensitive, or perhaps create some other deflection. On the other hand, I also knew that I did not need to pretend that he was respectfully or genuinely interested in my workshop. How I actually responded to him is lost in my memory owing to the greater impact I experienced in realizing how endless and often subtle his double messages could be. If memory serves me at all, I believe I responded with mutual disregard by mumbling something like, “Fine.” Not particularly empowering in my action step, but definitely empowering from an awareness moment.
Today, however, (some thirty years on, mind you) I believe I would bring my stronger and more authoritative adult “I” to the encounter and say something like, “I don’t think of it as a ‘wing-ding’, and I’m not sure that inspires me to want to discuss it with you.” Maybe we can think of the double message/double bind as an opportunity (first) to notice it, and (second) to exercise the adult “I” with a statement of some kind that gives expression to it. We can also think of the double message/double bind as an opportunity to make a decision (take an action step) that comes from our adult “I,” primarily by stepping back and not playing the game, simply not participating in it. We may do this from a place within ourselves that simply ignores and steps away (“grey rock” is the popular expression that exemplifies this strategy), or make a choice to confront and stand up to the violation (utilizing a rehearsed assertiveness script). Either way, the decisions to ignore the no-win scenario, opt out of it verbally, or stand up to it, are all different ways that we can exercise our adult “I.” Please, make no mistake here. The potent efforts to practice these efforts consciously will powerfully reinforce the positive momentum of your recovery. I believe, exponentially!
Additionally, our awareness of the toxicity of these dynamics, and our progressive ability to disallow them, also helps us to recognize our need to find individuals who can offer deeper listening and empathy. We develop in our ability to discover and claim healthier relationships as well as to nurture them as valued friends, perhaps family members, community support people, and of course, service providers such as therapists.
To reinforce our understanding, let’s go for one more clarification with a quote from the article cited earlier.
“According to Bateson, a double bind is a communication dilemma that comes from a conflict between two or more messages. So it doesn’t matter what you do, because any choice you make will be wrong. This is a situation in which communication only causes suffering and can even lead to psychological disorders.”
So, let’s bring the subject back to the heart of the matter – narcissistic abuse! Communication in the hands of the NPD (narcissistic personality disordered) individual is often rife with double messages and their subsequent double binds. For instance, the narcissist may say one thing and do another, later revising history to disavow his or her previous stance. Or perhaps, the disavowal takes on a different quality. The person may clearly be giving off an aloof or agitated demeanor, all the while verbally indicating that everything is fine, perhaps even expressing positive and pleasant statements.
Let me be clear here. Any of us can at times think and behave in a contradictory manner, and indeed, we will invariably become somewhat defensive when it is first pointed out to us. However, those of us with a capacity for self-reflection and self-examination and a desire to become a better human being will take some time to do just that. Should something hurtful or dysfunctional on our part be brought to our attention, we will explore this attitude and/or behavior and work to develop self-awareness so that we can grow and change. This process is generally known as developing our character qualities – a lifelong commitment that requires our willingness to work on ourselves. Certainly, we all deserve feedback from others that is thoughtful and respectful in this endeavor as we help each other to grow and mature. However, if communication among people was always in good faith (positive intention), we would not be having this exchange of writer and reader, and you would not be in need of this information.
The truth is, once we are on the slippery slope of involvement with a person who may have a personality disorder, we need to gird ourselves for dealing with someone with a very different set of intentions – intentions that utilize these toxic patterns (consciously and unconsciously almost as a matter of course) for a decidedly more sinister purpose – mainly the intention to dominate the situation, and ultimately the other person or persons.
Children who grow up in intensely narcissistic family systems are subject to exactly this type of communication pattern, over and over, day in and day out. The double message/double bind is, in fact, so ubiquitous in these family systems that the grown child, now the adult, will invariably miss the subtle, or not so subtle cues, that could help him or her steer clear of yet another narcissistic relationship. I have endlessly heard adult children of narcissistic families express with exasperation how they feel as though they have a dysfunctional radar system that draws them into codependent relationships with narcissistic friends, lovers, co-workers, et cetera.
Yes, unfortunately, the radar system has been disabled by long-standing patterns of conditioned entrenchment with this communication style. In fact, more serious than that – this double message/double bind communication is the fuel of the habituated mentality that believes reality is made up of warring opposites, a world view limited to a win/lose. This world view, in turn, perpetuates the age-old pain and suffering of the dominator/dominated relationship dynamic that so characterizes the worst of our human history.
So we can see as we climb the ladder from the individual in a family system, to the societal, all the way to the national, global, even universal system, how limited we will remain if we cannot free ourselves from this type of mental conditioning. We have known for some time now that the universe is a dynamic interplay of symbiotic reciprocity. This reciprocity among human beings can only be managed through our conscious proactive efforts that demonstrate our recognition and respect for our mutuality. Mother Nature is stringent in her requirements for balance. Our observations of all living things teach us this if nothing else. Do we imagine Mother Nature or the laws of the universe will be any less stringent in its requirements of us as human beings if we wish to survive on this planet?
Conscious sustainment of our survival, therefore, will only be achieved as we recognize and respect our interdependence and inherent mutual rights to exist with dignity and freedom. We are on the precipice of a collective choice, a choice that will be determined by our ability to recognize the need to reject the cynical, dualistic scenario of the win/lose, either/or, dominator/dominated, in favor of the life-sustaining view that respects our mutuality (the and-also framework). Indeed, we need to commit to the elevation of our consciousness with all our strength and integrity so that we can help each other find our freedom, grow, and claim our true mutual fulfillment in this wondrous universe.
(Excerpts from Gregory Bateson’s Double Bind Theory, ExploringYourMind.com, Aug. 16, 2018.)