Very simply. Bateson's point about "Double Binds" was that people, in certain relations of dominance, of are put in the following situation, which is an expression of a classical logical paradox.
(Everything inside this parenthesis is a lie.)
If what is stated inside the "frame" of the parenthesis is true, then the statement is in fact a lie. If what is stated in the parenthesis is a not true, then the statement is a lie, etc. (But for a Bateson-like communication paradox, the "frame" of the parenthesis is rarely "stated" and can rarely even be pointed to, it is merely the frame of the situation itself.)
Bertrand Russell stated this logical paradox in terms of set theory, thus Russell's paradox as quoted by Carl:
"Russell's Paradox, viz.: "Some sets, such as the set of all
> teacups, are not members of themselves. Other sets, such as the set of all
> non-teacups, are members of themselves. Call the set of all sets that are
> not members of themselves 'R.' If R is a member of itself, then by
> definition it must not be a member of itself. Similarly, if R is not a
> member of itself, then by definition it must be a member of itself."
> <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/>"
All of this is a restatement of Epimenides paradox: 'A Cretan says "The Cretans; always liars".'
Russell's attempted to solution to this paradox was called the theory of logical types. The idea was that a set of things, was of a different "logical type" than a set of sets, and therefore we are talking about two different classes of entities when we speak of sets of sets and sets of everything that is not a teacup.
Bateson point was that in "psychological" situations this form of logical typing does not take place and cannot take place. The double bind of the paradox is "interiorised" (for lack of another word) and the person lives within the frame of the paradox without recognizing the frame.
(All statements within this parenthesis are true. I love you. I hate you. You must obey and honor me. You must use your own free will.)
The first statement in the parenthesis is of a different class than the following statements. Bateson's point though was that most of the times all of these statements are implied in a lived situation and thus the double bind is not recognized. Bateson believed that their were communication paradoxes, because of the several different levels of communication, that could not be recognized by those in "submissive" and (somehow) inescapable situations, because they could not be thought logically, in the way that a logical paradox could be recognized. In other words these paradoxes are lived and not "thought" and thus are crazy-making.
It has been pointed out by some literary critics that much of tragedy presents some-kind of double bind- think of Aeschylus and the Oresteia or Sophocles' "Antigone."
Bateson later in life pointed out that Frantz Fanon in both "Black Skin, White Mask" and "The Wretched of the Earth" was illustrating the psychological double bind of colonialism and Ralph Ellison in "The Invisible Man" was doing the same.
I don't buy into Bateson's over all psychological theory, which was meant to describe both "therapeutic" double binds (Zen Koans, twelve step programs) and the experience of certain kinds of psychosis. But I do think he might have provided a good description on how some "paradoxes" are lived-experiences of everyday life, and are not recognized as such. There may be a clue to what we call "ideology" somewhere here.
So in part I was "joking". On the other hand most free trade negotiations seem to proceed by way of the description of double binds provided by Wikipedia. I say this partially as a joke but recently I listened to a BBC documentary on free trade negotiations between the "Rich and powerful" countries and the not so rich countries and the negotiations as described matched exactly the description.
(For the BBC docu see "War by Other Means - A tour into the secretive world of trade negotiations, Part 1." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/6242451.stm )
Did I answer your questions?
Seriously. I don't think any of this is necessarily "true", but I do think that it is food for thought. What I am saying is that this may be an approximate description of certain kinds of relationships of dominance and dependence. But I don't think Bateson's descriptions present a full-blown model of a class of relationships or builds to any particular theoretical insights.
My belief is that one gets better insights into such things by reading "Antigone" or "Hamlet" or "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" than actually building a model that might fit all situations.
Jerry
>
> At 7:42 PM -0500 5/2/07, Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
> >Wikipedia has a nice paraphrase of Bateson's idea of a situation of a
> >Double Bind....
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
> >
> >
> >"1. The situation involves two or more persons, 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 to the
> >victim, for example 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 constituted 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.
> >
> >"4. 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.
> >
> >"5. 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." However, it is
> >not necessary that this injunction be expressed verbally.
> >
> >"6. If necessary, a tertiary injunction is imposed upon the victim to
> >prevent them from escaping the dilemma.
>
> What dilemma? I don't get it.
>
> >"7. 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:
> >
> >
> >"a. When the individual 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.
> >
> >"b. And, the individual 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.
> >
> >"c. And, the individual 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. "
>
> The puzzle is why an injunction to only obey an instruction if you
> want to, makes for a dilemma (and how this could conceivably make you
> a victim). It seems to me this obviates any possible dilemma, rather
> than making it more likely. I'm missing something here. But that
> aside, if the "victim" doesn't understand instructions and is unable
> to clarify instructions, how is there any dilemma? If you don't know
> what you are supposed to do then you can't do it, no dilemma. Problem
> maybe, but no "dilemma" in the sense that you don't have any options.
>
> >This is all set out very clearly, and amusingly in Bateson's
> >collection of essays, "Steps Towards an Ecology of Mind." Also, the
> >inspiration of Russell's Paradox and its non-solution by way of
> >logical typing is discussed. (Ravi, you might like to know that
> >Bateson wrote the papers illustrating "Double Binds" while house
> >philosopher-anthropologist at Bell Labs, working there at the same
> >time as Claude Shannon. )
>
> Nice work if you can get it. Better than an honest job anyhow.
>
> >Change some of the terms, and delete the psycho-babble, substitute
> >state relations and modes of domination for the interpersonal terms,
> >and it seems, to me that Russell's Paradox as instantiated in a Double
> >Bind is exactly the position most "Southern" countries are in when
> >they confront the rules of GATT, and other injunctions of "free" trade
> >capitalism and neo-liberalism.
>
> Indeed, the position of the people of "Northern" countries is a
> seeming dilemma in that upsetting the market with liberal reforms
> would only makes things worse for them too. However, the dilemma is
> only apparent if you refuse to look outside the market capitalist
> box. That is, consider economic strategies (socialism) that don't
> involve markets. It isn't a true dilemma, just a wilful blindness. So
> it isn't a true "dilemma" and isn't even an exclusively "Southern"
> non- dilemma.
>
> But I fail to see what this Bateson's riddle has to do with that, or
> with dilemmas. Help me out.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
--