Gregory Bateson
(1904-1980) was an anthropologist, social scientist, linguist and cyberneticist
whose work intersected that of many other fields. Some of his most noted
writings are to be found in his books, Steps To An Ecology of Mind, 1973, and Mind and Nature, 1980. Bateson is most famous for developing the "Double
Bind" theory of psychology, and for being Margaret Mead's husband. One of
the threads that connected the work of Bateson (a Regent of the University of
California system) was an interest in systems theory and cybernetics.
Gregory Bateson originally
defined the term double bind as
“communication in the context of an emotionally important relationship in which
there is unacknowledged contradiction between messages of different logical
levels.” (quote from ‘Angels Fear: Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred’,
co-authored by Bateson and his daughter)
In Steps
To An Ecology of Mind - 'Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia' Bateson wrote that...We
hypothesize that there will be a breakdown in any individual's ability to
discriminate between Logical Types whenever a double bind situation occurs. The
general characteristics of this situation are the following:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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 meta-communicative statement.
Bateson gave the following
example, which is often cited as a good example of a double bind situation in
action. The brief encounter described involves all the necessary ingredients of
the double bind phenomena. Situations similar to these are observable daily in
relationships, let alone on psychiatric wards. What makes double binds
successful is that most of them are invisible to those involved in them. Most originate
from the paradoxes presented when trying to help another person, such as a
therapist trying to teach a person to be more independent: -
A young man who had fairly well recovered from
an acute schizophrenic episode was visited in the hospital by his mother. He
was glad to see her and impulsively put his arm around her shoulders, whereupon
she stiffened. He withdrew his arm and she asked, "Don't you love me
anymore?" He then blushed, and she said, "Dear, you must not be so
easily embarrassed and afraid of your feelings." The patient was able to
stay with her only a few minutes more and following her departure he assaulted
an aide and was put in the tubs.
THE DOUBLE BIND (from
Steps To an Ecology of Mind - 'Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia')
The necessary
ingredients for a double bind situation are:
1. Two or
more persons.
Of these, we
designate one, for purposes of our definition, as the "victim." We do
not assume that the double bind is inflicted by the mother alone, but that it
may be done either by mother alone or by some combination of mother, father,
and/or siblings.
2. Repeated
experience. We assume that the double bind is a
recurrent theme in the experience of the victim. Our hypothesis does not invoke
a single traumatic experience, but such repeated experience that the double
bind structure comes to be an habitual expectation.
3. A primary negative injunction. This may have either of two forms:
(a) "Do not do so and so, or I will
punish you," or
(b) "If you do not do so and so, I will
punish you."
Here we
select a context of learning based on avoidance of punishment rather than a
context of reward seeking. There is perhaps no formal reason for this
selection. We assume that the punishment may be either the withdrawal of love
or the expression of hate or anger - or most devastating - the kind of
abandonment that results from the parent's expression of extreme helplessness.
4. A
secondary injunction conflicting with the first at a more abstract level, and
like the first enforced by punishments or signal which threaten survival. This secondary injunction is more
difficult to describe than the primary for two reasons. First, the secondary
injunction is commonly communicated to the child by nonverbal means. Posture,
gesture, tone of voice, meaningful action, and the implications concealed in
verbal comment may all be used to convey this more abstract message. Second,
the secondary injunction may impinge upon any element of the primary
prohibition. Verbalization of the secondary injunction may, therefore, include
a wide variety of forms; for example, "Do not see this as
punishment"; "Do not see me as the punishing agent"; "Do
not submit to my prohibitions"; "Do not think of what you must not
do"; "Do not question my love of which the primary prohibition is (or
is not) an example"; and so on. Other examples become possible when the
double bind is inflicted not by one individual but by two. For example, one
parent may negate at a more abstract level the injunctions of the other.
5. A
tertiary negative injunction prohibiting the victim from escaping from the
field. In a formal sense it is perhaps
unnecessary to list this injunction as a separate item since the reinforcement
at the other two levels involves a threat to survival, and if the double binds
are imposed during infancy, escape is naturally impossible. However, it seems
that in some cases the escape from the field is made impossible by certain
devices which are not purely negative, e.g., capricious promises of love, and
the like.
6. Finally,
the complete set of ingredients is no longer necessary when the victim has
learned to perceive his universe in double bind patterns. Almost any part of a double bind sequence may
then be sufficient to precipitate panic or rage. This pattern of conflicting
injunctions may even be taken over by hallucinatory voices.
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Another excerpt (which appeals to me as a
retired banker) from Steps To an Ecology of Mind:
·
Capital
is our precious
stock of stored flexibility for performing an orderly transition to adapt to
new conditions, just as a chrysalis uses its stored energy to turn itself into
a butterfly.
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bateson, in
his brilliant introduction to ‘Perceval’s Narrative: A Patient’s Account
of His Psychosis’, said this:
“It would appear that once
precipitated into psychosis the patient has a course to run. He is, as it were,
embarked upon a voyage of discovery which is only completed by his return to
the normal world, to which he comes back with insights different from those of
the inhabitants who never embarked on such a voyage. Once begun, a
schizophrenic episode would appear to have as definite a course as an
initiation ceremony – a death and rebirth – into which the novice may have been
precipitated by his family life or by adventitious circumstances, but which in
its course is largely steered by endogenous process.
In terms of this picture,
spontaneous remission is no problem. This is only the final and natural outcome
of the total process. What needs to be explained is the failure of many who
embark on this voyage to return from it. Do these encounter circumstances
either in family life or in institutional care so grossly maladaptive that even
the richest and best organized hallucinatory experience cannot save them?”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
First and
foremost, that which is characteristic of the natural history of families which
contain schizophrenic or near-schizophrenic individuals is a very tough
stability which Jackson has referred to as ‘to feel well, homeostasis’.
... When the identified patient begins this phase we observe all sorts of
subtle pressure being exerted to perpetuate his illness. However, it is well
known that there are many cases in which, as the patient gets well, some other
member of the family starts to show symptoms of psychiatric stress. It follows
that these families are not simply homeostatic around the invalid status of the
particular identified patient. It would seem then that the variables which must
at all costs be kept constant are somewhat more abstract or more secret in
nature. It is not that at all costs the identified patient must be kept
confused; rather it seems as if the patient himself is an accessory - even a
willing sacrifice - to the family homeostasis. If he ceases to play this role,
there is a likelihood that some other member of the family will assume it in
his place. Like many complex homeostatic systems, the pathogenic family seems
to be able, like a newt, to regenerate a missing limb.....
Analogous
phenomena also occur in many biological systems. If, for example, the apical
shoot of a Christmas tree is cut off, one of the first whorl of branches below
the cut will bend upward and replace the lost apex. This branch will then lose
its former bilateral symmetry and become radially symmetrical like any other
apical shoot. Such systems are perhaps best thought of as, in some sense,
competitive. The various individuals [in this case branches] of which the
system is composed would seem to be so mutually related, that, by their
interactions, one will always be selected as the ‘winner’ or as the ‘loser’.
This individual then becomes specialized in the functions of this position and
in performing these functions actively prevents the other individuals from
taking over this specialized role.
Think of
traffic. There are too many cars on the roads and too many restless people; and
too much pollution of the atmosphere by the cars. Altogether that makes up what
the doctors call a ‘syndrome’, a nest of symptoms. Of course this syndrome has
its roots in overpopulation and unwisely applied engineering skills, and in
medical victories over epidemics. Public health, just like individual medicine,
is symptom-activated. We all share in the pathology which we would blame on the
doctors. At the social level, what happens is simple: Somebody gets paid to
make the pathological trend more comfortable. We treat the symptoms - we
make more roads for the more cars, and we make more and faster cars for the
restless people; and when people [very properly] die of overeating or pollution,
we try to strengthen their stomachs or their lungs. [Insurance companies hate
death]. For overpopulation, we build more houses. And so on. That is the
paradigm: Treat the symptom to make the world safe for the pathology. But,
it’s a little worse that that: We even look into the future and try to see the
symptoms and discomforts coming. We predict the jamming of traffic on the
highways and invite bids for government contracts to enlarge the roads for cars
that do not yet exist. In this way, millions of dollars get committed to the
hypothesis of future increase in pathology. So, the doctor who concentrates
upon the symptoms runs the risk of fostering the pathology of which the
symptoms are parts.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
From “Mind and
Nature: A Necessary Unity”
Context >>> meaning.
1.
A mind
is an aggregate of interacting parts or components;
2.
The
interaction between parts of mind is triggered by difference (difference is a
non-substantial phenomenon not located in space or time, but is related to
entropy/ negentropy rather than to energy).
3.
Mental
process requires collateral energy [usually metabolic]
4.
Mental
process requires circular (or more complex) chains of determination.
5.
In
mental process, the effects of difference are to be regarded as transforms
(i.e. coded versions) of events which preceded them. The rules of such
transformation must be comparatively stable (more stable than the content) but
are themselves subject to transformation.
6.
The
description and classification of these processes of transformation disclose a
hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena.
Glossary:
·
Entropy - the degree to which relations
between the components of any aggregate are mixed up, unsorted,
undifferentiated,
random and unpredictable (the opposite is negentropy). In physics, certain
sorts of ordering are related to the quantity of energy available.
moves relative to the objects.
certain outcomes of the random are allowed to
endure, that system is said to be stochastic.
doubted. The truth of the
propositions is not claimed. (An example is Euclidean geometry).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From ‘Angels Fear: Towards an Epistemology
of the Sacred’, co-authored by Bateson and his daughter:
Home
|
Our Stories
|
The Sublime
|
Our World and Times
|
Book Reviews
|
Marnie's Images
|
The Journal
|
Gleanings
|
From The Writings Of. . .
|
Allegories
|