Cybernetics & Human Knowing - Thesaurus pilot project
Edited by M&T Thellefsen

Double-bind

Definition
A paradoxical interpersonal relation (PC)

A mental, psychological or behavioral tangle paroduced by an incongruity – apparent or real – between two different levels of contextual explanation. (IESC)

The effect of double bind is that the adressee cannot decide what is real and may develop pathologies (PC)

As noted by R. Vallée "Double bind are contradictory constraints, "generating unstable behaviours" and belonging to cybernetics of the second order"

Relations:

 

Articles:

 

Definitions:

Principia Cybernetica
International Encyclopedia of Systems & Cybernetics

 

Principia Cybernetica (web)
A paradoxical interpersonal RELATIONship involving (1) two or more individuals in an intense relationship, e.g., in family life, captivity, love, loyalty, (2) the COMMUNICATION of a statement that is manifestly contradictory to what it says, e.g., an order to disobey the order, a punishment that is assertedly done for love (see PARADOX), and (3) the inability of the addressee of the statement to step out of the relationship with the significant other, the inability to METAcommunicate or to withdraw from the situation. The effect of a double bind is that the addressee cannot decide what is real and may develop pathologies (see PATHOLOGY). (Krippendorff)

 

Encyclopedia Autopoietica
no def.

International Encyclopedia of Systems & Cybernetics
 

A mental, psychological or behavioral tangle produced by an incongruity – apparent or real – between two different levels of contextual explanation.

The famous self-contradictory paradox of EPIMINIDES the Cretan, saying that all Cretans are liars, is a typical example of a double-bind, leading to a logical contradiction.

As noted by R. VALLÉE, double-binds are contradictory constraints, "generating unstable behaviors" and "belonging to cybernetics of the second order" (1993, p. 95)

Double-binds leave us in a state of mental or psychological confusion and blocks our possibilities of efficient behavior.

This important concept, introduced by G. BATESON in 1956 (1973, p. 173), has been thus commented by him: "We have learned from the paradigm of the freely falling body – and from many similar paradigms in many other sciences – to approach scientific problems in a peculiar way: The problems are to be simplified by ignoring – or postponing – consideration of the possibility that the larger context may influence the smaller. Our hypothesis runs counter to this rule, and is focused precisely upon the determining relations between larger and smaller contexts" (p. 216)

This is a very important systemic and cybernetic notion, because it focuses our attention on the necessity to become conscious not only of the "horizontal" interconnections between elements or events, but also of the "vertical" ones. Let os altogether take care that "horizontal" or "vertical" are no more than verbal metaphors about the supposed organization of our mental processes.

The subject is closely related to RUSSELL and WHITEHEAD’s theory of types, from the logical viewpoint and to von FOERSTER’s inquiry on observing systems (1981)