THE DOUBLE BIND
From:
ESWIZ
11:41 am
To:
Franz J. T. Lee (FRANZJUTTA)
7 of 8
9.7 in reply to 9.4
ROBBING THE CROCODILE
'S DINNER!
(snip)
FOR BOTH: CHECK-MATE!!
> Now, how can we get
out of this predicament, get off the horns
> of this dilemma? The
mother could make two definite statements,
> where she surely will
get her child back. In fact, there are much
> more solutions; but
one of these two would suffice.
> Which one is it? How
could the mother prevent that the crocodile
> would enjoy a delicious
breakfast?
> Generally, Rule No.
1, the stronger, the boss is always right; in
> this case, the crocodile.
> Rule No. 2, if by any
reason whatsoever the boss is not right, then
> automatically Rule
1 comes into force.
> How does the mother trick the crocodile?
This is an example of a "double bind". You state
there are two
responses when there is really only one; a
regression, a return to a
more primitive state or condition. For additional
information see:
The Change Project: The Double Bind
http://www.well.com/user/bbear/double_bind.html
ESWIZ
The Double Bind:
The Intimate Tie Between Behavior
and
Communication
by Patrice Guillaume
Introduction
Schizophrenia
Borderline Personality
This paper explores the double bind in two specific types of so-called
"abnormal" behavior -
schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder. But the power of
the double bind theory
lies in its ability to illuminate the dynamics of the communications
that we consider
"normal" within organizations, communities, and families.
Reading through these behaviors and examples, ask yourself whether any
of them seem
familiar - and if they are, how are they effecting the communications
within the group where
you encounter them?
Introduction
Our behaviors -- effective or not -- are learned. We do not develop
in a vacuum. Rather, we
learn to act and respond within a given context, and within that context
our behaviors make
sense. If we continue to use those same behaviors in new contexts the
behaviors may seem
frivolous or ineffectual; they may even be labeled as abnormal. Yet
the behaviors did make
sense within the context in which they were developed. In this paper
I intend to explore
schizophrenia and the borderline personality from the perspective of
learned behaviors. I
wish to explore the kinds of early interactions and influences that
shape the individual who
earns either of these diagnoses.
Schizophrenia
The classical approach is to view the schizophrenic in isolation from
his environment. It is
assumed that the schizophrenic is out of touch with "reality." Those
who adhere to this
perspective suggest that:
... regression to more primitive levels of thinking
is a primary feature of
schizophrenia. In essence, more highly differentiated
and reality-oriented
"secondary" thought processes, which follow the
rules of logic and take external
reality into consideration, are replaced by "primary"
thought processes which
involve illogical ideas, fantasy, and magical thinking.
(Carson, 330)
In contrast, the interpersonal approach views the schizophrenic in relation
to his
environment, specifically his family of origin. In Steps to an Ecology
of Mind, Gregory
Bateson discusses a theory of schizophrenia which was the result of
a research project
undertaken by Bateson, Don D. Jackson, Jay Haley, and John H. Weakland.
The theory looks
at the behavior of the schizophrenic within the context of his or her
family. They suggest
that schizophrenic behaviors "make sense" when viewed from this perspective.
In other
words, behaviors do not develop in isolation but as a result of our
interactions.
Bateson suggests that the schizophrenic has "...trouble in identifying
and interpreting those
signals which should tell the individual what sort of message a message
is, i.e., trouble with
the signals of the same logical type as the signal `This is play.'"
(1, 194)
For example, I ask my four-year-old stepson to hold his glass of milk
with two hands; he
does not follow my instructions, and he spills the milk. I call his
attention to the fact that he
did not follow my instructions. When he responds with, "I didn't follow
the rules!" I know
he and I are not communicating at the same logical level. My experience
was that I wanted to
discuss a specific incident in which he didn't follow my instructions
and he spilled his milk
as a result. His experience was that he seemed to be struggling with
an abstract concept of
"rules." Ideally, children's experience helps them learn to make those
distinctions. During the
development of the schizophrenic, however, something happens that interferes
with his
ability to do the same. What is it?
Bateson et al. suggest that a person caught in a "double bind" -- a
situation in which no
matter what a person does, he "can't win" -- may develop schizophrenic
symptoms. In the
double bind there are two conflicting levels of communication and an
injunction against
commenting on the conflict. The following is an often-quoted example
from their paper,
"Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia," which demonstrates this bind:
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 any more?" 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. (Watzlawick 12, 36)
In this scenario, the mother is giving her son conflicting verbal and
nonverbal messages and
he seems unable to respond to the discrepancy. According to Bateson's
theory of logical
types, the schizophrenic cannot comment about the meaning of his mother's
communication.
According to Bateson, "The ability to communicate about communication,
to comment
upon the meaningful actions of oneself and others, is essential for
successful social
intercourse." In normal relationships we continually comment about
the actions and
communications of others, saying such things as, "I feel uncomfortable
when you look at me
that way," "Are you kidding me?" or "What do you mean by that?" In
order for us to
accurately discriminate the meaning of our own or another's communication
we must be
able to comment on the expression -- but the schizophrenic is effectively
enjoined from such
commentary.
According to Carlos Sluzki the double bind has the following characteristics:
(1) two or more persons; (2) repeated experience;
(3) a primary negative
injunction; (4) a secondary injunction conflicting
with the first at a more abstract
level, and like the first enforced by punishments
or signals which threaten survival;
(5) a tertiary negative injunction prohibiting the
victim from escaping from the
field; (6) finally, the complete set of ingredients
is no longer necessary when the
victim has learned to perceive his universe in double
bind patterns. (9, 209)
Looking more closely at the double bind, Paul Watzlawick has described
four variations on
the theme. The first and probably the most frequently used is what
he calls the "Be
spontaneous" paradox. The wife who wants her husband to surprise her
with flowers is
experiencing this sort of dilemma. She is asking him to do something
which by its nature
must be spontaneous. "It is one of the shortcomings of human communication
that there is
no way in which the spontaneous fulfillment of a need can be elicited
from another person
without creating this kind of self-defeating paradox," says Watzlawick.
(12, 15-26)
A second variation of the double bind involves a situation in which
a person is chastised for
a correct perception of the outside world. In this situation the child
will learn to distrust his
own sensory awareness in favor of the parent's assessment of the situation.
One example
would be the child who is raised in a violent household but is expected
to see his parents as
loving and peaceful. In later life this person will have a difficult
time determining how to
behave appropriately in a variety of situations. Indeed, this person
will spend an inordinate
amount of energy trying to decipher exactly how he "should" interpret
the situation.
The third variation on the theme is one in which a person is expected
to have feelings other
than those he actually experiences. The mother who wants her child
to "want" to do his or
her homework falls into this category. The child will often end up
feeling guilty when he or
she cannot achieve the "proper" feelings.
The fourth variation, according to Watzlawick, occurs when we demand
and prohibit at the
same time. The parent who demands honesty while encouraging winning
at any cost is
placing the child in this kind of bind. The child is placed in a position
of having to disobey in
order to obey.
How will a person be affected by growing up in an environment where
he or she cannot
comment on these perceived discrepancies? Does that person eventually
learn to trust only
one part of their experience and to deny or distrust the rest?
In 1967 a team of researchers published the results of their further
investigation of the
double bind. They proposed that the operational component of the double
bind is its pattern
of disqualification -- the means by which one person's experience is
invalidated as a result of
the imposed bind. They cited five methods for disqualifying the previous
communication.
Evasion or a change of subject is the first method of disqualification.
If the previous
statement (a) does not clearly end a topic of discussion, and the next
statement (b) does not
acknowledge the switch in topic, then the second statement disqualifies
the first statement:
a. Son: Can we go to the park and play soccer?
b. Father: What a beautiful day for working in the garden.
The second method of disqualification is sleight-of-hand. Sleight-of-hand
occurs when the
second response (b) answers the first (a) but changes the content of
the previous statement:
a. Daughter: We have always gotten along well.
b. Mother: Yes, I've always loved you. . .
In the above example, the mother has responded to her daughter but has
switched the issue
from getting along well to love.
Literalization, the third type of disqualification, occurs when the
content of the previous
statement (a) is switched to a literal level in the second statement
(b) with no
acknowledgment of the change of frame:
a. Son: You treat me like a child.
b. Father: But you are my child.
The fourth method, status disqualification, happens when a person uses
either personal
status or superior knowledge to imply that the previous message is
not valid:
a. Mother: I have observed that he doesn't play very well with the other children.
b. Son: But I do, Mama!
a. Mother: He doesn't realize because he is so little . . .
Redundant questions are used to imply doubt or disagreement without openly stating it:
a. Daughter: I get along well with everybody.
b. Mother: With everybody, Cathy?
The authors conclude their paper with the following observation:
We are consistently finding, in families with a schizophrenic
member,
disqualifications followed by special types of sequences,
such as the ones
described, which tend to consolidate the bind and
hence reinforce idiosyncratic
modes of interaction. In this process, which implies
a whole style of relation with
the world and in which certain stimuli are systematically
denied, certain meanings
are systematically repressed, lack of recognition
is reinforced and rewarded, and
clarification is punished -- in this, we concur
in believing, might rest the
pathogenesis of schizophrenia. (Sluzki 9, 228)
The Zen master holds a stick over his pupil's head and says, "If you
tell me this stick is real, I
will strike you with it. If you say to me this stick is not real, I
will strike you with it. If you
don't say anything, I will strike you with it." Bateson suggests this
is exactly the sort of
situation a schizophrenic continually experiences. The Zen pupil may
achieve enlightenment
by taking the stick from his master's hands. The schizophrenic, by
contrast, experiences
disorientation and confusion, once again finding his way inexplicably
blocked. Taking the
stick away is not an option for the schizophrenic -- he is helplessly
caught in another "can't
win" situation. Through repeated experience with the double bind the
schizophrenic finds
himself limited in the options he has available to him.
Jay Haley takes a further look at schizophrenia from an interpersonal
perspective. There is a
basic rule of communications theory which maintains that it is virtually
impossible for a
person to "avoid defining, or taking control of the definition of,
his relationship with
another." In any relationship, one of the first things that needs to
be adressed is what kind of
relationship it will be. Relationships are defined as complementary
or symmetrical. A
symmetrical relationship is one in which the two parties match behaviors.
If one person tells
about a vacation he has had the second person responds by telling of
a vacation he or she has
just taken. What is emphasized here is the symmetry, how they are alike.
These relationships
tend to be competitive.
A complementary relationship is one in which the behaviors complement
each other. One
person teaches and the other learns; there is a give and take between
behaviors. After
listening to the first person tell about his vacation the second person
would press for further
information.
Over time the nature of relationships will shift. As a child matures
he evolves from a
complementary relationship with his parents to a more symmetrical relationship.
A complementary relationship usually exists between a teacher and the
student. But, when
the student asks a question which implies that he knows more than the
teacher he is
maneuvering to shift that relationship. The teacher can choose to re-establish
the old
relationship or allow the interaction to shift. "Such maneuvers are
constantly being
interchanged in any relationship and tend to be characteristic of unstable
relationships where
the two people are groping towards a common definition of their relationship."
(4, 11)
It has been suggested that schizophrenics, as children, experienced
a great deal of confusion
in regards to defining their relationships as complementary or symmetrical.
In other words,
there was a great deal of mismatch between child and caretaker regarding
the definition of
their relationship. An example is the child who perceives the relationship
as complementary
and responds accordingly -- only to have the caretaker switch to a
symmetrical relationship.
Is it any wonder then, that schizophrenic interactions, as described
by Haley, are an attempt
to avoid defining the nature of those relationships:
A person can avoid defining his relationship by negating
any or all of these four
elements. He can (a) deny that he communicated something,
(b) deny that
something was communicated, (c) deny that it was
communicated to the other
person, or (d) deny the context in which it was
communicated. (4, 89)
People communicate at a multitude of levels. We can communicate with
much more than
just words. For example, our physical posture and gestures provide
another level of
communication as well as the pitch, tone and tempo of our speech. There
are myriad
possibilities for simultaneously relating to and denying relationship
with another person.
Schizophrenics are decidedly the masters at this craft, but examples
abound in everyday life
to demonstrate how this is done.
We are all familiar with mixed messages. The dog who simultaneously
wags his tail and
growls is one example. The man who responds to his wife's request that
he help her in the
kitchen by saying "Sure, I'll be happy to help you," as he settles
deeper into his easy chair, is
at once accepting her request for assistance and simultaneously communicating
that he will
not help her. The woman who says "I would love to help you but I have
a headache," is
defining her relationship as cooperative, while using her headache
to negate the relationship.
Contrast these behaviors with that of the man who congruently says,
"No, I won't help you,"
as he sits down in the chair. He has clearly defined his relationship
as one in which he will
not be told what to do. Similarly, how is a person to make sense of
my communication if I
say "I love you" in a flat voice while gazing in the other direction?
The man says, "This
subject is fascinating," while checking his watch. The woman asks her
child if he wants to
give her a hug as she pulls him toward her for a hug. These sorts of
interactions are common
in every day life. Much of our ability to make sense out of the world
depends on our being
able to recognize and comment upon the conflicting messages we receive.
The schizophrenic, on the other hand, is faced with the dilemma of deciphering
to which part
of the message he can safely respond, since commenting upon the discrepancy
is not in the
repertoire of behaviors available to him. I would imagine it is much
like living in a battle
zone where every communication is a threat to my personal safety. Faced
with the task of
discovering the meaning of another's communication while being prohibited
from
commenting on or acknowledging my own confusion seems like a terrifying
proposition. Is
it any wonder that schizophrenic communications are structured to avoid
defining that a
relationship exists?
It appears that, because of the early influence of repeatedly being
caught in double binds,
schizophrenics develop a defensive approach to communication which
is tenacious in its
ability to say something and say nothing at the same time. Their goal
in life is not to be
pinned down on any front. Unfortunately, they are as hopelessly trapped
in their web of
confusion as the people who come in contact with them.
Borderline Personality
According to James Masterson (The Search for the Real Self: Unmasking
the Personality
Disorders of Our Age), the borderline personality is also a learned
response to the childhood
environment. Masterson contends that as a result of childhood influences
a person can
develop what he has termed a "false self" in order to protect the "real
self" from further
trauma. He suggests that the real self is oriented toward mastering
reality; but once those
efforts have been thwarted the false self shifts the orientation from
that of mastering the
environment to one of avoiding bad feelings.
In their book, I Hate You -- Don't Leave Me: Understanding the Borderline
Personality,
Jerold J. Kreisman, M.D., and Hal Straus identify five dilemmas which
plague the borderline
personality. They call the first "Damned if you do and damned if you
don't." This refers to
the kinds of communications borderlines give other people. The title
of this book is a good
example of this predicament. Another example is a woman I know who
asked her boyfriend
about his impressions of her amateur public performance about which
she had misgivings.
He replied "do you really want my honest opinion?" She insisted that
she did. But when he
told her his assessment of the performance -- which was not particularly
encouraging -- she
responded by telling him how wrong his perceptions actually were. Her
communication was
typical of the kind of confusing message that plagues the borderline's
relationships.
A second tendency which they cite as typical of the borderline is "feeling
bad about feeling
bad." Rather than attempt to understand or cope with feelings, the
borderline tries to get rid
of unwanted feelings. The person who "should" be happy adds additional
layers of guilt and
other difficult emotions to an already depressed or angry persona --
contributing to a
seemingly endless spiral of feeling bad about feeling bad.
The perennial victim is the third pattern they have observed. The borderline
perceives herself
at the mercy of the events and people around her. The woman whose happiness
depends on
her husband's financial success is one example of victim. The person
who organizes his life
such that the solutions to his problems lie in other people's hands
is exhibiting a borderline
tendency. "If only she understood me better ..." is one way that the
victim puts the
responsibility for his or her happiness on another person.
Fourth is the quest for meaning in life. Borderlines continually search
for that which will
fill the emptiness they experience. Relationships and drugs are two
common solutions for
filling this void.
The borderline's perennial search for constancy is the fifth behavior
observed. The borderline
exists in a world that is untrustworthy and inconsistent. Friendships,
jobs, and skills are
always in question. The borderline lacks the ability to experience
consistency and
predictability. It is as if all their experience is for naught. A woman
I know has taken dance
lessons for almost fifteen years and still she cannot see herself as
a dancer; she seems to lack
an ability to trust and rely on her skills.
The sixth and last element of the borderline personality is what the
authors characterize as
the "rage of innocence." Borderline rage is unpredictable and intense
when it surfaces.
Sparked by seemingly insignificant events, it can appear without warning
and often carries
the threat of real violence.
In considering the roots of the borderline personality, Masterson suggests
that John
Bowlby's research into the infant-caretaker attachment is significant.
Bowlby studied the
mourning process that children aged 13-32 months experienced when they
were separated
from their mothers as a result of hospitalization for physical illness.
Bowlby noted three stages of mourning that these children went through
as a result of the
separation from their caretaker. The first stage is protest and can
last a few hours up to
several weeks. In the second stage, hopelessness, the child:
sinks into despair and may even stop moving. He tends
to cry monotonously or
intermittently, and becomes withdrawn and more inactive,
making no demands on
the environment as the mourning state deepens. (6,
58)
In the third stage, detachment, the child no longer rejects nurses,
but when the mother
returns to visit, the strong attachment to the mother typical of children
this age is strikingly
absent. Instead of greeting her, he may act as if he hardly knows her;
instead of clinging to
her he may remain remote and apathetic; instead of dissolving in tears
when she leaves, he
will most likely turn listlessly away. He seems to have lost all interest
in her.
Masterson realized that these same three stages of mourning and the
defenses they produced
were evident in his own adolescent and adult borderline patients:
I came to recognize that when my patients go through
a separation experience that
they have been defending themselves against all
their lives, they seem to react just
like Bowlby's infants in the second stage of despair.
The separation brings on a
catastrophic set of feelings, which I have called
an abandonment depression. To
defend against this mental state, they retreat into
the defensive patterns encouraged
by the false self, which they have learned over
the years will ward off this
abandonment depression.
In adults without a sense of their real self, the
abandonment depression symbolizes
a replaying of an infantile drama: The child returned
for support and
encouragement, but the mother was unavailable or
unable to provide it. The
acknowledgment and approval, so crucial to developing
the capacities of
expression, assertiveness, and commitment, were
simply not there. (6, 59)
Masterson suggests that what characterizes the borderline personality
is an over-reliance on
primitive defense mechanisms learned in early childhood: denial and
clinging, avoidance and
distancing, projection and acting out.
"In order to establish a coherent sense of self, the child in the first
three years of life must
learn that she is not a fused, symbiotic unit with the mother" says
Masterson (6, 51). How is
this to be accomplished? In his book, A Secure Base, Bowlby discusses
the elements he
considers most necessary to allow this process to take place in children:
. . . the ordinary sensitive mother is quickly attuned
to her infant's natural rhythms
and, by attending to the details of his behaviour,
discovers what suits him and
behaves accordingly. By so doing she not only makes
him contented but also
enlists his cooperation.
. . .
This brings me to a central feature of my concept
of parenting -- the provision by
both parents of a secure base from which a child
or an adolescent can make sorties
into the outside world and to which he can return
knowing for sure that he will be
welcomed when he gets there, nourished physically
and emotionally, comforted if
distressed, reassured if frightened. In essence
this role is one of being available,
ready to respond when called upon to encourage and
perhaps assist, but to
intervene actively only when clearly necessary.
(2, 9-11)
What happens in early development to interfere with the child's efforts
to develop a sense of
self -- an identity which is separate and distinct from that of the
caretaker? Kreisman and
Straus contend that a large amount of anecdotal and statistical evidence
exists to
demonstrate that children who have been abused or neglected can be
linked to borderline
tendencies as adults.
Masterson suggests that many of his borderline clients had mothers who
themselves had an
impaired sense of self. Consequently the mothers are not able to provide
the secure base
from which the child can venture out and explore the world. He cited
one example of a
mother with low self esteem and a fear of separation who tended to
foster this fear of
separation in her child. She encouraged him to remain dependent on
her in order to maintain
her own emotional equilibrium:
She seemed to be overwhelmingly threatened by her
child's emerging individuality,
which sounded as a warning that he was destined
to leave her eventually forever.
Not being able to handle what she perceived as abandonment,
she was unable to
support the child's efforts to separate from her
and express his own self through
play and exploration of the world. Her defensive
maneuvers to avoid her own
separation anxieties entailed clinging to the child
to prevent separation and
discouraging his moves toward individuation by withdrawing
her support. (6,
54-55)
Consider what Masterson has suggested about the possible roots of the
borderline
personality: it looks like the ultimate double bind -- a world that
expects one to grow up and
become self sufficient while the caretaker is rewarding that same person
for remaining
dependent and helpless.
Twenty years after the double bind theory of schizophrenia was published,
one of the
authors, John Weakland, published a paper in which he suggested that
perhaps they had
focused too closely on schizophrenia. He suggests that the real significance
of the theory
was its viewpoint that behavior and communication are closely tied.
This theory was
diametrically opposed to the established paradigm that emotional problems
are a response to
intrapsychic conflicts. Perhaps, he suggested, the double bind has
far reaching effects in
many kinds of emotional disturbance, and its explorations should not
be limited to cases
with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Carlos Sluzki seems to have come
to the same conclusion
in his paper with the provocative title "The Double Bind as a Universal
Pathogenic
Situation."
Sluzki notes that a child passes through three evolutionary stages:
(1) infantile dependence, marked by a relative lack of differentiation
between the self and the
non-self and a preponderance of the incorporation or the "taking" of
objects; (2) transition;
and (3) mature dependency, characterized by "relations between two
independent beings who
are completely differentiated; and by a predominance of giving" in
object relations. (10,
231)
The transitional stage ushers in the core dilemma of all mental development:
Dependence
versus independence.
The child's developmental task is to balance the need for security and
dependence with his or
her need to move toward independence. If the parents are to facilitate
the child's emergence
from dependence to independence they will need "to stimulate the impulse
towards
independence and to neutralize the needs for dependency." (10, 231)
Without the parents'
encouragement, it is difficult for the child to face the uncertainty
and risks along the road to
independence.
Sluzki describes three modes of relationship between parent and child;
this includes those
areas of a child's life where he is dependent, independent or moving
from dependence to
independence with parents' help and supervision. For example, dependence
is when a child
cannot get to school without his parents' assistance. Independence
is when the child can get
himself to school without assistance. The third area entails that point
in time where perhaps
the child, with parents' assistance and encouragement, is learning
the route to and from
school but is not ready to do it for himself.
As a child proceeds through life he and his parents must constantly
redefine where those
boundaries are. At best this is a very complex task; if parents are
unclear themselves about
these boundaries, then their children will have to contend with a great
deal of confusion
about what they can and cannot do.
One example of a double bind that inhibits the child's growth toward
independence is a
parent who is in conflict about the desire for the child to be independent
and the desire for
the child to "be perfect." A child's ability to think and behave creatively
will become
increasingly limited if, for example, he is told to think for himself
and then second-guessed
as to his choice of actions. I know an otherwise responsible young
man who spilled paint
thinner and just walked away from it because he didn't know what he
should use to clean it
up. He seemed to be caught in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't"
kind of experience. He
seemed to think it would be better to walk away from the mess then
to be criticized for
using the wrong implement to clean it up. He has found it safer to
retreat into helplessness
and dependence rather than risk making a mistake on his road to independence.
Exploring these kinds of common binds may give us useful insights into
the behavior of the
borderline personalities and schizophrenics. Could it be that the behavior
which we see
exhibited by each diagnosis is a different manifestation of the same
communications knot --
the double bind? If so, then it may be that a major role of therapy
is to unravel the conscious
and unconscious double binds so that the individual can reorient himself
toward more
useful goals and motivations.
Works Cited:
1. Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine, 1972.
2. Bowlby, John. Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human
Development. New York: Basic, 1988.
3. Carson, Robert C. and James N. Butcher and James C. Coleman. Abnormal
Psychology
and Modern Life. Eighth ed. Glenview: Scott, 1988
4. Haley, Jay. Strategies of Psychotherapy. 2nd ed. Rockville: Triangle, 1990.
5. Kreisman, Jerold J., and Hal Straus. I Hate You - Don't Leave Me:
Understanding the
Borderline Personality. New York: Avon, 1989.
6. Masterson, James F. The Search for the Real Self: Unmasking the Personality
Disorders of Our Age. New York: Free, 1988.
7. McKellar, Peter. Abnormal Psychology: Its Experience and Behaviour.
London:
Routledge, 1989.
8. Sluzki, Carlos E., and Janet Beavin, "Symmetry and Complementarity:
An Operational
Definition and a Typology of Dyads." The Interactional View, Ed. Paul
Watzlawick and
John H. Weakland. New York: Norton, 1977. 71-87.
9. Sluzki, Carlos E., Janet Beavin, Alejandro Tarnopolsky, and Eliseo
Veron, "Transactional
Disqualification: Research on the Double Bind." The Interactional View:
Studies at the
Mental Research Institute, Palo Alto, 1965-1974. Ed. Paul Watzlawick
and John H.
Weakland. New York: Norton, 1977. 208-227.
10. Sluzki, Carlos E., and Eliseo Veron. "The Double Bind as a Universal
Pathogenic
Situation." The Interactional View: Studies at the Mental Research
Institute, Palo Alto,
1965-1974. Ed. Paul Watzlawick and John H. Weakland. New York: Norton,
1977.
228-240.
11. Watzlawick, Paul., Janet Beavin Bavelas., and Don D. Jackson. Pragmatics
of Human
Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and
Paradoxes. New
York: Norton, 1967.
12. Watzlawick, Paul. How Real Is Real: Confusion, Disinformation, Communication.
New York: Vintage-Random, 1977.
13. Watzlawick, Paul and John H. Weakland., eds. The Interactional View:
Studies at the
Mental Research Institute, Palo Alto, 1965-1974. New York: Norton,
1977.
14. Watzlawick, Paul. The Language of Change: Elements of Therapeutic
Communication. New York: Basic Books, 1978.
15. Weakland, John H. "`The Double-Bind Theory' By Self-Reflexive Hindsight."
The
Interactional View Studies at the Mental Research Institute, Palo Alto,
1965-1974. Ed.
Paul Watzlawick and John H. Weakland. New York: Norton, 1977. 241-248
Psychology
Articles
Main page
Hi ESWIZ !
Thanks for your remarkable contribution to our debate.
This gives it a scientific, psychological perspective.
In this domain, it is surely an excellent solution.
To tell you the
truth, I did not know this solution; but we are here
to learn
from each other.
The discussion is still too fresh; later I will elucidate
the two
major philosophical-logical solutions. Of course,
some members
of our "Crew" might surpass me, before I reply.
For emancipatory reasons, be patient for a while.
Let our folks continue thinking, reasoning and excelling
themselves.
Once more, thanks,
Greetings,
Franz.
-----ooo-----