The Double Bind and the communications of abuse
I recently met someone else who also has a cPTSD diagnosis and we started to talk about how shockingly textbook our common human struggles are. We spoke about how childhood formulates patterns, and how a person can spend a lifetime unravelling all the un/conscious patterns of communications across all sorts of situations; with teachers, friends, lovers, colleagues, or even doctors and psychologists who are supposed to be aware of these things.
As neurodivergent people, we see patterns that ordinarily might go unnoticed; we recognise a certain subtle texture of behaviour that weaves itself through society – and that can be as beautiful as threads of mycellium or as sinister as black mould.
..••°°°°••..°°••….••°°
Since joining the Emergent Wisdom Collective, I have been diving into Bateson’s communication theories as part of a larger interest in mental ecology, and in particular, how Félix Guattari helps us to expand notions of Self from the Maslowian perspective to a more interconnected and ecologically sound view. Guattari’s three ecologies took me to Gregory Bateson – and honestly, it’s heartbreaking how much of it rings true. One concept, in particular, has stayed with me: the Double Bind.
The Double Bind is the communications trap that puts us in more than just a confusing exchange; it’s a psychological trap and a form of abuse. In can be subtle or overt, visible by others or not. In a double bind, you’re placed in a situation where any response you give is ‘wrong’. You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.
One of Bateson’s classic examples involves a parent and child. The parent warmly says, “Come and give me a hug,” but when the child moves in, the parent stiffens or flinches. If the child hesitates instead, the parent sighs or snaps,
“Why are you always like this? Don’t you love me?”
The child is stuck. Hug, and risk being punished. Don’t hug, and still be punished. Try to speak up about the contradiction and get shamed or gaslit for questioning their intentions: “Are you mad?”
You’re given contradictory commands, often one verbal, one non-verbal, but the worst part is the ongoing gaslighting: you’re not allowed any form of metacommunication: you are not allowed to talk about the contradiction, otherwise you are the problem.
The result is paralysis, frustration, guilt, shame and confusion that can embed itself so deeply a child’s brain that it disrupts the sense of self. The damage amplifies with other forms of abuse or neglect, and the victim becomes withdrawn, creating an inner world that is an escape from the unsafe world of “othering”. The child becomes physically exhausted and unable to socialise. It can even lead to illness. Every verbal interaction is a potential threat. Every silence, the quiet question mark before a potential storm.
It’s soul destroying. And when these dynamics are chronic, especially in childhood, they can lead to deep psychological injury; c-PTSD, emotional dysregulation, and in some cases, schizophrenia. Read that again: words can cause schizophrenia.
Bateson warned that a child trapped in a persistent double bind without the ability to meta-communicate could develop ‘profound lifelong mental health conditions’. The mind begins to question reality, not just once, but constantly. The crippling self-doubt carries on into adult, and the person tolerates high levels of abusive or chaotic behaviour because it is all a distraction from the suffering self. The pain isn’t just from the contradiction itself, but the inability to name it or escape it.
The double bind shows up everywhere: in dysfunctional relationships, communities, churches, toxic workplaces, social systems. It is amplified across intersections of gender, race, disability and so on. You’re encouraged to be honest, but not too direct. You’re told to happy, but don’t talk to much, to tell the truth but not really, to be independent, but not cold. You’re expected to lead, but never be assertive. To laugh at their jokes, even if they are weaponised against you. You’re asked to share feedback or give an opinion, then are punished for doing so.
The pattern repeats. Apologising, people-pleasing, anxiety, freeze responses, constant self-monitoring, sadness. A kind of internal exile begins, where you no longer trust your own voice, your perception, or your memories. The communications abuse can also be used to lay the path for plausible deniability – the abuser amplifies the gaslighting: “That’s not what I meant” turns into “Rubbish, that’s not what I did!” They can even start to deny obscene behaviour done right in front of your face, the ultimate kind of crazy-making.
(-(-_(-_-)_-)-)
This is where Härska Teknik comes in: these are a set of “master suppression”, “domination techniques” or “power manipulation techniques” that were updated in the 70’s by Norwegian feminist Berit Ås. Härska Teknik can be subtle or overt but are most effective when used over time to undermine people without appearing overtly aggressive to others in the room. A comment that sounds like concern to others can totally undermine the victim.
“I am worried about you” can be a quiet exclusion that sends a loud message and echoes things said to the victim away from the gaze of others: “You are failing, you are an embarrassment, you are not normal, look at the state of yourself”. A correction disguised as guidance. And perhaps most devastating: the expectation that you endure it all silently, because to call it out makes you the crazy one.
٩(̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾)۶
The shortlist of these techniques are:
Making invisible: Silencing or marginalising people by ignoring them can be done in a number of ways, including stealing other people’s ideas, but it can be as quiet as starting to read a book or turning your back while a person is talking. It can also be by completely ignoring someone’s arguments or repeating what they said as if it’s all your idea, or changing the topic “goalposts” and agreed expectations.
Ridiculing: Ridiculing the victim comes in many forms. You might laugh out loud when someone is sad or angry or trying say something in earnest. And of course, it includes making fun of the person behind their back. It can be a person in the office, or it can be a racist cartoon in a newspaper, much like the racist cartoon characateuring Arabs that the Washington Post had to take down.
Withholding information: A classic way to make someone look stupid is by excluding them from information or decision-making process, then exposing them as being ignorant. Withholding information means the person cannot make an informed choice. It can be organising a party and not telling them until it is too late. There is always the element of plausible deniability – “but I did tell you!” If you meta-communicate, you are the petty, neurotic one.
The double bind: Just as Bateson defined, this is the technique of punishing the person regardless of how they act. In a work situation it can be a colleague who gives someone tasks, but then tells them to work on other things- and then complains to the boss that the work is taking too long.
Shame-making: There is a whole plethora of shame-making techniques that can be dont at any moment and it isn’t only about criticising appearance or personality. Any of the other techniques can be used to shame-make: If you are happy, you are taking up too much space, if you react from abuse, you are being miserable and bringing everyone down. A woman is attacked, and instead of questioning the attacker’s motives, the focus is on what she was wearing.
Objectifying: Discussing the appearance of someone, or a group of people, in a situation where their appearance is irrelevant, is an added technique in shamemaking. I think everyone has witnessed this kind of dehumanising behaviour. It’s not limited to the sexual objectification of women. Trans men and women are often abused for “not passing” and if they do pass, then they are being “deceiving”.
The threat of force: Threatening to use physical violence is effective even if that violence isn’t enacted. Showing a child a leather shaving strap and saying that is the punishment for bad behaviour is as insidious as the act. The punishment is internalised fear, and completely invisible to the outside. Only the child knows what it has been told.
ε(´סּ︵סּ`)з
Over time, the person on the receiving end of communications abuse starts questioning their own worth. They wonder why they are being picked on and not others. Maybe they are just too sensitive? Maybe they are a bad person? The control lies in the repeated contradiction, in the silencing of any response, and the secretive slow erosion of reality.
The abuser wants to push the victim to being visbly upset and emotional, because that deflects away from their behaviour. This abusive behavior is nothing to do with the victim whatsoever; it is a poor coping mechanism of the abuser. For a short period of time, the abuser’s ego is inflated. They distract themselves from their feelings of low-self worth, and avoid exposing themselves as the abusers they are, burying their own deep-rooted rage and shame.
Another related set of behaviours that’s become widely known in the last two years is DARVO—Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It’s what often happens when you to try and name the abuse. First, they deny it happened. Then, they attack your character. Then they claim they are the ones being victimised; you’re the abuser, not them. They present a logic and when that logic fails, they shift to another broken argument.
The real mindf*ck is that it works. It looks “normal” from the outside, and quite convincing on the surface of things. It’s often masked in calm, polite, and even progressive language. You can see this exact strategy at work in large-scale propaganda, especially in how the Israeli state justifies its actions, amd how western media happily amplifies the abuse. It’s not just the lying, it’s the constant shifting of narratives, topics, and events.
Crimes upon crimes are hidden in the overload of conflicting information, the erasure of context, and the outright lies. One day it’s self-defence, the next it’s humanitarian aid, and then suddenly it’s back to ancient birthright. The goalposts move so quickly and without any coherent logic, but you can’t keep up, and that’s the point.
It’s cognitive warfare. You’re emotionally flooded, mentally destabilised, unable to name what’s happening without being discredited, silenced, or called ant!sem!t!c. It’s a societal Double Bind. You’re told to care about human rights, but if you point out the human rights violations of a violent, militarised, colonial state, you’re the one accused of being a terror!st supporter.
The abuse can come from one organisation to another too; the aims is to administratively overload. To report universities, newspapers, and other organisations for malpractice is another common abuse behaviour that is becoming widespread. The aim isn’t to win. The aim is to tie up the organisation in unnecessary admin and costs that eventually leads to self-censorship.
The new law in the UK denigrating a peaceful protest group to being a terror!st group is DARVO on steroids. It’s the same shameless abuse of the narcissist, weaponised in media, government, and manufactured outrage, so that the abuser always appears as the victim and vice versa. And to the bystanders, who are not paying attention, or who already have racist tendencies, it all sounds very logical, even confirming their existing biases, because they too are not privy to the horrific truth of the full picture, or are simply in denial themselves.