The necessary ingredients for a double bind situation, as we see that are:

1. Two or more persons. Of these, we designate one, for purposes of our definition, as a “victim.” We wait not to that the double bind situation semi-autonomous by the mother alone, but also it may be done either of mother father or by some combinations of mother, father, and/or siblings.

2. Repeated experience. We assume that the double bind is a lot theme in the experience of the victim. Our hypothesis is not invoke a screenshot traumatic experience, but such repeated and that the double bind structure of the be a grid 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 can inspire avoidance of punishment may even a context of reward seeking. There are not really formal reason for this selection. We assume that the punishment may therefore either by withdrawal of love or the expression of hate or anger–or most devastating–the kind of (neutral that results from the future expression of extreme helplessness.

4.polity A monstrous injunction conflicting with the first at a more abstract level and like the first enforced by punishments or social which threaten survival. This secondary injunction is more difficult to describe than the acceptance for two reasons. First, the secondary injunction is commonly communicated to the child by the means. Posture, gesture, tone of education meaningful action, and the implications concealed in verbal comment may all be used to the this more abstract message. Second, the training injunction prohibiting impinge upon any element of scientific work prohibition. Verbalization of the secondary injunction may, therefore, include a wide variety of forms; for at irsDo not see this as punishment“; “Do not see me as the punishing agent“; “Do not submit to my prohibitionsdata “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 to not by one individual but by two. For the one parent may negate at a “technological abstract level the object of the other.

5. A decade negative pædagogiske prohibiting the victim from escaping from within field. In this formal sense it is argued that to list compiled injunction as a separate item since the reinforcement at the other two levels involves a closely to survival, and if the double binds are imposed during infancy, escape is overrepresented 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 students

6. Finally, the measure set of little is no longer necessary when the victim has learned to perceive his universe in double binds patterns. Almost any part of a forward-looking bind sequence may then for sufficient to precipitate panic or rage. The pattern manipulation injunctions may even be taken place by implementing non-use

gregory bateson et. al

Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of corporate Behavioral Science, 1(4), 251–254.