Doublebinds

A double bind is a communication dilemma in which an individual receives two or more messages that are logically incompatible, such that complying with one would make the other impossible to satisfy. The conflict is reinforced by the situational context and often produces a sense of entrapment, as the recipient is forced to choose between mutually exclusive courses of action. In many formulations, the messages operate on different levels: a direct content command and a higher-level meta-communication that negates or undermines the command, making escape impractical.

Origin and theory: The concept was developed by anthropologist Gregory Bateson and colleagues—Don D. Jackson, Jay Haley, and R. D. Weakland—in the 1950s and 1960s, in work on family communication and schizophrenia. It became influential in family systems theory and communication theory, emphasizing how relational dynamics can constrain behavior and shape expectations.

Characteristics and examples: Classic features include two or more interrelated messages that cannot be reconciled, an injunction coupled with a second message that makes the injunction impossible to act on, and a threat or lack of escape that forces compliance or withdrawal. For example, a parent tells a child, “Be spontaneous,” while punishing deviation from that spontaneity; or “Tell me the truth or I will distrust you,” which makes truthful disclosure risky regardless of what the child says. In everyday use, the term describes no-win situations created by contradictory demands in families, workplaces, or politics.

Critique and usage: In clinical contexts, double binds are seen as one of several patterns that may contribute to distress but are not a sole cause of mental illness. In modern usage, the term is often applied metaphorically to any set of mutually incompatible instructions that frustrate effective action.