sleepingirl
patreon
On Double Binds (A Hypnokinky Article)
🕑 Added 2020-03-15 18:21:48 +0000 UTC(This is an article I wrote recently to show what I could produce in terms of short-form, professional-level educational content. I will soon be doing this for Patrons, including with the ability to vote on topics! Please check it out, and consider subscribing to get 6-8k words per month just like this on topics that interest you and will greatly benefit your hypnosis practice.)
--
Many are familiar with the concept of “double binds” either inside or outside of the hypnosis world -- even if not by name. There is the well-known example of something like, “Would you like to do this now, or later?” which highlights one aspect of double binds -- creating the illusion of choice between two options while underplaying any others. However, as we’ll explore, double binds and binds in general are both more complex and more broad than is described by a "this or that" sentence.
In this essay, we’ll aim to explore double binds in depth -- including their origins, the various perspectives on their applications, and examples of how to be versatile with them -- to further our use of them as hypnokinksters. Let’s explore.
Who?
Within the framework of hypnosis, language, NLP, and other fields, there is a fascinating amount of overlap, not only in content, but in the key players involved therein. It is ideal to discuss these topics with the context of who was involved and what the cultural climate was surrounding them instead of in a vacuum.
Gregory Bateson was the first person to introduce the idea of a double bind while investigating language and communication in patients with schizophrenia. (He did this along with colleagues such as Jay Haley, author of “Uncommon Therapy”, an oft-cited book analyzing the techniques of Milton Erickson.) What they theorized in their paper, “Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia” (1956) was that schizophrenic individuals have a difficult time discerning choice both inside and outside of situations involving double binds, and that double binds occur frequently in the family environment of a schizophrenic patient, potentially contributing to the development of the disorder. Also in the paper was extensive discussion of the “ingredients” of double binds, according to the authors -- including conversation of Erickson’s therapeutic use of them, how people tend to respond in various scenarios, and the framework of communication that they fit into.
Bateson is one of these “key players” in the “canon” of the body of hypnosis knowledge. He wrote the introduction to “The Structure of Magic, Vol. I: A Book About Language and Therapy” (1975) -- the very first book that Richard Bandler and John Grinder put out in their soon-to-be extensive series on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. In fact, looking back to the origins of NLP and where it first began formulating at University of California, Santa Cruz, Bateson was a professor who had close contact with Bandler -- an eager student interested in Gestalt therapy -- and Grinder -- the professor specializing in linguistics. Both of them drew upon Bateson’s body of work when formulating the beginnings of NLP, and Bateson ended up being the person who introduced the two of them to Erickson.
While NLP is a goldmine of history and good referential leads, it has an unfortunate (and ironic) habit of distorting the information and terms that it borrows. “NLP double binds,” for example, differ from “Bateson double binds,” and in the hypnokink world we take blindly from both sources. It’s prudent for us to strive to understand some about NLP to glean information on where many of our hypnotic habits come from, and it does provide a valuable context of how to analyze them, including in this case with binds.
NLP
NLP -- especially early NLP -- has an interesting method of breaking down chunks of “flawed” communication and acknowledging both how they can negatively impact someone and how they can be used to the operator’s advantage in inducing trance or change. The former is called the “Meta model” and lists various therapeutic challenges to problematic thought patterns. For example, someone might say, “My partner doesn’t care about me,” and NLP says to ask, “How do you know that? What have they done to show that?” to recover the “missing information,” which is referred to as “Deletion” in the Meta model. On the flipside, the “Milton model” (referring to THAT Milton) says that you can use Deletions to your advantage -- for example, saying, “You can feel it much stronger now, can’t you?” where both the object of the sentence, “it,” and the comparison word, “stronger,” are left purposefully vague and without index to allow the subject to fill in the blanks themselves.
This is a very simplified and incomplete discussion of both the Meta and Milton models, but the key here is to understand double binds in a similar fashion -- from one perspective, they are a hindrance and can be challenged, and from another, they can be utilized purposefully to obtain results. Some descriptions of NLP include binds as part of these models, while others break binds down into the simple communication chunks given by the Meta and Milton models.
Ingredients of Double Binds
To fully be able to utilize double binds, we must move past the model of them as simple “this or that” phrases. Let’s discuss them broadly to understand how they apply in both everyday situations as well as hypnotically. We will compare and contrast “Bateson double binds” with “NLP double binds”.
According to Bateson, double binds:
- Require two or more people, one of whom is being acted upon by the other(s) who somehow have influence, authority, or superiority over the subject
- A classic example is parent to child, but even child to parent is possible if the parent feels like they do not have control or authority over the situation
- Often give a not-unfamiliar experience of being stuck in a dilemma, especially in the case of them being problematic
- Bateson places high value on the idea that in the context of someone’s life, the double bind is not a single experience and thus can’t be resolved as such; the person experiences the feeling of being stuck as patterns or habits
- Have a “primary injunction”: they create a sense that there is a “right” thing to do, and if the subject doesn’t perform, they will be “punished” (whether verbally, by withdrawal of attention, cultural stigma, etc)
- This is often cited as having two possibilities: “Don’t do this, or I’ll punish you” and “If you don’t do this, I’ll punish you” -- perhaps an example might be a boss telling an employee that they need to finish a project by the end of the day; the punishment if they don’t is implied
- Have a “secondary” and sometimes “tertiary injunction”: conflicting with the initial message, they create a sense that even if they fulfil the original requirements of the situation, there is no way to do it that doesn’t also fail some other aspect of it
- Continuing the above example, the boss gives the employee extra work and expresses something like, “This isn’t punishment, it’s acknowledgment of your skill” -- the employee may be overworked, but the only way to avoid more work is to go against the initial premise of, “Do the work or you will be punished”
- May exist outside the scope of these clear guidelines if the subject often feels like their world is full of double binds and “no-win” scenarios
- Bateson describes part of this in terms of the relationship between people -- there is an “important” relationship that the subject doesn’t want to jeopardize and simultaneously feels unable to communicate on the paradoxical or uncomfortable nature of the situation or messages
- May differ from the exact feeling of being “stuck between a rock and a hard place” in that the subject may have difficulty discerning the nature of the bind or what is preventing them from acting
- For example, in a situation where there is an unspoken rule not to question a parent, and the child witnesses a parent doing something wrong, the child may feel paralyzed but not understand why
Certainly, Bateson’s focus is on double binds that impede the individual in some way, and this description of binds might be new to those of us that only are familiar with binds from a hypnotic level. In Bateson’s binds, as well, the entire scenario and environment that exists is a large focus to how the bind works -- circumstantial double binds, or double binds where the “injunctions” (conflicts) are entirely nonverbal.
But Bateson does, in the original paper, talk about double binds in a therapeutic context, in fact referencing Milton Erickson and hypnosis. Here is an excerpt:
“Another Erickson experiment (12) seems to isolate a double bind communicational sequence without the specific use of hypnosis. Erickson arranged a seminar so as to have a young chain smoker sit next to him and to be without cigarettes; other participants were briefed on what to do. All was ordered so that Erickson repeatedly turned to offer the young man a cigarette but was always interrupted by a question from someone so that he turned away "inadvertently" withdrawing the cigarettes from the young man's reach. Later another participant asked this young man if he had received the cigarette from Dr. Erickson. He replied, "What cigarette?", showed clearly that he had forgotten the whole sequence, and even refused a cigarette offered by another member, saying that he was too interested in the seminar discussion to smoke. This young man seems to us to be in an experimental situation paralleling the schizophrenic's double bind situation with mother: An important relationship, contradictory messages (here of giving and taking away), and comment blocked--because there was a seminar going on, and anyway it was all "inadvertent." And note the similar outcome: Amnesia for the double bind sequence and reversal from "He doesn't give" to "I don't want."”
The situation in this case is considered by Bateson and colleagues to be a double bind, as the necessary ingredients are present and the scenario itself creates the bind. There is another interesting comment as well, that the “amnesia” is a somewhat expected response. What Bateson is referring to here is the way that people may deal with feeling bound -- not necessarily literal loss of memory, but change in perception of the event. The subject of a double bind is often mentally struggling to parse the situation, which may manifest in a variety of different ways, depending on their perspective and how aware they are of all of the aspects of the bind. The specific feeling of being trapped seems to be the hallmark of binds, in Bateson’s theory -- that is what he and his colleagues were studying.
Bateson says this is a non-hypnotic example, but it is interesting to think about whether Erickson would agree with that assessment, or if we as hypnokinksters would, considering our broad perspective on mind play in general. We only have Bateson’s account here, but perhaps it is worth investigating about what it means to feel “stuck” in a situation that is hard to discern, rolling something over in one’s mind, changing focus between internal and external -- all very hypnotic patterns. But while this is something we’ll explore more in depth, this is not really the kind of double bind we’re familiar with from the hypnosis world -- so let’s dive into where that version of them really comes from: NLP.
According to NLP, double binds:
- Are often a question, using the word “or”
- “Are you ready to go deeper, or are you ready for something more intense?”
- Offer a real or perceived choice between two options while explicitly downplaying or not mentioning any others
- “Would you like to talk about this now, or after dinner?” -- no choice offered to not have the conversation, or have it on a later day
- Have potential to be rejected if they are not true binds
- The subject may see other options and choose to circumvent the original offer -- in the previous example, “Can it wait until tomorrow?”
- Often are meant to facilitate one outcome chosen by the operator, even though the subject is apparently given a choice
- “Do you want a quick trance or a long trance?” -- the outcome is that trance is going to happen in both cases
- Can be “unconscious” or ambiguous -- framed in such a way that the answer to the question is not truly consciously answerable
- “I wonder if your feet will go into trance before your head, or vice versa…” -- this can be emphasized by changing the perspective of the sentence, “I” vs “you”, “I wonder...” vs “Do you think...”, or other verbal markers such as “Who knows if…”
- Often are composed with other aspects of the Milton model
- “You’ll be a great subject if you listen really carefully, or if you let my suggestions float in unnoticed…” -- the use of “if/then” is indicative of causal thinking, which is a standard part of the Milton model, also presuppositions
Here we see the common habit of NLP in its natural environment: the “borrowing” of a term and concept well-established in psychology, and distorting it. Sometimes this sort-of-infamous NLP distortion renders the result useless, but there are certainly cases (such as this one) where the theory and practice that comes of it is worth thinking about, understanding, and finding ways to use. This is the “double bind” that most of us are familiar with -- a single expression ranging from simple to complex which attempts to garner one outcome through the false offering of choice. We know now that this is very distinct from Bateson’s binds, in many ways, with a notable exception in that both Bateson and NLP reference Milton Erickson as being masterful with them. We will compare, contrast, and attempt to reconcile the two, but first let’s talk a little more about NLP binds in hypnosis.
The term “double bind” seems to beg the question, “Are there other forms of binds?” The answer is yes. The classic example, “Would you like to go into trance now, or later?” is a double bind. If we remove one of the options, we’re left with, “Would you like to go into trance now?” This is a theoretical “single” bind, because upon the subject responding positively, they’ve “bound” themselves to a course of action or thought. Oftentimes, binds overlap with other NLP artifacts, such as being part of a “yes set” or being part of Milton model language patterns. For example, “Do you think that going deeper into trance like you are right now means that I’m weakening your will?” binds a “yes” response to the cause/effect of them subjectively feeling more submissive or controlled by you. Of course, we can add options as well, and come up with a “triple” or “quadruple” bind -- “Would you like to go into trance now, or later, or would you like me to choose?”
NLP binds are about having a general goal in mind and being able to break it down into multiple scenarios to offer which lead to that goal. If the goal is to get someone to go into trance, you can think about the various aspects of that situation -- what position they can be in (“Would you prefer going deep sitting up or laying down?”), when it’s going to happen (“...immediately or in a moment?”), parts of their body (“...eyes open or closed?”, “...hands in your lap or hanging down?”), what else is involved (“...staring at a watch or a spiral?”), how they are feeling (“...excited or pleasantly nervous?”, “...aroused or too deep to be turned on?”), what they are thinking about (“...focused on my voice or my eyes?”, “...listening harder with your left ear or your right ear?”), and many, many other options that have to do with all of the different variables. This could be about the environment, who is involved, what you’re doing, and much more.
Compare, Contrast, Reconcile (Applications)
In this section, we’ll take what we’ve learned about these two distinct types of binds and see where they are similar, where they differ, and where they can be spliced.
Choice and/or No Choice
One of the major differences between these two forms of double binds is that in Bateson’s, the sense of being trapped is important to the bind itself, while NLP seems to emphasize an aspect of sneakiness -- you don’t necessarily want the subject to know there are other options, if there are any, and the goal is for the subject to feel like they are making a choice themselves. But an NLP bind can also be a Bateson bind, for example, in a situation where a hypnotist asks a subject, “Are you ready for me to fuck up your mind, now, or do you need a break?” and the subject blushingly responds that now is good, but the hypnotist does not immediately signal to them that they are doing hypnosis. The subject is left unsure -- is hypnosis happening, or not? Likely they don’t want to ask to clarify or push. This leads to a variety of possible responses -- perhaps the feeling of hypnosis becomes ambiguous, and the act of the subject continuously checking internally and wondering if trance has happened becomes hypnotic. The sneaky hypnotist can take advantage of this.
This feeling of being trapped in paradox is evident in the reverse of this as well -- the common trope of the hypnotist saying, “Don’t go into trance…” while swinging a pocketwatch or otherwise signalling trance. The subject is unsure how to respond. In hypnokink, there should never be risk of real punishment or disappointment from a dilemma like this, so it is more of a playful version of Bateson’s bind than a true version of one, but it is one that we can explore. Any situation where you create incongruent messages and expectations fits -- trying to get a bimbo to act smart, a scenario where the subject is told not to orgasm but it’s unclear what the “punishment” would be for disobeying, telling someone that it’s dangerous to brainwash themselves but rewarding each step in that direction.
You can conceptualize it like this: A Bateson bind is a scenario where there is no perceived correct response, and an NLP bind is a scenario where all perceived responses are correct. Once we understand the usefulness of both, we can freely intermingle and make decisions about which to choose.
Implications
Another place that we can marry the two effectively is taking into account Bateson’s focus on the personal history, environment, and mindset of the subject as essential to a double bind. In many of his examples, the bind comes partially as a product of these things -- in a scenario of a potentially unhealthy relationship, one partner may express to the other, “If you loved me, I wouldn’t have to ask you to do this.” This is a classic Bateson double bind -- the partner clearly must do the thing they are being asked to do, but by doing so, they fulfil the conditions that the first partner laid out as meaning that they don’t love them. Perhaps, in this case, there is a history of the first partner asking for certain things to be done -- they themselves are in a pattern where they expect the second partner to never follow through, thus never giving them a chance to “prove them wrong.” This unspoken part of the bind that exists -- as well as any others, such as the theoretical second partner’s childhood being filled with nagging parents -- is just as important as the verbal construction of the bind.
We can apply this knowledge to the NLP double bind by reducing the verbal aspects of binds, and leave them implied. For example, in the case of two partners on a video call together with limited time, the hypnotist may allude to the fact that they are going to do trance (“Well, gotta fuck your shit up at some point…”) which leaves the subject to wonder when it’s going to happen. (As discussed previously, not immediately acting upon the statement or changing the subject away from trance can create the Bateson bind.) The hypnotist may ask, “How badly do you want it?” which presupposes that there is a desire as well as urgency. The “hidden” option is the response of “I don’t want it,” which is not explicitly downplayed, but considering the context (unless the subject is going for bratty) the answer will usually be somewhere on the scale from “kinda badly” to “really badly.” In general, we should strive to be aware of our partners’ thought patterns and personal history in order to better utilize it, as well as striving to be able to create patter that doesn’t sound like it came out of an NLP manual.
The Hypnokink Bind
There is a sort of third perspective on double binds here -- the perspective of us as erotic hypnotists, where we almost expect our partners to understand when we are binding them, because that’s part of the fun. Not every hypnokinky subject at every time will key into when a bind is happening, but many will recognize the classic NLP pattern, and this is something we need to keep in mind as hypnotists. Often, we’re able to tell by their response, whether it’s a knowing smile or a furrowing brow. The bind in this case becomes fully voluntary -- it is no less of a “bind,” but we should examine our motivations for using them and how we can adapt to a situation where a bind is fully informed and consented to, even appreciated.
In the case of a subject who knows the bind is happening, perhaps one option is to bind even more fully -- in “The Brainwashing Book,” we talked about the idea of “traps” and how we can make our suggestions and language encompassing in a way that there is no available “failure” response. Continuing the example, instead of simply saying, “Would you like to go into trance now, or later?” we could say something like, “Do you think your desire to go into trance affects whether you notice it happening immediately, or in a little while, or even if it slips past your awareness?” A few things are at play here. There is a meta-question about the real question -- a “yes” or “no” response to whether they think their desire matters doesn’t affect the presupposition that trance is going to happen. In fact, this presupposition isn’t challenged even by the subject wondering about noticing or not noticing anymore. Whichever response they have -- feeling trance now, feeling trance later, or not feeling trance at all -- is covered by the original question. There may even be some confusion and struggling to parse, which fits inside the Bateson bind: Stuck between various options, especially for someone who is trying to analyze, not sure if there is a “right” answer, and the feeling that they’re unable to properly challenge it as it happens.
Depending on the situation -- if this is a verbal back-and-forth, or if the subject is not verbally responsive in trance -- there are options to continue the bind as suggestive patter (“...And I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I enjoy wondering about it, and maybe you’d like to enjoy wondering with me, going back and forth with just easy curiosity about how you will respond to trance this time and how your internal thoughts affect it…”) or even to bind further, adding in more restrictions and “steering” the subject how you’d like them to go (“...You should decide: Is it important to you to consider this, or is it something that you can just let go of?”)
Collapsing the Bind
There is a final aspect to binds that we must consider as something useful -- what happens if or when the bind is released? In the case of the subject being unsure if they are supposed to be in trance or not, the clarity of the hypnotist explicitly releasing the bind is something that we universally know is freeing. Think about similar examples in hypnosis -- “confusion” or “overload” inductions such as the 7+/-2 are popular and effective because of the contrast between the subject’s mind racing and the sudden, clear instruction.
Similarly, this applies to both NLP binds and Bateson binds. In a Bateson bind, it’s especially clear; the paralysis and paradox is the nature of the bind. In NLP, we have to analyze the situation a little more. When giving options, such as, “Do you think you’ll be completely mindless, or keep enough of yourself to watch your own brain fade away?” we can think about how to create a sense of punctuation or closure with it. It is perfectly fine as-is, but it allows us a choice to move from ambiguous to clear. This could certainly be as simple as saying, “I think you’ll go back and forth, feeling your own consciousness slip through your fingers…”, which shifts focus from the subject wondering internally to the clear thoughts of the hypnotist. It breaks the bind, not necessarily by choosing one option or the other (although that is certainly an option) but by building upon it while moving to a space where the hypnotist calls the shots.
The other aspect to this is about timing. In “The Brainwashing Book”, we talk about the format of a scene as a series of peaks and valleys, and the motivation of us as intimate partners to seek climactic moments and be aware of the flow of play. Collapsing a bind can certainly be a climactic moment such as this -- it can be the induction of trance, the change between focal points, the gaining of permission for something, or more. We should always be attentive of how to build tension and enjoyment, looking for these peaks and valleys in the body language and verbal language of our partners. If we see our partner struggling with paradox, for example, unsure of whether or not they are in trance, we can purposefully add to it (perhaps by goading, “Are you, or aren’t you? Hmm?”) and watch carefully -- does their breathing change, is there a moment where they look like they may crack? Perhaps one option to build and peak is by snapping your fingers to bring them out, so they have an intense moment of, “Oh, I must have been -- and oh, I wish I still was --” and then almost immediately dropping them back down.
--
In Conclusion
I hope you enjoyed this writing -- it is good as a standalone but there is so much more to say as all of these topics are so entwined. This particular article will likely be adapted into a couple chapters for my next book, which will be on NLP for hypnokinksters, so please consider this a sneak peek into that project -- speaking of which, if you liked this and haven’t checked out “The Brainwashing Book,” I encourage you to see for yourself!
The other reason for me writing this is to show what I can put out in terms of shortish-form educational content. I am looking into making more writings like this in a scheduled, monetized format like Patreon -- they take a lot of time and effort (probably about 12 hours here of writing, organizing, research, etc!) and I believe that I have a LOT to offer in terms of knowledge to share, especially intermediate or advanced material like this.
It is possible-to-likely that I will have to shift my focus for a little while off of my current job because of COVID-19, so I want to get this started early! If this was interesting or enjoyable to you, please share it, and let me know if these articles are something you’d find worth paying a few bucks for per month (while having input to the topics I write about), or purchasing them at a small cost one-by-one, or something else. Thanks so much! <3
--
Bibliography:
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975). The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and Therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia. Personality and Social Systems., 172–187. doi: 10.1037/11302-016
Jones, A. (2008, October 7). Binds, Double Binds and Unconscious Double Binds – Part One. Retrieved from http://communicatingexcellence.com/binds-double-binds-and-unconscious-double-binds-part-one/
Lankton, S. R., & Lankton, C. H. (2014). The Answer Within: A Clinical Framework of Ericksonian Hypnotherapy. Routledge.
Roffman, A. E. (2008). Men are Grass: Bateson, Erickson, Utilization and Metaphor. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 50(3). doi: 10.1080/00029157.2008.10401627
sleepingirl. (2019). The Brainwashing Book: Hypnotic, Erotic Behaviorism and Beyond. Kindle Direct Publishing.
Yudkowsky, B. (2016, May 17). Beware the Bind. Retrieved from http://agentyduck.blogspot.com/2016/05/beware-bind.html
