The Double Bind - Part Ii

[lostforgottensoul]

The Dilt's video actually expresses that we can pattern ourselves to keep being in double binds - set ourselves up for it or not be aware of how to get out of one

I believe that fully as I've fallen into many and could, or didn't know how to get out or which was was right or up or whatever. I have no clue im in a double bind until i can finally see a way out or someone mentally slaps me and says "this way". But it isn't until I am out that I see it for what it was. While in it i have no clue.

 

[Tinyflame]

In some ways it characterizes much of my life, but in other ways I can't see it, because (to myself) for example, if I'm wrong with A, but also wrong with B, I think to myself well I still have C (C being my own attitude, or whatever). So I can't win with A, or choosing B , but I control my response to it (C) (best I can, of course). The double bind still exists, but it's the only thing that can't be stripped. Ideally I can also recognize A and B (the double bind) may not be all my fault.

 

[shimmerz]

So as an example, I will give the following scenario
1. Involved - Youngest son and myself

1. 2 or more people - 1 is the victim (scapegoat)
2. It is repeated over and over again (not a one time thing) - it is a pattern
3. primary injunction - telling you to do something or severe consequences (may be implied)
4. secondary injunction that directly conflicts with the first injunction
5. perpetrator must have a relationship (power dynamic) over the victim

1. 2 or more people = son and I
2. Repeated over and over again - this is actually tricky - because it ties into the consequence
3. Not actually 'implied' primary injunction - Son says 'I want you to come to my place so I can drive you to the airport and stay the night'
EXCEPT
Son says 'you cannot have a panic attack'
My response - I can't come because I am having panic attacks right now
4. Not actually 'implied' secondary injunction - Son says 'After all I have done for you to help you (bought the plane ticket) - if you stay at (friends) house and have her drive you, I am totally offended - and I don't want you here
Implied threat is - I can no longer see him or grandchildren
5. Son has power over whether I can see grandchildren or not
Now, as far as (Alba?) said about target not being allowed to notice or bring to light the paradox here I will mark this as number 6
6. Son, you realize that if I have panic attacks and you are asking me not to come if I have a panic attack, that you are putting me into an impossible position.
STONEWALL - which I think is another tactic used
Son says 'I don't want to talk about this anymore! I can't believe you are choosing to go to (friends) house instead of mine. I would think you would want to see your grandchildren and son before you leave rather than (friend).

Maybe this isn't a double bind???? Feels like it. Maybe I am causing it???? I don't know. Too close to it I think.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

 

[Tinyflame]

Only a fast one @shimmerz :

"Son, I appreciate very much the plane ticket and am anxious and looking forward to spending time with you and my grandchildren. Since I cannot always predict what will bring on a panic attack since it is physiological and not always predictable or preventable, I am thinking that the best solution wherein we can all enjoy each others' time together the most will be if I stay at other accomodation. That way if I need to rest I can do so without interrupting your & the children's routine."

My option 'C' there would be you know your panic attacks are not wilful. (I'm sorry there's no option D for his wilful ignorance or lack of education. :( )

It's bull by the horns, but if it means not seeing them this time, it might mean that. If however you must see them even if it means they will be fighting 'at' you, that's an option C (but harder to manage).

You don't have to apologize for being educated in, & managing ptsd. It might help to say, 'This is what I find, if I am able to create a less-stimulating environment to recharge in, I can be better company & we all will enjoy the visit more. I want to see you & the grandchildren, & I need to manage my ptsd & recharge my batteries to do that fully". (Or, it might not help. :( But if you had Type I Diabetes it wouldn't help to eat the chocolate cake to keep the peace. It might, however, be possible to throw the chocolate cake out or ..?.. )

:hug:

 

[Tinyflame]

Son says 'I don't want to talk about this anymore! I can't believe you are choosing to go to (friends) house instead of mine. I would think you would want to see your grandchildren and son before you leave rather than (friend).

^^^ Not the issue/ inaccurate.

 

[shimmerz]

Not the issue/ inaccurate.

'Splain Lucy?

 

[Tinyflame]

can't believe you are choosing to go to (friends) house instead of mine. I would think you would want to see your grandchildren and son before you leave rather than (friend).

You are not choosing to spend time with someone else you are choosing an option that addresses a physical/ physiological need that accompanies your ptsd/ anxiety, in order that you can provide yourself with basic self care so you can have the best visit with him/ them. (You know your illness & what you need to do about it. :tup: )

 

[shimmerz]

and am anxious and looking forward to spending time with you and my grandchildren.

This is where I think I play into it. I don't see this option. I just automatically feel like I am stuck and have to do what is put to me. And that I can't defend myself against it. Defeatist?
Why? Am I seeing him as having too much power.

Please note, I don't necessarily want to do much but analyse this as it is for double binds. Don't care about a solution. I care about the distortions and alternatives that I (and perhaps others in their own situations) am not seeing.

 

[shimmerz]

provide yourself with basic self care

And this is why self care is so important. Man, this is all just a twisted mess isn't it? Thanks Junebug, I and I imagine many others, appreciate this.

 

[Tinyflame]

It's ok I understand @shimmerz . Me too. :hug:

Would we/ could we make different decisions if we could see ourselves differently?

Ps, no, I don't feel entitled to musch, either. And, ETA, called it 'illness' above, didn't know what to call it. But even that- maybe just call it ptsd. :hug:

 

[joeylittle]

Very interesting thread.

My own experience with double binds has been that the importance lies in:

• grasping the concept
• identifying the concept when it happens to you
• extricating

A little like when the character in a scary movie hears the strange bump-in-the-night noise, and goes to investigate. We as viewers know the trope so well, it's hard to not shout at the screen "don't open the door!". Of course, if they did the smart thing and turned and left the house and never came back - there wouldn't be any drama (or plot or story) anymore. Only a bogeyman waiting for no-one.

And in life, the more boring non-dramatic choice is a much smarter one. But it's hard, when encountering these paradoxical situations, to disengage. Either we think we cannot, the cost will be too high - or we think we do not have the right - or we have been conditioned to believe we need to find the right answer, no matter what.

Once you grasp the concept that sometimes, there is no answer that will work - and you see that you are being asked to answer the question that is unanswerable - it's not about teaching the other present that they are doing that. It's about walking away from the trap.

@shimmerz - I would propose that in the example with your son,

1. 2 or more people = son and I
2. Repeated over and over again - this is actually tricky - because it ties into the consequence
3. Not actually 'implied' primary injunction - Son says 'I want you to come to my place so I can drive you to the airport and stay the night'
EXCEPT
Son says 'you cannot have a panic attack'
My response - I can't come because I am having panic attacks right now

You can see the outline of the double bind forming in the first exchange, no?
Primary - I want you to come so I can fulfill my role as son. Secondary - You cannot have a panic attack.
I know you weren't asking for solutions - but I would say that after the secondary, your job is to clock that it's just happened - the impossible request, there's no way to do this - and then communicate your reality but do not expect to convince son of anything.

"I want to come, so we can spend that time together. I have a chronic medical condition that I cannot turn on and off. If it were possible for me to do that, I would, but thats not physically possible."

And, because you do care about the relationship, both to him and the grandchildren, you're going to want to stay logistically engaged - but you can't allow yourself to become emotionally engaged. Get your soul out of there, leave your brain to work it out. Maybe you can negotiate, bargain, compromise....but you can't bend reality to your will.

I personally find the more difficult part to be looking for a compromise while knowing that the other person is looking to get their way. That might be why I've come to the conclusion that if I get hooked, I'll bend over backwards til my back breaks, trying to fix everything for this other person. And hate myself for it.

I've got a couple of very, very clear examples of double binds in my past - in some ways, more clear, because they didn't have the subtleties of long-established family dynamic thrown in. I think it took me about a year of really debating them hard with my therapist before I saw that they were actually double binds. I didn't understand that this was a thing that happened, to anyone. I believed there was always a solution and it was my role in life to find it when the other person asked for it.

This is where I think I play into it. I don't see this option. I just automatically feel like I am stuck and have to do what is put to me. And that I can't defend myself against it. Defeatist?

No, I don't think so. Learned behavior.

Why? Am I seeing him as having too much power.

Yes. Now, this one is tough because he has something that you want, badly. He does appear to hold all the cards. He's holding the cards and playing keep-away with them. But oddly, accepting that as the situation is not the same as accepting you have lost. You don't lose if you can truly choose to make our piece with not playing. Radical acceptance at it's ultimate test, really. And then, you gotta do some self-care, because you just walked away from a thing that mattered. It hurts. But I believe it hurts less than trying and trying and still not winning. Then, you lose. And it reinforces beliefs about powerlessness and self-blame.

It should have been two cents, it turned into a buck fifty. Sorry about that.

 

[scout86]

@shimmerz , I've been doing more thinking about this. Here's a story for you.

Once upon a time, I was visiting my 'unofficial adopted brother' and his wife. She had done something mind blowingly stupid and lost a bunch of money to a con artist. We were brain storming ways to get the money back. (I should add the he adored his wife and made a lot of excuses for her. He was angry, but not so much at her.) She was feeling bad, but as was her style, she was not accepting responsibility. She started in with a "Oh poor me, I'm so stupid" argument. I'm familiar with that. There's a type of narcissist that goes that route, expecting people to not only back off, but to assume them that they AREN'T stupid and it wasn't their fault, etc. I settled in, expecting the game I knew so well.... He looked her right in the eye and said "Don't go there with me!" I was stunned. It had never occurred to me that refusing to play the game was an actual option. One of the coolest things I've ever seen, in my entire life. And kind of a game changer going forward.

My T says "It's not really a choice unless you have at least 3 options." That one would be option #3, in a lot of cases. Granted that wasn't a double bind situation...... Well, you know, it kind of was. Because, to ME, it looked like you had the choice of calling her out and being 'mean' or playing along and basically not being honest. And there was another choice I hadn't seen. When you start looking around, "Don't go there with me" works in a lot of situations.