Editing Double bind (section)

==Explanation==
The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple contradictory situation, where the subject is trapped by two conflicting demands. While it is true that the core of the double bind is two conflicting demands, the difference lies in how they are imposed upon the subject, what the subject's understanding of the situation is, and who (or what) imposes these demands upon the subject. Unlike the usual [[no-win situation]], the subject has difficulty in defining the exact nature of the [[paradox]]ical situation in which they are caught. The [[contradiction]] may be unexpressed in its immediate context and therefore invisible to external observers, only becoming evident when a prior communication is considered. Typically, a demand is imposed upon the subject by someone whom they respect (such as a parent, teacher, or doctor) but the demand itself is inherently impossible to fulfill because some broader context forbids it. For example, this situation arises when a person in a position of [[authority]] imposes two contradictory conditions but there exists an unspoken rule that one must never question authority.

Gregory Bateson and his colleagues defined the double bind as follows<ref name="schizophrenia"/> (paraphrased):
{{ordered list|start=1
| The situation involves two or more people, one of whom (for the purpose of the definition), is designated as the "subject". The others are people who are considered the subject's superiors: figures of authority (such as parents), whom the subject respects.
| Repeated experience: the double bind is a recurrent theme in the experience of the subject, and as such, cannot be resolved as a single traumatic experience.
| A 'primary [[injunction]]' is imposed on the subject by the others generally in one of two forms:
*(a) "Do ''X'', or I will punish you";
*(b) "Do not do ''X'', or I will punish you."
The punishment may include the withdrawing of love, the expression of hate and anger, or abandonment resulting from the authority figure's expression of helplessness.
|4= A 'secondary injunction' is imposed on the subject, conflicting with the first at a higher and more abstract level. For example: "You must do ''X'', but only do it because you want to." It is unnecessary for this injunction to be expressed verbally.
|5= If necessary, a 'tertiary injunction' is imposed on the subject to prevent them from escaping the dilemma.
|6= Finally, Bateson states that the complete list of the previous requirements may be unnecessary, in the event that the subject is already viewing their world in double bind patterns. Bateson goes on to give the general characteristics of such a relationship:
{{ordered list|type=lower-alpha
|1= ''When the subject is involved in an intense relationship; that is, a relationship in which he feels it is vitally important that he discriminate accurately what sort of message is being communicated so that he may respond appropriately;''
|2= ''And, the subject is caught in a situation in which the other person in the relationship is expressing two orders of message and one of these denies the other;''
|3= ''And, the subject is unable to comment on the messages being expressed to correct his discrimination of what order of message to respond to: i.e., he cannot make a [[Metacommunicative competence|metacommunicative]] statement.''
}}}}

Thus, the essence of a double bind is two conflicting demands, ''each on a different logical level'', neither of which can be ignored or escaped. This leaves the subject torn both ways, so that whichever demand they try to meet, the other demand cannot be met. "I must do it, but I can't do it" is a typical description of the double-bind experience.

For a double bind to be effective, the subject must be unable to confront or resolve the conflict between the demand placed by the primary injunction and that of the secondary injunction. In this sense, the double bind differentiates itself from a simple contradiction to a more inexpressible internal conflict, where the subject really ''wants'' to meet the demands of the primary injunction, but fails each time through an inability to address the situation's incompatibility with the demands of the secondary injunction. Thus, subjects may express feelings of extreme [[anxiety]] in such a situation, as they attempt to fulfill the demands of the primary injunction albeit with obvious contradictions in their actions.

This was a problem in United States legal circles prior to the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] being [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|applied to state action]]. A person could be subpoenaed to testify in a federal case and given Fifth Amendment immunity for testimony in that case. However, since the immunity did not apply to a state prosecution, the person could refuse to testify at the Federal level despite being given immunity, thus subjecting the person to imprisonment for contempt of court, or the person could testify, and the information they were forced to give in the Federal proceeding could then be used to convict the person in a state proceeding.<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/52/case.html Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n], 378 U.S. 52 (1964) ("One jurisdiction in our federal system may not, absent an immunity provision, compel a witness to give testimony which might incriminate him under the laws of another jurisdiction.")</ref>

Sukaina Hirji (utilizing the interpretation of Marilyn Frye) defines the "oppressive double bind" as follows (paraphrased):
# A double bind is a choice situation with few options that all lead to a form a punishment or deprivation. The resulting situation is the option to maintain invisibility through compliance of structural oppression or to challenge societal norms, leaving the individual with blame due to their identity.
# Frye emphasizes that the context of social barriers as a form of reinforcing to the immobilization and success of certain members of society is a key element to understanding and interpreting the double bind. These societal barriers often favor specific groups, leaving those not associated ostracized from societal success.
## Societal barriers in society manifest in the form of stereotypes regarding race, class, gender, sexuality, etc.
# A key element - both options in the situation leave the individual in a stale position. The individual often has a moral choice and prudential choice, either one robbing them of some sort of pride or benefit.
# Even if the individual resists the oppressive norm, they will most likely face punishment. Their individual success or survival in a society that enforces this oppressive system is a form resistance but their experience being punished degrades their progress towards the goal of dismantling the oppressive system.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hirji |first=Sukaina |title=Oppressive Double Binds |url=https://philpapers.org/archive/HIRODB-2.pdf |journal=PhilPapers}}</ref>

===Example===
The classic example given of a negative double bind is of a parent telling their child they love them, while at the same time turning away in disgust, or inflicting [[corporal punishment]] as discipline:<ref>Koopmans, Mathijs. [http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1997/Koopmans.html] ''Schizophrenia and the Family: Double Bind Theory Revisited'' 1997.</ref> the words are socially acceptable; the body language is in conflict with it. The child does not know how to respond to the conflict between the words and the body language and, because the child is dependent on the parent for basic needs, they are in a quandary. Small children have difficulty articulating contradictions verbally and can neither ignore them nor leave the relationship.

An additional example of an oppressive double bind situation is the present realities of transgender female in society. Trans women face the challenge of being considered feminine due to their transition, leading them to often present themselves in "overtly 'feminine-coded'" ways. The result of this can be the implication of the stereotype that trans women are "artificial" and their attempts at conforming could be seen as them "trying too hard." On the other hand, if a trans woman does not choose the extremely feminine presentation, then they'll be judged for not looking how a woman "should" look. In this example, the intersection of the societal expectations of women meet the expectations of transgender woman. Women in society already face beauty ideals that imply a specific type of presentation is feminine and attractive. When you add in the element of a woman also being transgender, then they also face transphobic assumptions that a "feminine" presentation requires specific biological features.

This situation is ultimately more complicated than a typical choice situation that requires conforming or resisting because the simple presence of a trans woman in society is a rejection societal norms. The resistance to norms appears in the sense that society often robs a transgender woman of "womanhood" so identity is combating societal structure in this case. Nonetheless, anything a trans woman does could also be a form conforming to the norms - presenting in a feminine manner, wearing makeup, dressing in a specific way, etc. This example depicts the event of multiple intersecting oppressive norms at play.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hirji |first=Sukaina |title=Oppressive Double Binds |url=https://philpapers.org/archive/HIRODB-2.pdf |journal=PhilPapers}}</ref>