“Kafkatrap” is the new name for ye olde double bind
A double bind is a social science term for “heads I win, tails you lose.” It goes like this:
A double bind is a dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, with one negating the other. In some circumstances (particularly families and relationships) this might be emotionally distressing. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation.
Double bind theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in the 1950s.
Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them both difficult to respond to as well as to resist.
I learned about double binds back in college long ago, and they were one of the concepts that stuck with me and that I’ve found most useful. Even if a person understands the concept, it’s sometimes hard for the person to recognize a double bind when snared in one.
The anti-racism movement (discussed earlier today) specializes in placing its trainees in a classic double bind, often causing tremendous discomfort – a discomfort which is then labeled as just being part of the resistance to acknowledging one’s own inherent racism.
There also are many other situations in life in which a person can be presented with the double bind dilemma. (“Have you stopped beating your wife?”)
The only way out is through a process response rather than trying to deal with the content. In other words: name the game as a double bind, and explain what that is if the person doesn’t already know. That doesn’t mean that your reaction will be acceptable and the person will release you from the double bind situation. But that’s part of the double bind as well.
I’ve heard this sort of thing described as a kafkatrap in recent internet parlance. That’s clever, too, drawing on Franz Kafka’s fictional works such as The Trial, where a person is confronted with a judicial proceeding in which every move leads to a verdict of guilty. A Soviet show trial is similar, too.
There’s more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,’ said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; `this paper has just been picked up.’
`What’s in it?’ said the Queen.
`I haven’t opened it yet,’ said the White Rabbit, `but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to–to somebody.’
`It must have been that,’ said the King, `unless it was written to nobody, which isn’t usual, you know.’
`Who is it directed to?’ said one of the jurymen.
`It isn’t directed at all,’ said the White Rabbit; `in fact, there’s nothing written on the outside.’ He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added `It isn’t a letter, after all: it’s a set of verses.’
`Are they in the prisoner’s handwriting?’ asked another of they jurymen.
`No, they’re not,’ said the White Rabbit, `and that’s the queerest thing about it.’ (The jury all looked puzzled.)
`He must have imitated somebody else’s hand,’ said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)
`Please your Majesty,’ said the Knave, `I didn’t write it, and they can’t prove I did: there’s no name signed at the end.’
`If you didn’t sign it,’ said the King, `that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you’d have signed your name like an honest man.’
There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.
`That proves his guilt,’ said the Queen.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s a good article on kafkatrapping.]
Self inflicted guilt over something you never did or thought is likely to lead to suicidal thoughts.
A little off topic but I’m a big fan of Lewis Carroll: in the King of Heart’s defense–how did the Knave know the letter was not signed?
In real crimes “you can’t prove I did it” does not usually strengthen the perception of one’s innocence.
I’m not convinced the Knave of Hearts is being set up. That said, the double bind/kafkatrapping comments I totally agree with.
Another favorite tactic is motte/bailey: how can you oppose calls to end police brutality vs defund the police. We saw this in real time, when “defund the police” was challenged the media published a bunch of think pieces about how really they didn’t mean that at all.
Coined, as far as I know, by Eric Raymond in 2010:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122
Fred Drinkwater: That’s my impression too — that Raymond came up with term, “kafkatrap.” Here:
____________________________________________________
One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”, and the above the Model A kafkatrap.
–Eric S. Raymond, “Kafkatrapping”
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122
____________________________________________________
Given Raymond’s specificity for a very particular type of argument, I would say that while a kafkatrap is a type of double-bind, not all double-binds are kafkatraps.
I read Gregory Bateson and R.D. Laing on double-binds back in college and the double-bind covers much more ground than a kafkatrap and it’s often entirely internal — not requiring an external “double-binder.” Bateson and Laing hoped double-binds explained schizophrenia — a non-linear bursting out as a solution to the linear double-bind. It was a neat theory but failed clinically.
A kafkatrap is designed to be dishonest from the start. Thus, no courtesy is due the proponent. Which provides for good deal of inventiveness.
Ever do work with the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court?
Asking for a friend.
Here’s an example of the wide latitude with which Bateson used the double-bind concept wth regard to alcoholism:
________________________________________________
Lastly, the phenomenon of hitting bottom is complexly related to the experience of double bind. Bill W. narrates that he hit bottom when diagnosed as a hopeless alcoholic by Dr. William D. Silkworth in 1939, and this event is regarded as the beginning of A.A. history). Dr. Silkworth also “supplied us with the tools with which to puncture the toughest alcoholic ego, those shattering phrases by which he described our illness: the obsession of the mind that compels us to drink and the allergy of the body that condemns us to go mad or die”. This is a double bind correctly founded upon the alcoholic’s dichotomous epistemology of mind versus body. He is forced by these words back and back to the point at which only an involuntary change in deep unconscious epistemology-a spiritual experience-will make the lethal description irrelevant.
–Gregory Bateson, “The Cybernetics of ‘Self’: A Theory of Alcoholism”
“Steps to an Ecology of Mind” p.331
________________________________________________
There was a time when I understood, or thought I understood, what Bateson meant here, but that was decades ago.
Which isn’t to say Bateson was spouting nonsense, but it is a bit intricate.
I fell in love with R.D. Laing, the radical anti-psychiatrist of the 60s/70s, when I read his shattering book, “The Politics of Experience” at the arguably too young age of 17. It was an “Everything You Know is Wrong” experience.
Laing included the double-bind in his theory of schizophrenia. He wrote a marvelous book, “Knots” which was a collection of short poems providing schematics of the double-bind, or at least double-bind-ish, experience. Here’s the first one:
____________________________________________________
They are playing a game. They are playing at not
playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I
shall break the rules and they will punish me.
I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
–R.D. Laing, “Knots,” p. 1
____________________________________________________
I’ve never come to terms with Laing. Clearly he was wrong about some things, many things, but there was also a deep, searching humanity to him that I can’t easily discard.
If anyone is curious about Laing, here’s an excellent documentary:
–“Did You Used to be R. D. Laing?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86t5GWB5qRY
I couldn’t get over his overwhelming Scottish accent. Not at all the voice I heard in my head!
“The only way out is through a process response rather than trying to deal with the content. In other words: name the game as a double bind, and explain what that is if the person doesn’t already know. ” – Neo
Similarly, it is important to not accept the Left’s framing of issues, or argue using their terms when there is a Kafkaesque or Orwellian definition attached to them.
The link that shadow gave on the anti-racism thread does a good job of showing how to deconstruct the inherent incoherence of some of the concepts the Left uses to build their double-binds.
http://memepoliceman.com/what-is-antiracist/
“I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.” – Laing
“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” — Ronald Reagan
“In order to continue advancing their illogical arguments modern liberals have to pretend not to know things.” – David Mamet
This could go on any of the three posts today.
Look at the date.
Has anything changed, other than the increase in vitriol and virulence?
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/07/31/10-concepts-liberals-talk-about-incessantly-but-dont-understand-n937072
The only thing I would alter is that many of them don’t understand the concepts, because they have never learned what the words they are using actually mean, but their leaders know exactly what they are doing by deliberately misusing and abusing the principles they proclaim to support.
Some of the best of the online memes illustrate double-binds (although not always Kafkatraps) with the spaceman who has to choose between two buttons that are labeled with principles that are both proclaimed by the group or person represented by the spaceman, but are mutually incompatible.
Here are a couple of recent ones, probably lifted from PowerLine’s TWIP:
https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2020/07/Screen-Shot-2020-07-03-at-11.55.40-AM.png?resize=768%2C1152&ssl=1
https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2020/05/IMG_3026.jpeg?w=500&ssl=1
I think “Silence is violence” is my favorite woke-ism.
With “Violence/arson is freedom of speech”, while not quite as elegant, a close second.
As for K-traps, at this rate they’re certainly going to have to redesign Miranda. Maybe something along the lines of:
“You’re under arrest. You have the right to remain silent. Everything you don’t say will be held against you….”
Barry Meislin,
Brilliant comment about Miranda rights!
His has been popularized in Meme-dom thusly!
https://imgflip.com/meme/Two-Buttons
The only way out of the double-bind/kafkatrap is to break through the walls or go out the window. “I reject your premise” is one way. (A more caustic version is “F* you.”) After rejecting the premise, then you give an answer founded on the correct premise.
Yes, kind of like a Gordian “NOT!”.
Wretchard had an impressive post several years back on “The Power of ‘No'” (or something like that….).
But the problem then, as almost always, becomes how to deal with the physical and emotional (as opposed to “merely” intellectual) thuggery….
Wow! Just WOW!
Of all the excellent OPs and response threads on Neo this one has to be in the top 5.
A perfect example of why I check in here every day.
Thank you all and keep up the great work!!!
The only way out of the double-bind/kafkatrap is to break through the walls or go out the window.
GWB: This is what made the double-bind such an attractive explanation for schizophrenia. In that framework the schizophrenic’s crazy talk/behavior is an artful attempt to break out of an otherwise impossible situation.
This crazy thinking where a person can make a statement, The Sky is Green and I can think, that person is not thinking what I am thinking but I won’t argue and then I get in trouble because I did not speak at and agree, The Sky is Green and that requirement to fall in line and speak up is dangerous. At the same time today I am reading that some of the people speaking up and not being corrected have come to the conclusion that if we do away with police, people there will be no crime and no criminals, false logic police cause crime.
This is like the Epimenides paradox. Epimenides was a Cretan who made one immortal statement: “All Cretans are liars.” Was he lying?
Much stuff like this Kafkatrap is found in “Godel, Escher and Bach” a book by Douglas Hofstadter, 1979.
In the early 70s Mark Vonnegut, son of Kurt, had a full schizophrenic breakdown while living the good hippie life on a commune in British Columbia. His friends tried so very hard to give him as long a leash as they could so Mark V. could come through his crisis without sending him to the booby hatch, i.e. a standard Western hospital, but in the end they had no choice.
Mark V. hated the hospital, the confinement and the thorazine. However, that’s where he eventually recovered. Afterward he wrote an article published in “Harper’s” titled “Why I Want to Bite R.D. Laing’s Leg.” I can’t find that now, but later he wrote a book on the whole experience, “The Eden Express.” Here’s a bit from part 4, which was a letter to his relative, Anita, who was concerned she might be schizophrenic:
______________________________________________________
I myself was a Laing-Szasz fan and didn’t believe there was really any such thing as schizophrenia. I thought it was just a convenient label for patients whom doctors were confused about. I even worked in a mental hospital for several months without being convinced otherwise.
All that’s beside the point. The point is that there’s overwhelming evidence that there is a very real disease called schizophrenia (actually probably several real diseases with overlapping symptoms), and, as you yourself suspect, it’s very possibly what you’re suffering from. There’s no percentage in your wasting energy wondering whether or not you’re crying wolf, Anita. What you’re suffering from is very real.
–Mark Vonnegut, “The Eden Express” p.266
______________________________________________________
After that Mark V. was so impressed with Western medicine that he turned his life around, managed to get accepted at Harvard Medical School and has led a laudable life as a pediatrician. He did go crazy again a few decades later, but unlike most, he came though that too.
That part of his story can be found in his second memoir, “Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So.” Both books are crackin’ good reads.
huxley:
I remember reading The Eden Express at the time it came out, and liking it.
I also remember learning about Laing way way back, and thinking “Interesting stuff, but no.”
neo: Laing and Szasz had their points. Being diagnosed mentally ill was a terrible threat to one’s civil rights. What happened in mental hospitals could be extreme and horrifying — lobotomies and electroshock treatments. Mental health authorities had a rather checkered history in their crusades against masturbation and homosexuality.
As a result of Laing and Szasz, in the 80s there was an odd “hands across the water” moment between the Left and the Right which let many thousands of the mentally ill out of the asylums and into the general population to survive with the homeless.
Which doesn’t seem right either.
I don’t have the answer. I came close to having to sign papers for my mother to receive electroshock when she was in a locked ward. I don’t know what I would have done.
huxley:
Yes, I’m very aware of that. I was originally pro-Szasz, long ago, but also disabused myself of that notion long ago.
There are no answers, I’m afraid. It’s – complicated.
There also are many other situations in life in which a person can be presented with the double bind dilemma. (“Have you stopped beating your wife?”)
The latter question is an inherent artifact of the trap of binary logic, when the real world has far more in common with trinary logic.
True, False, Null.
The “Have you stopped beating your wife?” query fails the binary option because it has, inherent in it, a (hopefully) faulty assumption, that you have EVER beaten your wife. It is therefore assigned a null answer, because neither true nor false reflect valid responses.
I often wonder if people got tripped by this as much before Boole “invented”** his binary logic system and it became the norm in our culture. Probably, but I have no frame of reference from which to determine that, it’s just speculation.
======
** I say “invented” since it is the structural simplicity of his notational system which was the real improvement. Interestingly enough, C.L.Dodgson, aka, Lewis Carroll, published a very effective “new notational” technique for use in logic description about 10y before Boole did his, but Boole’s was so much more elegant, still, that no one had a chance to adopt Carroll’s, and it’s long since been forgotten… and these days, the idea of any other system seems silly, as though it’s always been around, instead of being only a bit over a century old.
I often wonder if people got tripped by this as much before Boole “invented”** his binary logic system and it became the norm in our culture. Probably, but I have no frame of reference from which to determine that, it’s just speculation.
OBloodyHell: IMO logic and mathematics, as we understand them today, aren’t native to the human brain, which runs mostly on association in the service of survival.
Logic and math are cute tricks we’ve learned with our large brain capacity and we are still not very good at them, even if we have advanced degrees.
Historical note: the 2010 article you linked to at the end of yours was the actual invention of the term “kafkatrap”.
Whoa! esr, himself, comes to visit. Hacker royalty.
I’ve spent the last year, off-and-on, learning a Lisp language because of esr.
__________________________________________________
Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you never actually use Lisp itself a lot.
–Eric S. Raymond