How is it that sometimes people want to change, try to change, and may even make changes, yet they end up repeating the same old patterns?  Some years ago, having observed this phenomenon in an uncomfortably high number of our clients, Penny Tompkins and I decided to facilitate these clients to self-model how they maintained the same patterns of thoughts, feelings and behaviours – despite a great desire to change and all the 'change technology' we (and plenty of other therapists) could offer them. We discovered that they experienced themselves as 'stuck,' 'going round in circles' or 'bound' by an interlocking logic from which there appeared to be no escape.

This article is an extended version of my June 1999 ANLP Conference presentation.  It describes four 'prototypical binds', defines 'double binds' and summarises a process for facilitating clients to model their own metaphoric perceptions in order to transform their binds.

Homeostasis

Every living system has self-preserving processes which maintain organisational coherence and continuity, and which act to conserve the system's identity.  That is, the system is able to change at one level in order to maintain itself an another 'higher' level.  However, the same processes that keep a system from dissolving or escalating out of safe bounds can also act to inhibit, brake, prevent, constrain, hinder and block development and transformation.  I use bind as a generic term for any repetitive self-preserving pattern which the client has not been able to change, and which they find inappropriate or unhelpful.

Prototypical Binds

Although binds take many forms, there are four commonly occurring types which replicate unwanted symptoms, tie up resources and prevent resolution.  These prototypical binds – conflict, dilemma, impasse and paradox – can be defined as: 

TYPE OF BIND	DEFINITION
Conflict	A struggle between equal and opposing forces (intentions).  e.g. "Part of me wants to and part of me doesn't."
Dilemma	A situation necessitating a choice between two equally (un)desirable alternatives.  e.g. "I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't."
Impasse	A situation in which (the intention to) progress is stopped by an insuperable difficulty.  e.g. "I keep banging my head against a brick wall."
Paradox	A self-contradictory statement (or statements).  e.g. "My head aches through trying to stop you giving me a headache." (ref. 1)

A bind can only exist where there are two or more components which have complementary yet opposing or contradictory intentions.  It is the inherent balance of forces in a conflict, equality of choices in a dilemma, insurmountable blockage at an impasse, and self-contradictory nature of a paradox, which means binds cannot be resolved within its existing logic or organisation.  This is why apparent solutions are either temporary (don't last), illusory (the way out just leads back in), or translatory (the form changes but not the pattern).

The Convoluted Logic of Binds

Binds can be expressed conceptually, metaphorically or nonverbally and they come in all shapes and sizes.  When expressed conceptually they may be simple one-line descriptions like that of Groucho Marx, "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member" or convoluted, recursive and multi-layered conundrums, as this example of R. D. Laing's demonstrates:

I never got what I wanted.
I always got what I did not want.
What I want
               I shall not get.

Therefore, to get it
               I must not want it
since I get only what I don't want.

               what I want, I can't get
               what I get, I don't want

        I can't get it
because I want it
        I get it
because I don't want it.

I want what I can't get
because
        what I can't get is what I want

I don't want what I can get
because
what I can get is what I don't want

I never get what I want
I never want what I get.

Stripped of their narrative and drama, these schematised Knots, as Laing calls them, are mindbendingly fascinating and frighteningly familiar.  When clients express their binds in metaphor, however, it is usually much easier for them to see, hear and feel how their binds are operating and thus to model the nature of binding pattern.  For example, when a client discovers:

"I'm trying to run round a track to overtake my ideal self twice, and the more I develop the more the gap widens."

It is obvious to both the client and the therapist that, within the current organisation, this is an impossible problem to solve. It is the inherent logic and organisation of a bind that compels each component to fulfil its function in the service of maintaining the higher-level bind.  This means that regardless of whether a component is bound, or is part of the binding mechanism, it is unable to fulfil any other function.  A jailer restricts the freedom of a prisoner, and in so doing is himself restricted.  However, it only takes one component to transform (not translate) for the existing organisation of the bind to dissolve.  When this happens, what is bound and what is binding both have an opportunity to use their attributes as resources in other contexts.

Resolving a single bind is relatively easy.  The client simply reformulates (reframes) the problem and moves on, or they accept its unsolvable nature and stop fighting, or they randomly decide between alternatives, or they choose a different route altogether, or they ignore the paradox, or a thousand other solutions.  In one of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales a young knight is presented with a series of choices.  Each time he chooses he is faced with yet another dilemma.  Eventually he finds himself married to an old hag who, on their wedding night, says he can either accept her as she is and she will always be a faithful wife, or she will turn herself into a beautiful maiden who will never be faithful.  The knight, after much thought, refuses the choice itself.  At that moment the hag transforms into a beautiful maiden who is faithful to him for the rest of his life (ref. 2).

Double Binds

But what if life is not that simple? What if, for some reason or other, resolving the bind is unachievable or unacceptable? What if the potential for transformation is itself bound? Then another pattern – a double bind – must be operating to preserve a larger organisation. Resolving a double bind requires a different type of approach.  As Ken Wilber would say, it requires the client to "transcend and include" the existing organisation (ref. 3).

Gregory Bateson clarified the organisation of double binds.  He noted that a secondary bind prohibits escape from the primary bind because it "conflicts with the first at a more abstract level" and if opposed or ignored would "threaten survival" (ref. 4).  Thus perfectly good solutions for the primary bind cannot be implemented because they would conflict with, or trigger, another binding pattern.  Bateson points out that a common secondary bind involves the client being unable to speak about their predicament for fear of triggering the primary bind (e.g. "It would kill my mother if I told her the truth").  In more complex, and thankfully rare cases, the way out of the double bind may itself be constrained by yet another bind (forming a triple bind).  One way or another, the client is bound by their own binds and the more they struggle, the more hopeless and helpless it seems.

You might like to note that by my definition, the common expression "damned if I do, and damned if I don't" is not a double bind because there is only one level of bind (whatever she does she's damned).  For it to be a double bind requires a further bind at a higher level precluding escape from the primary bind, such as, "And something terrible happens to people who reject damnation."

The following example (reduced to the bare bones of the binding pattern) shows how enmeshed a client's description of their double bind can be:

Client:  I started a relationship recently but there's insecurity about the relationship: it's "too good to be true".   I find it difficult to enjoy the relationship as I get very anxious when I am not with her.  I overwhelm her.  I have to hold back.  I'm waiting for her to say "I can't take it any more." I was last in a relationship three years ago which I managed to sustain for two weeks.  When I fall in love I get the feeling of anxiety – I feel almost ill – so I engineer the collapse of the relationship so I can manage the anxiety.  It gets worse because I'm aware of the effect.  I've had to pull back from the brink a couple of times.

Therapist:  And what would you like to have happen?

Client:  I've got to give her room to love me back.

Therapist:  And when you've got to give her room to love you back is there anything else about that?

Client:  A feeling that I've got to love her as much as I can because she's not going to be around for that long. It's like I've got to eat all the sweets today even though there will be plenty more tomorrow.  "It's too good to be true".  I don't believe it will be there tomorrow.   I'm not meant to be happy, it's not for me.  Love brings me happiness but I can't handle happiness and joy.  It's as if I have to live my life in the darkness.

One way to unravel the above, is to identify some of the interlocking primary binds:

• He gets anxious when he is not with her and overwhelms her when he is.
• He overwhelms her but because he does not think the relationship is going to last (because he overwhelms her) he has to love her as much as he can (which overwhelms her).
• He feels almost ill with anxiety so he engineers the collapse of the relationship he wants.
• Love brings him happiness (which is why he starts relationships) which he can't handle (because he gets anxious) which means he has to live his life in the darkness (which he doesn't want).

In addition, there are a number of candidates for secondary binds:

• Being aware of the effect of his behaviour makes the anxiety worse.
• His belief that it will not be there tomorrow and that he is not meant to be happy.

Furthermore, his proposed solution, "to hold back" in order to "give her room to love me back," would, if he achieved it, only increase his anxiety because love brings him happiness which he can't handle, etc.  Thus achieving his outcome would simply trigger his binding pattern.

Identifying the Binding Patterns

Although the organisation of each bind is unique, Penny Tompkins and I have observed a general flow to how binding patterns transform.  The process, which we have incorportated into Symbolic Modelling, uses Clean Language and was developed through an extensive modelling project of David Grove, a pioneer in the field of working therapeutically with autogenic metaphors (ref. 5).

In brief, Symbolic Modelling requires you to facilitate the client to identify metaphors which correspond to their perception of the binding process.  They name and locate the components (symbols) of those metaphoric perceptions, and then elucidate the relationships between components, and the patterns across perceptions.  Once identified, the patterns themselves can be named, symbolically represented and explored.  Thus the modelling process continues at a higher (more inclusive) level of organisation.  Taken together, this information provides a context, a metaphor landscape, in which a pattern of the patterns, a pattern of organisation, emerges and the conditions for transformation arise (ref. 6).

Transformation

Transformations cannot be manufactured to order.  When, where and how they occur is indeterminate.  You can, however, encourage the conditions from which transformative changes emerge.  These conditions include the client recognising and working directly with the embodied logic of the binding pattern of organisation.  As this process progresses one of three things happens:

If (a) occurs, the client (and you as therapist) will need to 'go round the loop' again. Very often this has to happen a number of times before the client accepts the unsolvable nature of their binds (within the current organisation).

If (b) occurs, the client may initially experience frustration, anger, angst, despair, or depression in response to being incapable of escaping from their binds. However, this gives them an opportunity to identify the components of the secondary binding pattern and to specify its relationship to the primary bind.  When the client recognises the nature of the interlocking patterns which constitute the double bind, they will be faced with the same three options, but at a higher, more significant, more inclusive level of organisation.  Thus, the double bind will transform or translate, or, in the unusual event of a triple bind, the process may need to continue at an even higher level.

If (c) occurs, you facilitate the client to develop and elaborate the form of the changed symbol, to evolve the change by moving time forward, and then to find out what effect the change has on the rest of the metaphor landscape.

The general flow for the client to model and transform double binds is diagrammed below.

A PROCESS for TRANSFORMING DOUBLE BINDS

Note:  "Operational Closure" occurs when the pattern of components and relationships is well-enough specified that the whole operational unit is manifest in awareness (ref. 7).

When a client models the organisation of their double bind they inevitably start to experience and manifest its symptoms in the moment (and are unlikely to enjoy the experience).  This is part of the process because, as they embody the bind, they will be able to shift from talking about it, to modelling it happening here and now from within the binding pattern.  In addition, if you are modelling the client modelling their double bind, the chances are you will get caught in the client's binding pattern as well. In these circumstances it pays to know your own patterns so you can remain aware that it is the client's bind and not yours.  At these moments it is vital to stay true to the process, especially if you feel uncomfortable, lost, stuck and don't know what to do.  Doing anything else may send one of two signals to the client: either, you cannot handle their experience, or you do not believe they can handle their experience.  Either way you risk reinforcing their binding pattern.

In Symbolic Modelling, it is not your job to resolve their bind with your solutions or techniques.   Rather your function is to facilitate their system to know itself, for the organisation of the binding pattern to become clearer and clearer, and to maintain the client's attention on their metaphors of the binding pattern.  As a result, conditions for their system to spontaneously reorganise – to transform – arise.

Concluding Remarks

As client's become aware of their binding patterns they are faced with a stark choice: to be forever constrained to act out of the bind; or to venture into that most fearful of places – the unknown – and transform.  No wonder translation, disguised as transformation, is often a preferred option.  As Ken Wilber says:

With translation, the self is simply given a new way to think or feel about reality. The self is given a new belief – perhaps holistic instead of atomistic, perhaps forgiveness instead of blame, perhaps relational instead of analytic.  The self then learns to translate its world and its being in the terms of this new belief or new language or new paradigm, and this new and enchanting translation acts, at least temporarily, to alleviate or diminish the terror inherent in the heart of the separate self.  But with transformation, the very process of translation itself is challenged, witnessed, undermined, and eventually dismantled. ...

And as much as we, as you and I, might wish to transcend mere translation and find authentic transformation, nonetheless translation itself is an absolutely necessary and crucial function for the greater part of our lives. Those who cannot translate adequately, with a fair amount of integrity and accuracy, fall quickly into severe neurosis or even psychosis: the world ceases to make sense – the boundaries between the self and the world are not transcended but instead begin to crumble. This is not breakthrough but breakdown; not transcendence but disaster.

But at some point in our maturation process, translation itself, no matter how adequate or confident, simply ceases to console. No new beliefs, no new paradigm, no new myths, no new ideas, will staunch the encroaching anguish. Not a new belief for the self, but the transcendence of the self altogether, is the only path that avails. (ref. 8)

When binding patterns transform, some clients report how strange the transformed pattern feels at first, while other clients become amnesic for the old problem!   Mostly, however, it is not until they notice themselves automatically responding in new ways to old situations, or their changed behaviour is pointed out by others, that they become aware of the significance of the change.

When I am privileged to witness a client's pattern of symbolic perceptions transforming and their metaphors evolving, I like to acknowledge I have been working alongside what Wilber calls "the spirit of evolution", and that these are sacred moments indeed.

© James Lawley

References

1.  R. D. Laing, Knots, (1970) p. 30 and p.32

2.  Paul Watzlawick, Munchhausen's Pigtail (1990)  pp. 201-203.

3.   A slight rewording of Ken Wilber's Tenet 5 in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (1995) p 51.

4.  Gregory Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972) p. 207

5.  Visit www.cleanlangauge.co.uk for articles about Clean Language and David Grove's work.

6.  Fritjof Capra, The Web of Life, (1996) pp. 153-157

7.  Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, The Tree of Knowledge (1992) p. 89

8.  Ken Wilber, The Essential Ken Wilber (1998) pp. 141-142

Many thanks to Penny Tompkins and Philip Harland for their comments and encouragement.

Extra 'Guidlelines for Modelling the Logic of Binding Patterns' have been appended to this article.

Also, see the video and annotated transcript of a client session involving a binding pattern: When Science and Spirituality have a Beer.

The article was reformatted on 25 April 2010 to bring the diagram and description in line with that given in Chapter 8 of Metaphors in Mind.

Under what conditions do I invite the client to self-model a problem?
When the modelling process:


How will I know when 'A' occurs?
There are different indicators at each of the five stages in 'A Frameworks for Change' [LINK TO BE ADDED]:


NOTE: You can be confident of the above only after you have given the client multiple opportunities to go through each stage – once is not enough.

How will I know when 'B' occurs?
The client:


When 'A' occurs, what do I do?
Invite the client to attend to the potential bind. Facilitate them to self-model from the bottom-up what is keeping their desired outcome from happening. You do this by mapping the logic of the symbolic relationships until the client recognises they are caught in a binding pattern, or a change spontaneously occurs.

When 'B' occurs, what do I do?
When the client tells you they are not achieving their desired outcome, facilitate them to model the 'preventing pattern' and apply A Frameworks for Change to that context.

When the client shows little awareness of how they are not achieving their desired outcome, especially over a long period of time, it is likely that some form of self-deceit, delusion or denial is operating. The way they are doing this will be part of the (double) binding pattern. [See our 2-part article, Self-Deception, Self-Delusion, Self-Denial.]

How will I know when a binding logic is operating?
Binding logic often has the following features:

• Circularity
• All roads lead to Hell
• Oscillation
• Stuck, trapped or imprisoned with no escape
• A maze where the sheer complexity is part of the bind.

How will I know when the client has self-modelled enough?
Either because:
or

• No new symbols or relationships emerge.
• The client’s descriptions add no further information about how the binding logic works.
• New metaphors continue to appear but they are isomorphic (have the same organisation) as existing metaphors.
• The logic encompasses an entire configuration, a complete sequence or a coherent set of premises (with no gaps).
  
  

What do I do once the client has identified the binding logic?
First, recap the key relationships of the bind several times and then invite the client to identify a metaphor (unless they already have) for either

    or
    or

Then, develop the metaphor and ask:


Then, use A Frameworks for Change with this desired outcome.

What do I do if this doesn't resolve the binding logic?
This indicates a potential for a double binding pattern. Repeat the whole process starting with a metaphor for the secondary bind that is preventing resolution of the primary bind, i.e. continue modelling at a higher, more inclusive level. [See our book, Metaphors in Mind, pp. 181-188.]

Remember, sometimes the whole pattern transform in one 'road to Damascus' moment. More often the smallest of shifts starts a contagion which eventually lead to living out of a new kind of metaphor landscape.

Additional notes for modelling binding logic

Binding logic is the interior organisation of experience associated with a pattern of behaviour which the client has repeatedly tried to change, and which they find inappropriate or unhelpful.

Pattern level modelling requires a different kind of thinking.  It requires you to direct your questions to the relationships between symbols, and to the network of relationships. [See our article, Thinking Networks.]

Persistence pays. You will likely need to repeatedly invite the client to attend to their binding logic in response to them switching down a level of organisation into content. The closer they get to 'it' the more likely they will run this or some other temporary exit strategy.

Patience pays. It is advisable to lay out all the pieces of a jigsaw before you start putting them together. Bottom-up modelling takes time and a number of repetitions before all the key elements and the logic of the relationships becomes clear. Even if you have a limited time with a client, if you help them self-model their binding logic and they identify a desired outcome, at least they will know the next step on their developmental pathway.

Hang in there especially when you feel the impulse to bail out and switch to another process. The chances are the client is right at the 'edge' of something significant. Your job is to 'stay put' by keeping the client's attention at that edge. Use simple questions and let their Landscape do the work. David Grove says that when a client's landscape becomes psychoactive "it will be come your co-therapist".

Take time to muse on the logic or presupposition of the binding pattern. [See our article, A Model of Musing.]

Keep the client attending to their current reality. This will encourage them to acknowledge:

and

You can do this by:

• Making the binding logic the context for your questions, e.g. And when [binding logic] ...?
• Inviting the client to convert conceptual statements into sensory (and likely metaphoric) descriptions, e.g. And how do you know [...]?
  
• Locating all symbols.

Keep checking the intentions of all symbols/agents involved in the pattern — especially the apparently problematic ones – as you can expect them to morph as the client's system adjusts to the implications of your questions. Keep track of all the current desired outcomes and intentions. During the Maturing process, check they all get satisfied.

Utilise whatever happens because the binding pattern will likely be manifesting right in front of you (and you may even be part of it).

Use adjacency. When a part of the client's information suggests that you should not ask questions about it (e.g. it is hiding, invisible, doesn't know, frightened), ask questions which invite the client to attend to aspects of the Metaphor Landscape that are next to (in space, time or form) that which cannot be asked about. [See our article, Proximity and Meaning.]

Look out for any potential resources. Spend plenty of time developing any resources as these may be a catalyst for change, or they may prompt another part of the binding logic to reveal itself.  Often significant resources indicate their presence in very subtle ways. They can be anomalous, apparently insignificant, presupposed or in the background. As Caroline Myss says,"The Gods come in through the back door."

The seeds for resolving a binding pattern often occur outside of the time / space / level / perspective in which they occur. [See 'The Six Approaches' in Metaphors in Mind, pp. 192-208.]

Look out for small changes and mature these as soon as they happen — sometimes these can lead to big effects.

Timing is vital.  When you ask the following questions can be as important as what you ask them of:


Retain a "Let's see what happens" attitude until you have behavioural evidence of a change over the long term. We can only know retrospectively that a change has occurred. And the effect of some changes can take weeks, months or even years to fully manifest.

Working with binding patterns is a developmental process.  The next stage in the client's development will emerge out of the current configuration of the Metaphor Landscape. In this way binding patterns are a doorway to transformation since they point out to the client their next direction. [See our article, A Developmental Perspective.]