Added 5 November 2004
Guidelines for Modelling the Logic of a Binding Pattern
Penny Tompkins & James Lawley
Under what conditions do I invite the client to self-model a problem?When the modelling process:
A. Reveals that the client's desired outcome cannot or will not happen.
B. Identifies a way for the client's desired outcome to happen and over time you gather evidence that they are not achieving it.
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]:
Stage 1. The client cannot identify a desired outcome.
Stage 2. The client cannot develop or maintain a rich description of their desired outcome.
Stage 3. The anticipated effects of the desired outcome happening are unacceptable to the client.
Stage 4. The client cannot identify the conditions under which the desired outcome can be achieved. Or, a binding logic prevents the conditions necessary for change from being enacted.
Stage 5. Maturing a change to the Metaphor Landscape is interrupted by a problem which cannot be resolved by continuing with A Frameworks for Change.
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:
Continues to demonstrate the problem pattern.
Describes how they haven't achieved their desired outcome.
Says their outcome has happened, but longer term the problem pattern remains (sometimes in a different form or context).
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:
It involves two or more incompatible intentions.
It commonly has one of the following configurations:
- 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.
The client will have one or more ways to temporarily exit the binding logic. This gives the client relief from the full impact of attending to their bind, usually because acknowledging the impossibility of resolving it within the current logic is so painful. But it also means they can temporarily put off accepting their "current reality" (Robert Fritz). Remember, this is not 'resistance', it is 'it happening now'.
The effect of not resolving the binding logic is usually escalation towards a threshold. This intensifies the client's response to the bind and is often the motivation to seek help. It also means that sometimes things seem to get worse before they get better.
How will I know when the client has self-modelled enough?Either because:
The logic spontaneously changes (then you immediately start Maturing).
or
The logic reaches operational closure, that is when:
- 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
The whole pattern
or
The point of maximum constraint
or
A fundamental choice point.
Then, develop the metaphor and ask:
And when [context of bind], what would you like to have happen?
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:
The way things are, even if they don't like
it
and
That the bind is
unresolvable within the logic of their current pattern.
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:
And that's [binding logic] like what?
And
when [binding logic], what would you like to have happen?
And when
[binding logic], then what happens?
And what's happening now? (i.e. 'Going live'.)
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.]
