Don't Believe the Double Bind

Anthropologist Gregory Bateson (et al.)'s theory of double binds provides a useful analogy for the economic conundrum we're in today (and this whole discussion will operate on the level of analogy - I don't know anything about psychology.) Bateson initially began to explore doube bind scenarios within the context of studying schizophrenia, and concluded that what is often diagnosed as schizophrenia is not so much a disorder of the brain qua biological organ, but is rather a kind of confused communication that is the result of repeated exposure to double binds during childhood. In essence, schizophrenia is something like a coping mechanism that attempts to handle impossible communication situations.

Several features constitute a double bind scenario:

1) The receipt of two messages or commands that are contradictory; to obey one means to disobey the other ("Do this, but only because you want to")
2) The contradictory messages are at different orders of abstraction (in the above example, there is a verbal command "Do this" but there is also a non-verbal implied command ['if you don't do this, I'll be disapointed in you, or I'll punish you']
3) The messages come from a respected person or a person of authority (the messages cannot be ignored)
4) The 'victim' of the contradictory messages is unable to perceive and comment upon the fact that they are contradictory (otherwise he or she could 'escape' the situation by saying 'Look, what you're telling me to do just doesn't make sense; get yourself straight or I'll just ignore you")

Repeated exposure to these kinds of impossible communication situations as a child often leads to schizophrenia, according to Bateson and his colleagues (of which hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized speech, etc, are symptoms.)

Ok, what does this have to do with our economic crisis?

1) We are receiving two contradictory 'commands': a) we need to restart consumer spending by whatever means necessary (trillion-dollar bailouts, tax breaks, etc) and b) we need to move beyond our culture of consumerism which is destroying the planet, and is ultimately responsible for the economic crisis. But we cannot try to re-accelerate consumer spending and thus rescue the economy AND stop being a culture of consumers; these are mutually exclusive activities.
2) These commands reside on different layers of abstraction, in a sense or they come from very different spheres of thought; the specialized discipline of economics tells us (via the mass media) that the 'solution' to the crisis is to induce consumer spending (i.e. demand). On the other hand, our conversations with our friends, our religious reflections, or 'big picture' meditations on 'what life is really about' tells us that consumer culture must end quickly, or deforestation, biodiversity loss, global warming, topsoil depletion, aquifer depletion, etc, will have gone too far.
3) We cannot ignore these messages. Implied with the command to restart consumer spending is the non-verbal threat 'Or we will all lose our jobs' or 'None of us will be able to retire' or, worse, 'We'll face food shortages because grocery stores and shipping companies and large-scale industrial farms won't be able to access credit.' And the command to transcend our culture of consumption carries with it the obvious injunction 'Or all of the ecosystems on which we rely absolutely will be destroyed.'
4) As a society, we seem largely unable to comment on the contradiction of these two commands.

The result is something like social schizophrenia - as a society we are experiencing hallucinations (e.g., visions of the recovery of the economy in 2010, renewable energy replacing fossil fuels, etc), delusions (believing we are smart enough to fix the system), and disorganized communication & activity (trying to restart the consumer economy with trillion-dollar bailouts, while simultaneously trying to build a renewable energy economy; recycling, buying 'green' and talking about the environment, while simultaneously hoping that the economy will recover, our investments will improve, etc.)

Let's call a contradiction a contradiction and begin having serious discussions. To start, we are afraid of the consequences of economic depression (we are unable to escape the first command), because we believe that our ability to secure our basic needs (food, water, shelter, clothing, community) depends on the health of the consumer economy. Right now, it does, for most of us, but it doesn't have to. We can actually all grow our own food, catch and clean our own water, build our own shelter with our own hands, and forge our own communities, all without the restoration of the "growth" economy (permaculture has proven this.) So let's ignore the first command. Now we have escaped the double bind and can talk rationally. We still want to stop consumer culture (the second command) and save the planet. Permaculture also does this.

Love,
graham