So much of the basis of our lives and the fabric of human civilization is built around communication. Our ability to properly express ourselves helps define our roles, our occupations, our friendships, and all of our associations with the outside world. This might sound simple enough, but so much of the struggles of ordinary people concern communicating the right thing and doing so in the right way. More often than not, we confabulate our intentions, disguise our meanings, or present conflicting messages in how we communicate. Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing commented upon this; he believed that behavioral health issues were not caused by some internal defect, but by the breakdown of communication exchanges. Laing noted that this was particularly salient within families, as contradictory messages and expectations often trap people in what he called “the double bind”.
A double bind occurs when someone is given two or more messages that implicitly contradict one another, while at the same time being unable to comment on the contradiction or escape the situation. Ergo, whatever the person does is wrong and they are bound to this contradiction. There are a few examples that might help illustrate this. Let us consider a parent who says: “You can tell me the truth. I promise I won’t be angry.” However, if the past experience with the person has shown that anger follows honesty, there is an implicit problem. If the person speaks honestly, the result is anger; if they lie, or otherwise conceal the truth, they are accused of dishonesty, which results in anger. There is no effective “out” in this situation. The instructions given invite honesty while simultaneously discouraging it. While this is very common, it’s also very subtle, and its unconscious quality means that it takes place without the full scope of our awareness. Just the same, you may have a spouse who tells you: “I don’t want you to buy me a gift just because you feel obligated.” If you buy a gift, it may seem forced or obligatory, and thus you have violated the request. If you do not buy a gift, it may appear you do not care, and again you risk damaging the relationship.
Laing developed this insight by observing ordinary families in conversation. They have seemingly benign conversations which contain within them implicit meanings. Something is communicated verbally, while a secondary message contradicts it. This can be how it is expressed emotionally, or its context, or the strings that are attached to our communication. What results is a form of psychological suffocation. Our communication and the language we use to support it does not clarify reality, but instead is used to obscure it. What appears as a behavioral health issue may in fact be a desperate attempt to maintain internal coherence in an incoherent communicative environment. When communication becomes manipulative or contradictory, we are placed in an impossible position. To respond honestly is to violate the unspoken rules. To comply is to participate in the falsehood.
To remedy this, R.D. Laing proposed a state of radical honesty. Instead of speaking through layers of indirect control, individuals must acknowledge and become aware of what they are actually communicating. The mother who fears her child’s independence must say so openly rather than in a veiled sense or disguising the fear in contradictory commands. The parent who cannot tolerate honesty must be forthcoming and recognize that the demand for truth is insincere. In other words, clarity must replace manipulation, and sincerity must take the place of the parade of “shoulds” that frequently populate our relationships. While Laing presented this idea several decades ago, his insight continues to remain powerful because it reminds us how fragile the ecology of our communication is. Trust between people first depends upon a basic alignment between their words and their intentions. When our words consistently conceal truth rather than reveal it, communication begins to break down and the bond that we have to each other follows thereafter.
