The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0368-492X.htm

K
36,7/8 Caught in the middle
of a double-bind: the application
of non-ordinary logic to therapy
926
Giorgio Nardone and Claudette Portelli
Centro Di Terapia Strategica, Arezzo, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of Bateson and colleagues’ double
bind theory, which has been a breakthrough in the history of psychiatry and human behavior because
it freed us from the prison of ordinary logic.
Design/methodology/approach – The use of non-ordinary logic, in understanding and in solving
seemingly bizarre, over-the-lines human behavior, with its three different components: logic of
paradox, logic of contradiction and logic of belief.
Findings – This paper presents the work carried out by the Centro di Terapia Strategica of Arezzo,
which following the MRI approach, has put together seemingly simple solution to intimidating
complex problems.
Practical implications – With the help of literature and practical-clinical examples, this paper puts
forward the use of non-ordinary logic in brief strategic therapy in designing simple solutions to
complex human problems such as phobias, obsessive compulsive disorders, presumed psychosis and
other pathologies.
Originality/value – This work helps therapists and other care-gives liberate themselves from the
constraining chains of ordinary logic, in order to be able to solve human problems that seem
unsolvable.
Keywords Cybernetics, Logic, Problem solving
Paper type General review

Things are actually much simpler than might appear but much more complicated than one
might realize (Goethe).
Logic has guided human strategies and behavior since ancient times. It was always
held to be a useful instrument for those who wanted to systematically project and
construct solutions for specific problems. Yet in psychotherapy, effective and efficient
therapeutic maneuvers are often mistakenly regarded as the result of some strike of
genius, when in actuality, behind these seemingly simple strategies, there lies a
complex logic and theory.
Gregory Bateson affirmed that there is nothing as practical as a good theory, yet on
studying human behavior and the various types of therapies in existence, one comes
across many complex theories, none of them very practical. Unfortunately, this is the
greatest concern faced by psychology and psychotherapy (Abrahamson, 2001). It is not
Kybernetes enough to speak about theory and practice: there is a need to bridge the two by filling in
Vol. 36 No. 7/8, 2007
pp. 926-931 the gap. To be able to do so, we need to revert to the underlying logical-epistemological
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0368-492X
criteria, which often follow a non-ordinary logic. Yet in our culture it is often considered
DOI 10.1108/03684920710777432 as some sort of heresy to speak about therapy and non-ordinary logic.
 Western cultures are still very much influenced by ordinary logic, or what is Caught in the
traditionally known as the Aristotelian logic, which relies on the premises of “true and middle of a
false” “no third value” and the logic of non-contradiction. Ordinary logic seeks internal
coherence and congruency. This logic seems to work well when observing linear double-bind
phenomena. But the cause-effect theory seems no longer fitting when applied to complex
phenomena, as, for example, Bateson (1980) suggests, when studying the dynamic
between the individual mind and the collective mind. This is because contradiction is a 927
rule, not an exception, in human beings. All of us have at some point in our lives, stated
something like “I will not do that” but then ended up doing it. It is practically impossible to
be always coherent with oneself. This is actually very healthy, because coherence dictates
rigidity, making it impossible to oscillate and change, and thus brings about stagnation.
Often our sensations and emotions get us to do things, which are not coherent with our
ideas, i.e. bring us to have a change of heart. This applies also to congruency. More often
than not, we have reactions that are not congruent with our declarations, while ordinary
logic often limits our going beyond common obstacles that might seem insurmountable.
Bateson et al.’s (1956) double bind theory was such a revolution in the study and
understanding of human behavior, because it distance itself from the limitations
created by common sense, rationality and thus ordinary logic. Published exactly
50 years ago, this theory remains very current, and in its very essence exemplifies
applied non-ordinary logic.
Non-ordinary logic is that branch of mathematical logic that studies a common
human phenomenon: self-deception. Within this phenomenon lie three different logics:
the logic of contradiction, the logic of paradox and the logic of belief (Nardone and
Watzlawick, 2004).
Often the double-bind phenomenon, is mistakenly considered to be equivalent to
paradox or to the paradoxical complication of a problem. This is not only false but also
reductive, because it reduces this phenomenon to only one of the components of
non-ordinary logic (Watzlawick and Nardone, 1997). Often, when authors cite or give
examples of double binds, they just confine themselves to speaking about paradox.
Paradox has a rigorous logical structure, where the same message entails two
inverse-contradictory meanings (Watzlawick and Nardone, 1997). A discordant effect
takes place simultaneously, not consecutively, as in contradictions. If I say something,
and then soon thereafter I say something else that contradicts it, my communication is
contradictory, not paradoxical. The logic of contradiction has a temporal sequence that
separates the two different messages, while the logic of paradox entails both messages
reaching the listener at the same time. Perhaps, the most famous example of a paradox
was given to us by Epimenides (quoted by Watzlawick et al., 1967), that of the man
who says “I am lying”. On following this statement to its logical conclusion, we can
deduce that it is true only if it is not true or better, the man is lying only if he is telling
the truth and vice versa, he is truthful when he is lying. But if I had to say to somebody
“You are right but I hold a different opinion” this follows the logic of contradiction.
Often in therapy we make use of the logic of contradiction, rather than the logic of
paradox, because we are more so inclined, and it is easier to transmit a concept by
putting the patient in a double bind that holds a sequential form. Very few therapists
can master paradoxical statements during the session, because to do so one must have
superb theatrical and rhetorical skills. It is not enough to know and understand
paradox, one needs to know how to perform it.
K Another example to help us underline the difference between the logic of
36,7/8 contradiction and the logic of paradox is that of a real life event that took place in
1920 in Austria. A young man wanted to jump in the Danube with the clear intent
of drowning. People gathered around and started screaming to stop the young
man, who became more and more inclined to bringing his life to an end. Out of
the blue a gendarme appeared, drew out a gun, and pointed it towards the man,
928 while exclaiming “Come out or else I will shoot you”. To everyone’s astonishment,
the young man obeyed and walked away. This is an actual example of a paradox.
On the other hand, when there is a sort of resonance of meaning over time, we are
dealing with the logic of contradiction. An amazing example of the use of the logic of
contradiction is captured in the phrase “Redundancy is an economic expense”.
Redundancy is not repetition, but rather, it is a means for abridging time in reaching
one’s objective (Bateson et al., 1956). Those acquainted with hypnotic language
recognize this to be true. A more practical example can be extracted from therapy.
Following an investigative-therapeutic dialogue with a phobic patient, a strategic
therapist reframes in order to redefine the situation (Nardone and Salvini, 2004) by
saying:
So as we have come to discover, it seems that when faced with a threatening situation, you
usually tend to avoid it. Moreover, it seems that at that very moment, avoiding makes you feel
safe, makes you feel good . . . but afterwards you always feel more incapable. Thus, and
please correct me if I’m wrong, it seems that every time you avoid something you fear, you
end up confirming to yourself that you are incapable of facing it, thus your fear gets bigger
and bigger, and your situation seems to always get worse . . . Thus, I would like you to start
thinking that every time you avoid, you help maintain and worsen your situation.
This follows the logic of contradiction, because the therapist first affirms something,
which he/she then proceeds to contradict, thus bringing the patient to assume the
logic of contradiction, so as to create aversion towards his/her usual attempted
solution, i.e. avoidance (Nardone and Portelli, 2005b). In other words, the patient is
invited and induced to “avoid avoiding”.
Another component of non-ordinary logic is the logic of belief. According to the
model of the logic of mathematics, this is a highly subtle communicative maneuver that
brings a person to believe in the irrational by using rationality (Watzlawick and
Nardone, 1997). If we had to put aside all moral judgments, we could say that all
religious assumptions follow this logic. The words of Saint Augustine, who is
considered to be one of the greatest persuaders in history, constitute an example. In the
name of the Catholic Church, he had come to persuade people to contemplate the
irrational by using the rational. If one follows the astringent logic of Marxist theories,
for example, one cannot believe in a supernatural being, who controls everything
around us. Yet the magic of the logic of belief can bring a person to believe in the
irrational by means of a rational course. Perhaps, the most interesting expression of the
logic of belief is given by “Pascal’s Wager”. Pascal suggests a rational question with an
illusion of alternative to all those losing their faith. “Is it more convenient to believe or
not to believe in God?” He then added:
It seems more convenient to believe in God than not to believe, because if one has believed in
God throughout one’s life, and then on dying one comes to discover that there is nothing, one
wouldn’t have missed out on anything. But if when one dies, one discovers that there is
eternal life and one had chosen not to believe in God, one will lose everything.
This is an extraordinary example of how a rational argumentation can bring a person Caught in the
to believe in the irrational. middle of a
Most pathologies and their respective rigid perceptive-reactive systems are
constructed following the logic of belief, i.e. the irrational perception is confirmed by double-bind
the rational actions carried out by the patient (Watzlawick and Nardone, 1997). For
example, an obsessive compulsive patient might start off by carrying out a
propitiatory magical ritual to prevent bad things from happening (Nardone and 929
Portelli, 2005b). When nothing bad happens to him, it confirms for him that that rite
did him well, and thus the irrational belief is constructed, which is then further
confirmed by the need to carry out the propitiatory ritual every time he has to do
something.
Another particular example often quoted by Paul Watzlawick, relates of a
psychiatric patient who continuously carried out a clapping ritual. A psychiatrist goes
up to him and asks him “Why are you clapping?” and the patient answered “To keep
the elephants away” and the psychiatrist, in a rational way, exclaims “But you see,
there are no elephants around!” and the patient, with a satisfactory smile, replied
“Of course, my clapping works”.
The above are practical examples of how non-ordinary logic holds an incredible
power in the construction of pathologies (Nardone and Portelli, 2005a), but also in
reframing them (Nardone and Portelli, 2005b). In its clinical research experience of
20 years, the Centro di Terapia Strategica of Arezzo has put together rigorous, and yet
flexible protocols for the treatment of specific pathologies. These protocols are made up
of a sequence of therapeutic strategies following non-ordinary logic. These strategies
are able to break down in a very efficient and effective way the vicious circles or the
rigid perceptive-reactive systems holding the patient’s pathology. Moreover, these
protocols are replicable, transmissible, and predictable (Nardone and Portelli, 2005b).
In these years, we managed to put together specific protocols for anxiety-phobic
disorders, depression, eating disorders and others, which were successfully applied to
more than 1,000 cases, employed by numerous therapists at various level of expertise,
who collaborated in our clinical-research work. Another aim was to render these
protocols rigorous and systematic, to be able to train even inexpert therapists. Another
fundamental factor was predictability. Protocols need to be able to predict all the
possible effects of each single maneuver. Each maneuver should be reduced to having
two, a maximum of three contemplated effects. In this way, one can make use of
therapeutic maneuvers that follow a therapeutic sequence, or what we call a strategy.
This strategy comprises a series of tactics, tailored to the specific problem or
problematic situation, that the therapist follows rigorously but adaptively from the
beginning until the end of the therapy. These can be corrected throughout the therapy,
and even in the course of the sessions, not just at the end. Thus, the brief strategic
therapist comes to have a series of specific models for specific problems, where, if they
result in being inefficient, he or she can proceed to correct. Self-correction takes place
also during the first session, during the strategic dialogue, where the therapist does
not limit his intervention to a mere diagnosis or definition of the type of pathology
present, but starts introducing change from the very beginning (Nardone and Salvini,
2004; Nardone and Portelli, 2005b). Thus, brief strategic therapy involves a
self-corrective process. Once more, this is another fundamental principle introduced by
Gregory Bateson.
K The process of therapy closes with “checkmating” the problem presented at its
36,7/8 outset, and with the patient’s learning the “procedures” involved in autonomously
playing and wining this specific game. “For the rest” says Bateson (1972, pp. 19-20) “to
live is to play a game whose purpose is to discover the rules, which are always
changing and always undiscoverable”.
In conclusion, the introduction of maneuvers following a non-ordinary logic, made
930 brief therapy always less directive, dethroning the therapist from the exasperating
one-up position, which often hindered change (Nardone and Salvini, 2004). The use of
non-ordinary logic has come to get the patient to substitute, by his own accord, the old
dysfunctional self-deceptions with more functional ones. Brief strategic therapy has
come to make use of subtle stratagems and persuasive-evocative language to bring
about change, yet making it appear to be the patient’s personal discovery, not an idea
imposed upon him or her by the therapist (Nardone and Salvini, 2004). Once again
the words of Pascal (1995) come to play: “People are generally better persuaded by the
reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which come into mind of
others”.

References
Abrahamson, D.J. (2001), “Treatment efficacy and clinical utility: a guidelines model applied to
psychotherapy research”, Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 2.
Bateson, G. (1972), Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Ballantine Books, New York, NY.
Bateson, G. (1980), Mind and Nature, Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Bateson, G., Jackson, D.D., Haley, J. and Weakland, J. (1956), “Toward a theory of schizophrenia”,
Behavioral Science, Vol. I, pp. 251-84.
Nardone, G. and Portelli, C. (2005a), “When the diagnosis invents the illness”, Kybernetes: The
International Journal of Systems & Cybernatics, Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 365-72, Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, Bradford.
Nardone, G. and Portelli, C. (2005b), Knowing through Changing: The Evolution of Brief Strategic
Therapy, Crown Publishing House, Carmarthen.
Nardone, G. and Salvini, A. (2004), Dialogo Strategico: Comunicare persuadendo: tecniche evolute
per il cambiamento, Ponte alle Grazie, Milan.
Nardone, G. and Watzlawick, P. (Eds) (2004), Brief Strategic Therapy: Philosophy, Technique and
Research, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers – Aronson Group, Lanham, MD.
Pascal, B. (1995), Penées, Penguin Classics, New York, NY, A.J. Krailsheimer (translator), Italian
version (1962), Pensieri, Einaudi, Turin.
Watzlawick, P. and Nardone, G. (1997), (a cura di) Terapia breve strategica, Raffaello Cortina
Editore, Milan.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H. and Jackson, D.D. (1967), Pragmatics of Human Communication:
A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes, W.W. Norton, New York, NY.

Further reading
Bateson, G. (1967), “Cybernetic explanation”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 10, pp. 29-32.
Nardone, G. (1996), Brief Strategic Solution-oriented Therapy of Phobic and Obsessive Disorders,
Jason Aronson, Inc., Northvale, NJ.
Nardone, G. (1998), Psicosoluzioni, Rizzoli, Milan.
Nardone, G. (2000), Oltre il limiti della paura, Rizzoli, Milan. Caught in the
Nardone, G. (2003), Cavalcare la propria tigre: Gli stratagemmi nelle arti marziali ovvero come middle of a
risolvere problemi difficili attraverso soluzioni temple, Ponte alle Grazie, Milan.
Nardone, G. and Salvini, A. (1997), “Logica matematica e logiche non ordinarie come guida per il
double-bind
problem-solving strategico”, in Watzlawick, P. and Nardone, G. (Eds), Terapia breve
strategica, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milan, pp. 53-61.
Nardone, G. and Watzlawick, P. (1990), L’Arte del Cambiamento: manuale di terapia strategica e 931
ipnoterapia senza trance, Ponte alle Grazie, Milan.
Nardone, G. and Watzlawick, P. (1993), The Art of Change: Strategic Therapy and Hypnotherapy
Without Trance, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Nardone, G. et al. (2000), La terapia dell’azienda malata: problem solving strategico per
organizzazioni, Ponte alle Grazie, Milan.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J.H. and Fisch, R. (1974), Change: Principles of Problem Formation
and Problem Solution, W.W. Norton, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Giorgio Nardone can be contacted at: ctsar@ats.it

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints