What is the pattern that connects all living creatures? (Bateson, Mind and Nature, 1979, p.8)
‘But the bits and pieces of mind which appear before consciousness invariably give a false picture of mind as a whole. The systemic character of mind is never there depicted, because the sampling is governed by purpose.
We never see in consciousness that the mind is like an ecosystem - a self-corrective network of circuits. We only see arcs of these circuits.
And the instinctive vulgarity of scientists consists precisely in mistaking these arcs for the larger truth, i.e., thinking that because what is seen by consciousness has one character, the total mind must have the same character.
Freud’s personified ‘ego’, ‘id’, ‘super-ego’ are, in fact not, truly personified at all. Each of his components is constructed in the image of only consciousness (even though the component may be unconscious) and the ‘consciousness’ does not resemble a total person. The isolated consciousness is necessarily de-personified.
The whole iceberg does not have those characteristics which could be guessed at from looking only at what is above water. I mean: the iceberg does - mind does not. Mind is not like an iceberg.’ [Bateson, 1967]
‘The point is that, even before modern technology, something had to be done about the innate split between consciousness and the rest of the mind, because the unaided consciousness would always wreck human relations. Because the unaided consciousness must always combine the wisdom of the dove with the harmlessness of the serpent.
And I will tell you what they did in the old Stone Age to deal with that split.
Religion is what they did.
It’s that simple, and religion is whatever they could devise to beat into man the fact that most of him (and, analogously, most of his society and the ecosystem around him) was systemic in nature and imperceptible to his consciousness.
This included dreams and trances, intoxication, castration, rituals, human sacrifices, myths of all sorts, invocations of death, art, poetry, music and so on.
And of course, they did not and could not really say or know clearly what it was they were doing or why. And, often, it did not work.’
“What pattern connects the crab to the lobster, and the orchid to the primrose and all four of them to me? And me to you?...The pattern which connects is a metapattern. It is a pattern of patterns." (Mind and Nature)
Pride and Symmetry
(From: Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Section 4.9.6)
The so-called pride of the alcoholic always presumes a real or fictitious “other,” and its complete contextual definition therefore demands that we characterize the real or imagined relationship to this “other.” A first step in this task is to classify the relationship as either “symmetrical” or “complementary.” To do this is not entirely simple when the “other” is a creation of the unconscious, but we shall see that the indications for such a classification are clear.
An explanatory digression is, however, necessary. The primary criterion is simple: If, in a binary relationship, the behaviors of A and B are regarded (by A and B) as similar and are linked so that more of the given behavior by A stimulates more of it in B, and vice versa, then the relationship is “symmetrical” in regard to these behaviors. If, conversely, the behaviors of A and B are dissimilar but mutually fit together (as, for example, spectatorship fits exhibitionism), and the behaviors are linked so that more of A’s behavior stimulates more of B’s fitting behavior, then the relationship is “complementary” in regard to these behaviors.
Common examples of simple symmetrical relationship are armaments races, keeping up with the Joneses, athletic emulation, boxing matches, and the like. Common examples of complementary relationship are dominance-submission, sadism-masochism, nurturance-dependency, spectatorship-exhibitionism, and the like.
More complex considerations arise when higher logical typing is present. For example: A and B may compete in gift-giving, thus superposing a larger symmetrical frame upon primarily complementary behaviors. Or, conversely, a therapist might engage in competition with a patient in some sort of play therapy, placing a complementary nurturant frame around the primarily symmetrical transactions of the game.
Various sorts of “double binds” are generated when A and B perceive the premises of their relationship in different terms—A may regard B’s behavior as competitive when B thought he was helping A. And so on. With these complexities we are not here concerned, be-cause the imaginary “other” or counterpart in the “pride” of the alcoholic does not, I believe, play the complex games which are characteristic of the “voices” of schizophrenics.
Both complementary and symmetrical relationships are liable to progressive changes of the sort which I have called “schismogenesis.” Symmetrical struggles and armaments races may, in the current phrase, “escalate”; and the normal pattern of succoring-dependency between parent and child may become monstrous. These potentially pathological developments are due to undamped or uncorrected positive feedback in the system, and may—as stated—occur in either complementary or symmetrical systems. However, in mixed systems schismogenesis is necessarily reduced. The armaments race between two nations will be slowed down by acceptance of complementary themes such as dominance, de-pendency, admiration, and so forth, between them. It will be speeded up by the repudiation of these themes.
This antithetical relationship between complementary and symmetrical themes is, no doubt, due to the fact that each is the logical opposite of the other. In a merely symmetrical armaments race, nation A is motivated to greater efforts by its estimate of the greater strength of B. When it estimates that B is weaker, nation A will relax its efforts. But the exact opposite will happen if A’s structuring of the relationship is complementary. Observing that B is weaker than they, A will go ahead with hopes of conquest.
This antithesis between complementary and symmetrical patterns may be more than simply logical. Notably, in psychoanalytic theory, the patterns which are called “libidinal” and which are modalities of the erogenous zones are all complementary. Intrusion, inclusion, exclusion, reception, retention, and the like—all of these are classed as “libidinal.” Whereas rivalry, competition, and the like fall under the rubric of “ego” and “defense.”
Schismogenesis
from: Bateson, Naven. p. 175 ff
I would define schismogenesis as a process of differentiation in the norms of individual behaviour resulting from cumulative interaction between individuals.... I think that we should be prepared rather to study schismogenesis from all the points of view - structural, ethological, and sociological which I have advocated ; and in addition to these it is reasonably certain that schismogenesis plays an important part in the moulding of individuals. I am inclined to regard the study of the reactions of individuals to the reactions of other individuals as a useful definition of the whole discipline which is vaguely referred to as Social Psychology. This definition might steer the subject away from mysticism. We should do well, I think, to speak no more of " the social behaviour of individuals" or of "the reactions of the individual to society*'. These phrasings lead all too easily to such concepts as those of Group Mind and Collective Unconscious. These concepts are almost meaningless to me, and I believe that even if we avoid them we are liable to err by confusing our study of the psychological processes of the individual with our study of society as a whole ; a confusion of spheres of relevance.
When our discipline is defined in terms of the reactions of an individual to the reactions of other individuals, it is at once apparent that we must regard the relationship between two individuals as liable to alter from time to time, even without disturbance from outside. We have to consider, not only A's reactions to B's behaviour, but we must go on to consider how these affect B's later behaviour and the effect of this on A.
It is at once apparent that many systems of relationship, either between individuals or groups of individuals, contain a tendency towards progressive change. If, for example, one of the patterns of cultural behaviour, considered appropriate in individual A, is culturally labelled as an assertive pattern, while B is expected to reply to this with what is culturally regarded as submission, it is likely that this submission will encourage a further assertion, and that this assertion will demand still further submission. We have thus a potentially progressive state of affairs, and unless other factors are pre- sent to restrain the excesses of assertive and submissive behaviour, A must necessarily become more and more assertive, while B will become more and more submissive; and this progressive change will occur whether A and B are separate individuals or members of complementary groups. Progressive changes of this sort we may describe as complementary schismogenesis. But there is another pattern of relationships between individuals or groups of individuals which equally contains the germs of progressive change. If, for example, we find boasting as the cultural pattern of behaviour in one group, and that the other group replies to this with boasting, a competitive situation may develop in which boasting leads to more boasting, and so on. This type of progressive change we may call symmetrical schismogenesis.
...
The phenomena of schismogenesis are by no means con- fined to latmul culture, and in order to emphasize the wide- spread importance of the process which I first noted among the latmul, I shall indicate in what other fields I expect to recognize schismogenesis:
i. In all intimate relations between pairs of individuals. A great many of the maladjustments of marriage are nowadays described in terms of the identification of spouse with parent. Such a phrasing may be historically accurate : it may be true that the husband in a marriage tends to carry over into his relationship with his wife attitudes which have been previously formed in his relationship with his mother. But this fact alone is by no means sufficient to account for the break-down of the marriage, and it is difficult in terms of such a theory to explain why such marriages, in their earlier stages, are often very satisfactory and only later become a cause of misery to both partners.
But if we add to this diachronic phrasing of the relationship the possibility that the patterns of behaviour between the partners are liable to progressive change of a schismogenic nature, it is evident that we have a theory which would explain both why the relationship is satisfactory in its early stages and why its breakdown appears inevitable to the people concerned. The relationship between son and mother is, in our culture, a complementary relationship, which in its early stages is patterned on fostering on the mother's side and feebleness on the child's. Later the relationship may develop in very various ways: e.g., (a) the pattern of fostering and feebleness may persist; or (b) the relationship may evolve towards the pattern which we have noted among the Iatmul where the mother takes a vicarious pride in her offspring ; or (c) it may evolve towards an assertive-submissive contrast in which it may be either person who takes the assertive role. But whatever the pattern, the mother-son relationship is almost always complementary. If these patterns are carried over into the son's marriage it is likely that they may there become the starting point of a schismogenesis which will wreck the marriage. It is perhaps worth while to suggest that in many cases an explanation and demonstration, to the partners in such marriages, of the schismogenesis in which they are involved might have the same therapeutic effect as the understanding, on the part of the husband, that he is identifying his wife with his mother.