The Double-bind as the Functional Equivalent of Contradiction in Social Research Methodology

Abstract

The article attempts to compare two methodological figures whose core is logical contradiction: double-bind, introduced by G. Bateson, which appeals to Russell's theory of types, and Hegel's logical form of contradiction, working with which assumes a culture of movement within contradiction and the skill of resolving it. Both methods proved very productive in a wide range of anti-Weberian socio-anthropological studies of the twentieth century in the West and in Russia, and both were enacted at a crucial moment in modeling such complex phenomena as mental pathology (G. Bateson) / education of the deaf-blind (Mescheryakov-Ilyenkov), creativity (N. Elias) / E. Ilyenkov, social power relations linking human individuals as having a social nature (the concept of “aperto homine” by N. Elias, Marx’s in origin / also initially by Marx, the “ensemble of social relations” by E. Ilyenkov / the ambiguity of practices of presenting oneself to others by I. Hoffmann / the contradictory nature of the ideal as a concept by Ilyenkov). Analyzing the methods of research work that are prescribed by the double-bind or contradiction as a philosophical category, the author traces what divergence at the “output” the difference of these approaches leads to at the “input”. The decisive difference is that a methodology that treats double-bind only negatively limits its analysis to the mechanisms of social production of evil, while a methodology of contradiction resolution demonstrates the ability to raise and address questions about the social production of creative individuality or high cultural patterns.