I’ll answer with a recently discussed topic in relation to the practices of the Troubled Teen Industry. Does a doctor operate before they practice? If we know we have not yet defined the context under which we are operating, why are we allowing it to practice. The Double Bind in the troubled teen industry is a uniquely real context . I firmly believe we should have a clear understanding of it before we accept using it on our kids.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0
.
The more I read here the more it becomes apparent that each program is different. I haven’t seen the double bind built into any program. I think I have heard people from elan speak out and agree it was part of their experience or programs from the past, but no one else. Personally I have not seen it. I remember many people in my past who use to send conflicting messages, but not entire institutions.
Programs do have a very defined program under which they operate. Just because they don’t make it public doesn’t mean it doesnt exist. Each program is competing to see who can attain the highest success rate so they are not going to share the process or nuances of their model with competitors.
I think the whole discussion of the double Bind is interesting but I would be careful in trying to assume it is used across the board.
...
The double bind doesn’t have to be defined in the troubled teen industry as ‘used’ or ‘built in’ with a focus on implicating the true intent of the staff or those running it. Although it is my feeling that double binds were consciously used by many at Cedu, the double bind represents an interactional context. The troubled teen industry, and the TC model represents an overall context for the double bind. At this point there is very common model being used. I’m not going to pretend I know every program, if you can identify a program that is exempt from containing the ingredients for double binding I’m all ears believe me, they should be rewarded for transcending the current model. but if there were a program that functioned outside a double bind context it would truly be a departure from the overall TTI model, and that is why we must apply this analyses to them as a group.
Take a look at the table of contents in these books. You’ll notice these are some recent publications from 2003 and 04.
THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITY: A Practice Guide. Fernando P. Perfas
http://www.amazon.com/Therapeutic-Commu ... 0595280439 THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITY: A Social Systems Perspective.
http://www.amazon.com/Therapeutic-Commu ... 0595321313Just look over the contents for a moment. I have these books and I can tell you there are quite a few things about the suggested TC model that are questionable. First of all there is a clear statement that at the ‘very heart’ of the TC is the social system. Perfas emphasizes that peoples roles, and the meaning of their interactions are the result of the power of the community and its’ system. So I can clearly tell that there is an important focus on systems theory as the basis for the TC model, and there is plenty of clues indicate that TC’s have adopted their thinking directly from the individuals responsible for Double Bind Theory, family therapy theory, family systems theory, and their large contribution to intervention approaches. Perfas has recognized the TC as being a system that is ‘more than the sum of it’s parts’, a phrasing very common in Double Bind literature and systems theory. Other references to the work of the double bind group are the terms family therapy, family intervention, input, output, feedback, interface.
To be perfectly frank I found his books to be suspiciously absent of any real theory, and had minimal references to important figures in the development of systems explanations for human behavior and interaction. I believe the only reference to someone with a theoretical background in cybernetics and systems theory was Maturana, which doesn’t say much for me when I read a book that is specifically focused on a systems explanation for TC’s. In systems theory, cybernetics, systems psychology you will unquestionably find that Gregory Bateson is by far the most influential person in that area. Not once mentioning Gregory Bateson is a huge oversight in clarifying a systems perspective on TC’s. Although he does say near the end of the book that it does not presume to explain the TC social system completely, who he has decided to focus on is quite narrow in defining where the social systems perspective comes from. In light of this, the Double Bind is a glaring oversight in the TC’s evaluation of itself.
Now, aside from a shallow take on systems theory in TC’s, Perfas is offering a variety of general techniques and approaches to working a TC. The methodology presented can be clearly compared with what has been written on the double bind. For instance, on pg. 41 he describes the use of cognitive dissonance producing methods to heighten the clients internal stress in order to breakdown resistance to change.
On pg. 38 it describes the TC’s approach to intake. He says clients end up in treatment as the result of ‘driving forces, some of them beyond their control.’ And even the rare ‘voluntary’ member is typically there because of social pressures. This being the case, his answer to this is to suggest an intake process of gaining rapport, eliciting information from the client (with intent to use it later for motivating change with cognitive dissonance), and gaining small, incremental agreements from them.
In discussing a certain stage in therapy, he calls ‘the probe’ stage the one where heightened self disclosure is required and there a main focus on getting the clients to reveal ‘psycho sexual’ issues. They are encouraged to talk about their sexuality and sexual experiences and tie them to their self concept and drug issues. If this were the TC practice guide from my day this would certainly explain the inappropriate (to say the least) sexual conversations the staff seemed so eager to get into.
There is too much to go on about when it comes to the potential for double binding here. There are a lot of manipulative techniques. All in all the TC model Perfas is showing looks very much the same as when it started in Synanon and Daytop. Marathon Groups, Encounter Groups, Haircuts, peer confrontation group, privileges, hierarchy, ‘act as if’, attack therapy, gestalt theory, humanistic psychiatry. But really, what needs to be discussed is that the double bind has a clear place in the structure of the TC’ model, and the troubled teen industry. As of yet there have been no efforts to understand the role it plays.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 .
