The hidden dangers of passive-aggressive behavior.
In the period from birth to around the first six months of life, mother and child are both adjusting to the separation of the physical and psychic world they previously inhabited as one. This symbiotic period is not only marked by moments of psychic fusion where mother and baby remain bound by blurred psychological boundaries, but by a period of heightened ultrasensitivity to emotional communications. Eventually, our sensory perception is “diacritic,” localized, discrete, and mediated by peripheral sensory organs. Diacritic perception manifests as cognitive processes, including conscious thinking. But during this earlier coenesthetic phase of awareness, the signals from the unintegrated sensory and perceptual systems are poorly localized and diffuse. Mother and baby are preternaturally attuned to each other, directly depositing emotional information from one to the other through a nearly telepathic form of communication beyond mere perceiving and receiving. The heightened sensitivity of coenesthetic communication helps to perpetuate the continued blurring of self/other boundaries between mother and child who, until recently, were a singular being. This is an important and vital phase for the infant to gradually begin to differentiate his own personhood without being too abruptly physically and psychologically separated from mother - up until now, the shared symbiotic universe being the only one he knew.
The infant has not yet fully differentiated the separateness of his body from mother’s. We gain awareness of our bodies before there is awareness of the mind; and the baby must gradually turn disorganized, unintegrated sensory input into organized and hierarchical structures. We do this all the time when we close our eyes in order to listen harder, or tune things out when we’re concentrating visually. For the infant, there is now skin, water, air. The coenesthetic period is a crucially significant phase of development that has incredibly far reaching consequences necessary to organize signals of equilibrium, muscle and body tension, posture, temperature, vibration, skin and body contact, rhythm, tempo, duration, pitch, tone, resonance, and clang - all sensory and perceptual input that is simultaneously felt in the experience of the body. External input is made sense of within the internal and interoceptive systems, the human’s first opportunity to integrate inner and outer feedback together. Over time, the infant gradually shifts from the dominance of coenesthetic reception toward perception through the sensorium by the much more differentiated diacritic organizations.
This primitive form of communication helps to foster secure attachment using perfect empathic attunement. Later, when we begin to speak and can communicate externally, we take the inside and make it visible on the outside. We can still feel and recognize nonverbal communications as all humans retain the ability to project emotions; this is the reason we like being smiled at but don’t like being yelled at. Communication is always happening on two layers. It becomes easier to tolerate failures in empathic attunement as we learn how to verbally advocate for our needs and move beyond the expectation to be perfectly understood nonverbally. We lose the expectation of mindreading and become active agents of the self. Coenesthetic communication begins the lifelong cycle of recognizing unseen communications by knowing what they feel like internally decoupled from what is being presented externally - which is crucial to determine meaning when what’s being said and how it makes us feel doesn’t seem to match.
Paradoxical Communication
Language exists on two levels, the literal words that form the statement, and the character types and modes that underlie its meaning. Statements have one meaning on the object level, and another on a metalevel - a statement saying something about the object. The theory of logical types is the idea of discontinuity between a class and its members: the class cannot be a member of itself, and an individual member cannot be the class. The two types of are a higher and lower abstraction. Different layers of abstractions take us beyond the literal and can contain many layers within themselves. The mental representation of a dove, the object itself, exists on one layer. The symbol for the dove is taken up a layer when it is used to represent “peace,” a symbol of a symbol. This conceptual metarepresentation of the object is an abstraction, and object imagines can contain many layers of abstractions.
In order to understand sarcasm, you have to understand that what is being said is meant to convey the opposite thing. Irony requires understanding how expectations have been subverted. Humor works by layering and framing messages on multiple levels; the punchline of a joke is usually a reframing of earlier signals in the anecdote. Initial messages and labels are in the end signaled to be in a different class of logical type - the label is dissolved and resynthesized, and that’s the trick. We have to recognize the literary change in order to understand the joke. Classical conditioning, as in the famous Pavlovian experiments, involves receiving messages of higher and lower order: the buzzer brings the food. Logical character types and modes alter and change the meaning of communications, resulting in inevitable misunderstandings if one of those levels are missed. Learning in and of itself requires linking a sequence of events in order to understand the message.
A paradoxical communication.
People who struggle with irony, sarcasm, metaphors, analogies, and other forms of abstractions in language typically are highly concrete, literal thinkers. Concrete thinkers have difficulty seeing beyond the surface level to the layers underneath. Their cognitive processing has not progressed to the ability to keep in mind multiple levels of abstractions simultaneously. Primary representations do not get subsumed into the complexities of multiple layers and remain in their original, unsymbolized form. Communications are taken at face value without using character types to inform the meaning of words. Metarepresentations are neutralized when sentences are taken literally; you lose all the metasymbols and words remain only on the level of their primary, concrete representations.
Labels can be falsified both consciously and unconsciously. A self-deceptive individual may not have awareness of his own hostility underlying his tone and therefore be unaware of the message he is actually communicating. False identifications can also occur as a reaction to misreading the other’s metacommunicative symbols. Misattributing threats when none are present, mistaking shyness for contempt, earnestness as sarcasm, and uncertainty as withholding are common ways falsified labels contribute to failed social interactions. False identifications lead to errors in self-reference. Part of healthy ego functioning is the ability to discriminate whether the mode of communication is self-oriented or relational. Language, like everything else, operates on both the concrete, observable level and the abstract unseen, and accurate interpretation requires getting both sides of the binary correct.
So what happens when people don’t say what they mean? What happens when the nonverbal communication is more important than the verbal? What happens when people intentionally intend to deceive? Deception, manipulative friendliness, the confidence trick (conmen), teasing are all intentional incongruencies of higher and lower type. When the seen and unseen types don’t match and contradict themselves, the individual must be able to discern where the incongruency is happening and be able to invert its meaning to understand the true meaning and intention to discern the correct way to respond.
Paradoxes are singular claims that contain two contradictory statements. A self-contradiction highlights two ideas which are in conflict with each other where the statement can only be true if it is not true. If the statement is true, then it is false, but if it’s false then the statement is true. “I am lying” is only a lie if the speaker is telling the truth, therefore becomes the truth on the metalevel and a lie on the object level. “All I know is that I know nothing” can only be true on one level and false on another. Paradoxes mean a continual infinity loop of the object level contradicting the metalevel and vice versa.
The most common communication paradoxes demand a specific behavior which by its very nature can only be delivered spontaneously. “Be spontaneous” is an untenable demand, as to comply is an attempt to be spontaneous within a frame of coercion - spontaneity cannot be delivered on command. It is a demand for symmetry in a relationship defined by being complementary: an order-giver and an order-receiver. “You should love me;” “I want you to dominate me;” “you should enjoy playtime with the children;” “don’t be so obedient;” “it’s ok if you leave, don’t mind that I am crying.” The frame removes the true nature of the paradox, which is one of an authority and a subordinate, by framing it in a way as if the subordinate has a choice to act without reference to the demand. Spontaneity can only occur when the other is free to act naturally and is not possible under restrictions of constraint.
In the end, logic would dictate that the paradoxical statement is meaningless. Many of these paradoxes are frequent in our everyday language, but they go unmissed because the individual would not only have to recognize the paradox itself, but bring awareness to the contradiction in the metacommunication. Without calling out the frame of the paradox, the individual is stuck either refusing to comply, unable to decipher the desired response, or by complying for the “right” or “wrong” reason, which is then compliance itself. Instead of trying to make sense of “I am lying” and how such a phrase could be correct and therefore which determination should be made of the speaker’s trustworthiness, the only way out of the paradox is to communicate about its communication - to call out the distorted frame.
Double binds
Double binds are a specific type of paradoxical communication that is very psychologically damaging. There is a high degree of psychological or physical reliance between the subordinate and the speaker, particularly as in families and romantic relationships. The relationship is depended upon for survival, so the subordinate feels it is of vital importance to discriminate what sort of message is being communicated so that he may give the appropriate response. The frame of a double bind is one of the authority message giver and the subordinate message receiver. An order is given with a metacommunicative assertion about its own assertion, but the two assertions are mutually exclusive. If it is a demand, it must be disobeyed to be obeyed (“be spontaneous”). If it is a claim of character, the person is defined as the type only if he is not, and is not if he is (“I am lying”). Each demand exists on a different logical level and neither can be ignored or escaped; the meaning of the message is therefore undecideable. The reciprocally conflicting messages means successfully responding to one message is a failure to respond to the other. No matter how the individual responds, attempting to meet one demand means the other will not be met. He is trapped in a no win situation. The message is logically meaningless, causing severe anxiety in the subordinate.
Trapped in an impossible situation you cannot see.
The subordinate is unable to step outside the frame and dissolve the paradox. There is an unspoken rule that the subordinate must never question the authority that issues the contradictory orders. So the subordinate is not allowed to use metacommunication to make a comment about the comment, which would point out the paradoxical nature of the order. This overt or covert prohibition to show any awareness of the contradiction means the subordinate is likely to be punished or at least made to feel guilty for correct perceptions - that he is “bad” for insinuating there might be a discrepancy between what he does see and what he “should” see. He may even be made to believe he is crazy or has untrustworthy perceptions for drawing attention to the paradox, as one order is nonverbal and unseen and which is being denied. The inability to withdraw from the paradox results in behavioral patterns that are ingrained to contain obvious illogical contradictions. A common example is an order to “do X but only if you want to.” The two levels are condensed into one, as there is no need to demand a person do something only if they want to; the demand is self-contradictory.
This third prohibition, the injunction not to make a metacommunicative statement and escape the paradox, results in a habitual expectation that communication is on the basis of avoiding punishment rather than seeking rewards. The message is “do X, or I will punish you. Do not do do X, or I will punish you.” Verbalization may, therefore, include a wide variety of forms; for example, "Do not see this as punishment"; "Do not see me as the punishing agent"; "Do not submit to my prohibitions"; "Do not think of what you must not do"; "Do not question my love of which the primary prohibition is (or is not) an example"; and so on. The threat of punishment is nonverbally communicated using posture, gesture, tone of voice, and other abstract messages concealed within the verbal demand. Punishment may look like the withdrawing of love, an angry or hateful reaction, or, claims from the other of extreme helplessness and abandonment. The confused subordinate becomes conditioned to ignore the paradox and perpetually seeks in vain to decipher the impossible solution to satisfy both sides of the paradox. The double bind is a step beyond simple contradictions and becomes an internal conflict in the subordinate, as he wants to meet the demands of the object level, but cannot address the incompatibility of the metalevel.
Double binds are a special type of paradoxical communication, as their frequent presence causes them to become embedded in the very frame of language acquisition. The individual will grow up believing that double binds are normal communication. The distorted relationships cause double binds to become an habitual way of relating; once the subordinate has learned to view the world in double bind patterns, the complete set of ingredients no longer need to be present. The pattern of conflicting injunctions may even be taken over by hallucinatory voices and is thought to play a key role in the development of schizophrenia.
When double binds are baked into the family system of communication, language is acquired without distinguishing between normal patterns of higher and lower orders or the ability to use clarification to correctly identify the speaker’s meaning and intention. The individual comes to expect paradoxes to be a simple fact and a part of everyone’s communication.
How does this all relate to passive-aggression?
Passive-aggression has become so normalized that the average person would probably never describe it as dangerous, but it is an insidious, incredibly harmful form of communication. Passive-aggression is covertly spiteful with the intent of inflicting emotional pain. Its indirect and non-assertive hostility is hidden under a cloak of deniability. Underneath an innocuous surface appearance is false compliance, opposition, resistance, or rebellion. Withholding fulfillment of the other person’s want or need is a form of disguised revenge. The apparent obedience externally is defiance internally - say yes, but do no. Passive behaviors are used to communicate negative feelings rather than verbally expressing them. These contradictions in intention result in a deceptive emotional tone.
Passive-aggressive behavior is common among people who are conflict avoidant, have no conflict resolution skills, and fear abandonment and rejection. The perception of the self is as of a victim and one who is powerless to challenge the existing power structure. Passive-aggressiveness is a claim to power, a way to try to exert control without being seen as overtly challenging the status quo. It is a frequent tactic when individuals feel they cannot modify or influence their environment. The internal experience of being subjugated while being simultaneously approval seeking is in itself a contradiction of values. Surface compliance belies an internal refusal to comply, communicating “I’m really the one with the power.” Doing so is an intent to inflict harm, to subtly control the power dynamic without accountability for concrete actions.
4 layers; internal/external, verbal/nonverbal must all be congruent.
A person who is passive aggressive is giving contradictory experiences of internal and external reality. The external is agreeable while the internal is hostile. By hiding, denying, or disavowing aggression, their non-compliant behaviors coerce the other into identifying with this disavowed and projected emotional material as they perceive the resistance despite the outward compliance. The individual is weaponizing coenesthetic communication. It plays a key role in the primitive defense mechanisms of splitting and projective identification and is therefore an extreme danger to the individual who is emotionally close to the passive-aggressive person. Self/other boundaries become blurred, the same as the projected communication between mother and infant. The outcome is a person who has hidden malicious intent who functions in such a way so as to be seemingly blameless. After all, they never said the malicious thing; they never made the nonverbal threat. In fact what they said on the surface was agreeable. So how do you prove unseen malicious intent? In order to escape the paradox of passive-aggressive double binds, you must be able to identify both layers of communication. What the person is saying on the outside and what they mean on the inside must match. To go along with both, responding to both contradictory layers, allows the other to succeed with their deceptive communications and escape accountability for their mixed messages.
Humans and reality always exists on two levels, the inside and the outside, the seen and the unseen, the abstract and the concrete. We are bodies and we are also minds; we are behaviors but we are also thoughts and feelings. When we respond to paradoxes, the other gets away with both ends of the paradox and ultimately is accountable for neither. They are neither compliant nor hostile, depending on which layer you respond to and which they choose to disavow. When it comes to the external concrete and the internal unseen, they have to match, and when they don’t, we must not respond to both. Two messages of order are being communicated but one is being denied; it’s impossible to correctly discriminate what order of message to respond to. The only way to win the game is not to play it.
When you are placed in these impossible paradoxes of communication, it is important to always only respond to the external concrete layer. The passive-aggressive individual is used to denying the internal layer, its presence only available when they want it to be, retaining the ability to alter reality with their unprovable unseen. They must be robbed of the ability to claim different intentions based on what suits them and which disproves your accurate perceptions. Attempting to respond to both means you are always wrong and they are always right. The only solution is to step outside of the paradox, clarify for meaning, and only respond to what is given externally. They have to be accountable for what is real, and must not be allowed to alter what can’t be proven.
Sources:
Bateson, Gregory, Don D. Jackson, Jay Haley, and John Weakland. "Toward a theory of schizophrenia." Behavioral science 1, no. 4 (1956): 251-264.
David A. Freedman & Stuart L. Brown (1968) On the Role of Coenesthetic Stimulation in the Development of Psychic structure, The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 37:3, 418-438.
Watzlawick, Paul, Janet Beavin Bavelas, and Don D. Jackson. Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. WW Norton & Company, 2011.
