Run, Run, Runaway

Trapped On All Sides, No Escape | Double Binds Driving Us Crazy
Splitting Apart Along All Seams | Schismogenesis Everywhere

By Jeff Bloom

As I was thinking about this essay, an old song kept popping into my head. I’ve borrowed a refrain from Del Shannon’s 1961 hit recording, “Runaway,” as part of the title to this essay. It was a song about a love gone sideways. All of us have probably experienced such a breaking apart of relationships of one kind or another. And, those patterns of break-ups are usually quite similar to much larger scale break-ups. A more in-depth discussion of such larger scale break-ups, as well as another inspiration for this essay and title, can be found in Anthony Chaney’s book, Runaway.[[1]] 

As tempting as it may be, “runaway,” in this essay and Chaney’s book, does not refer to escaping some situation. In this essay, the term, runaway, is more like a runaway semi truck or a runaway locomotive. But, we’ll explore this notion of runaway later on. First, I’d like to describe briefly the types of situations that have led us to the point of multiple runaway systems along with a high probability of multiple system crashes.

Societies are made of relationships.We have relationships with neighbors, friends, families. As well as with co-workers, bosses, people who work in various businesses, as well as to our homes (houses, apartments, etc.) to the streets and highways we utilize, to the companies we never meet, but use for garbage collection, water, electricity, gas, etc. In fact, Gregory Bateson suggested that our whole world is made of relationships.[[2]] There are person-to-person or people-to-people relationships; relationships between me and my computer; relationships between ideas and bits of knowledge; relationships between nations; relationships between us and the rest of the natural world. But, we don’t really learn about the nature and extent of relationships in most, if any, of our school learning, bu at least never in school curriculums. Learning about the nature, dynamics, and extent of relationships should be the primary focus of school learning. When some sort of relation is discussed in classrooms, they are limited to a specific subject matter context and hardly ever to multiple subject matter contexts. Sadly, too much of our school learning minimizes the growth and development of any kinds of relationships. And, this latter issue is not particularly accidental. For at least a century and a half, the political thrust upon education has been to provide minimal education to the masses; just enough “education” to be productive members of the workforce, which was initially directed at learning how to be a “good” factory worker. Now, it is still heavily rooted in factory work mentality, but with the addition of educating students to be “good” corporate workers. These underlying goals of education are not meant to highly educate the populace. Highly educating all people will create people who are resistant to being controlled by the corporate and government hierarchies.[[3]] 

We also do not learn anything about person-to-person or group-to-group relationships in school. As a result, we learn about relationships by stumbling through our lives within families, between families, with teachers, with other children, and with strangers. Maybe some of us got a bit of guidance from parents or in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, and so forth. However, these particular types of contexts often are hierarchically structured, which, at least implicitly provide guidance and learning opportunities based on the same assumptions, values, and goals as our schooling. And, the assumption, values, and goals to one degree or another are based on patterns of disconnection, rather than on connections. As a result, most children and adults learn about relationships from just being in the contexts schools, workplaces, etc. And, this learning tends to focus on dysfunctional relationships, such as, from being bullied, from being excluded and marginalized, being obedient to authorities, conforming to some sort of unwritten rules of conduct and appearance, and so forth. From aged 5 to 11, I was the outsider and perfect target for bullies. This gradually changed over the next decade, but literal and figurative scars remain as epidermal and cognitive memories. My family and extended family and family friends fumbled their way through their own relationships. 

Gregory Bateson [[4]] identified three fundamental patterns of relationships that he observed between individuals and between and within various groups. He referred to one pattern of relationships as Symmetrical. Basically, these relationships are characterized by having two or more people with similar styles or patterns of interacting. Examples may be two people who want to be in control, or as Bateson said, be dominant in the relationship. But, a symmetrical relationship could be between two people who are both indecisive, submissive, etc. The second type is Complementary, which involves two or more people who are more or less opposite in the styles or tendencies. These may include dominant—submissive, one who is always criticizing—one who is always compliant, and so forth. Neither of these two patterns, if they are the dominant patterns of the relationships, are not likely to last over a long period of time. The “symmetricals” will drive one another apart. With “complementaries” one or the other will be driven to the point of being fed up with the dynamic, and it too will split apart. The third type of relationship is the Reciprocal. These relationships have the potential to last and not split apart. In these relationships, people negotiate, communicate well, and tend to have more  give-and-take sorts of interactions. There more of a balance. However, we are rarely in just one type of relationship. In one person-to-person relationship, we may tend to default to reciprocal patterns of interaction, but occasionally fall into complementary or symmetrical patterns, which may be during some disagreement about some issue they are facing. But, as long as the reciprocal patterns are more or less the default, couples, close friendships, families, and work relationships can maintain their continuity over time. 

 The internal nature of democracies should default to reciprocal relations. Autocracies, plutocracies, oligarchies, are all complementary, until at some point, some group vies for control leading to a symmetrical battle. Bateson coined the term schismogenesis to describe the processes involved in the splitting apart of various kinds of relationships. At present, in the United States, we are smack dab in the middle of a schismogenesis that has been gurgling along beneath and sometime above the surface of society for at least the last 160 years of so, but maybe from the beginning of the European invasion, which was itself an attempt at a complementary dominant—submissive takeover, but which also was symmetrical, since most Native American nations wanted no part of European society. The Europeans looked down upon the Native peoples, even though some Europeans, who bothered to get to know some of the Native Americans and their societies, found them to be more intelligent than most Europeans and had much more egalitarian and “democratic-ish” social structures.[[5]] But, here we are back to trying to impose an autocracy as a complementary, authoritarian, system of relationships. The British lost that schismogenic battle in the 1770’s. Will our 2025 schismogenesis be a win for autocracy and complementary relations? The Civil War was a battle between a part of the country, the North, that was working at reciprocal democratic systems, while the other, the South, was trying to keep their complementary relationships (i.e., slavery). At the same time, the North and South were in an antagonistic, symmetrical battle. I the 1930’s and 1940’s, the United States faced a similar symmetrical battle between a Nazi effort to seize power, complete with a number of Congresspeople on the payroll of Hitler’s party.[[6]]

Of course, there is another dimension of relationships, including those among people and  those within the entire complex set of ecosystems, which Bateson referred to as double binds.[[7]] These particular situations occur when two or more contexts set up conflicting sets of messages or dynamics from which an individual or group cannot find a viable solution or way out of a particularly painful situation. A common example is of a parent setting up a situation where the child is always at fault and/or not smart enough or good looking enough or whatever. A child is told be back home at 5:00 for dinner, then when the child walks through the door at 5:03, the parent yells at the child for “always being late.” And, some version of this pattern of interaction between parent and child characterizes this relationship. There’s no way for the child to respond without either being on the defensive or admitting fault. In another example from my days of going to dog parks with my Doberman, Mugetsu, we got to know a man and his new and rather large hound puppy. Mugetsu was pretty much the queen of dog park and made friends easily with all size dogs. She and the hound, a male, were no exception. They were pretty much instant friends. However, the hound’s human, I’ll called him Fred, would scream at his puppy the minute he started to bite my Mugetsu. Then, every time they came to the dog park, Fred would tell his dog to go play with Mugetsu, then almost immediately scream his dog to “stop.” Play biting is an essential ingredient of dog play. That’s how they play, build trust, and deepen their relationships. But, the poor hound puppy just couldn’t figure out what to do. After a few months, Fred and his puppy would be walking towards the dog park, but the puppy would just stop and refuse to come into the dog park. If Fred forced the issue, his dog would wander around avoiding all contact with dogs and people. 

At this moment in time, we are all in multiple double binding situations, where political, economic, educational, religious, family life, and personal occupational contexts are presenting all sorts of untenable prospects for the near future. Some politicians think that siding with the current monetary and power centers is the safer option, but they lose all support from their constituents, and may even be facing threats to their lives no matter what they do. Other politicians more or less try to hide while trying to side step the metaphorical mines buried along whatever path they choose to take. Mary Catherine and Nora Bateson [[8]] have maintained that the only way to escape form double binds is through creative leaps to higher levels of abstraction. Telling someone they’re creating double binds never works. Other sorts of resistance don’t work. Some people just try to ignore the double binds, while trying to maintain some semblance of self-respect. But, the creative leaps are difficult “find” or create. And, the leaps can be risky as well. Some leaps can just be a matter of reframing the situations by creating a new context that is not at all connected to the conflicts. For other situations, a leap may require “stepping” outside the box or “stepping” outside of the contexts and systems that are in conflict and taking a more holistic view of what is happening. I discussed such possibilities for “stepping out of the box” in two previous essays: 

Unchecked, systems that go awry can become runaway systems, where what was a self-maintaining, self-correcting system, starts to run wildly out of control. The social systems that have comprised the United States have been more or less stumbling along, veering away from the initial vision, which itself had issues. Trying to too closely or too loosely control any one of the systems (e.g., religions, education, economy, political, etc.) can initiate patterns of feedback loops that can cause a variety of issues that can cause one or more systems to spin out of control. There has to be a balance. 

Gregory Bateson [[9]] discussed the notion of maximizing, minimizing, and optimizing in relationships and systems. Maximizing can create a higher potential for a runaway system. Maximizing profits can lead to all sort of issues in other intertwined social systems, as well as within the entity that is maximizing. Worker burnout and maltreatment often occur where profits are being maximized. This sort of positive runaway can lead to all aspects of the system spinning out of control and splitting apart. Minimizing can create insufficiencies of one sort or another that are needed to maintain the system. In such cases, the system can collapse in a sort of negative runaway system, where the system runs away until it runs out of whatever is energizing the system runs out. Optimizing is trying to find the balance that maintains a more or less steady state. A business based on optimizing working conditions, profits, resource use, keeping up with societal changes, etc., is more likely to maintain itself on an even keel. 

It’s seems overtly apparent to me that we are at a point where we either step out of the box and stop the runaway system before it is too late to do so without facing much higher potentials for violence, societal collapse, starvation, homelessness, and so forth. Then, we immediately have to work towards re-working the systems in order to create that necessary balance, that optimization. 

© 2025 by Jeffrey W. Bloom

NOTES

[[1]] Chaney (2017)

[[2]] Gregory mentions that he lives in a world of relationships in his daughter’s (Nora’s) documentary film (Bateson, N., 2010). Bateson discusses relationships at length in a number of works, including three of his more popular books (Bateson, G., 1972/2000, 1979/2002, 1991). 

[[3]] Gatto (2000, 2002); Kliebard (1987); Marshall, et al. (2000/2007); Pinar (1995)

[[4]] Bateson, G. (1972/2000)

[[5]] Graeber & Wengrow (2021)

[[6]]Maddow (2024a, 2024b) 

[[7]] Bateson, G. (1972/2000, 1991); Bateson, M. C. (2005); Chaney (2017); Wilden (1972/1980)

[[8]] Bateson, M. C. (2005); Bateson, N. (2016)        

[[9]] Bateson, G. (1972/2000; 1991)

REFERENCES

Bateson, G. (1972/2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago, IL:  University of Chicago Press.

Bateson, G. (1979/2002). Mind and nature:A necessary unity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Bateson, G. (1991). Sacred unity: Further steps to an ecology of mind (R. E. Donaldson, Ed.). New York: A Cornelia & Michael Bessie Book/Harper Collins.

Bateson, M. C. (2005). The double bind: Pathology and creativity. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 12(1–2), 11–21.

Bateson, N. (2010). An Ecology of Mind: A Daughter’s Portrait of Gregory Bateson (Documentary Film)

Bateson, N. (2016). Small arcs of larger circles: Framing through other patterns. Axminster, UK: Triarchy Press.

Chaney, A. (2017). Runaway: Gregory Bateson, the double bind, and the rise of ecological consciousness. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Gatto, J. T. (2000). The underground history of American education: A schoolteacher’s intimate investigation into the problem of modern schooling. New York: Oxford Village Press.

Gatto, J. T. (2002). Some lessons from the underground history of American education. In R. Kick (Ed.), Everything you know is wrong: The disinformation guide to secrets and lies (pp. 274–287). New York: The Disinformation Company.

Graeber, D., & Wengrow, D. (2021). The dawn of everything: A new history of humanity. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kliebard, H. M. (1987). The struggle for the American curriculum: 1893-1958. New York: Routledge.

Maddow, R. (2024a). Rachel Maddow Presents: Déja News. (Podcast).

Maddow, R. (2024b). Rachel Maddow Presents: Ultra. (Podcast).

Marshall, J. D., Sears, J. T., & Allen, L. A. (2000/2007). Turning points in curriculum (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Pinar, W. (Ed.). (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York: Peter Lang.

Wilden, A. (1972/1980). System and structure: Essays in communication and exchange (2nd ed.). London, UK: Tavistock.

SHARE:

PLEASE RATE: