Within an emotionally and psychologically abusive group, the concept of choice is a delicate matter. Statements such as "You aren't held by chains; you can do what you want", which are then followed by dire repercussions if an unpopular or wrong choice is made, demonstrate the confusion inherent in such environments.
In his
article "Bounded Choice: The Illusion of Flexibility in a Controlled World", Dan Krimm states,
Bounded Choice: The Big Finesse
Henry Ford was said to have stated that his new Model T, the first assembly-line automobile,
was available "in any color, as long as it's black." The economic incentive to constrain
choice in a mass-produced world is very strong. However, there is also a strong political
incentive to constrain choice, as it allows citizens' behavior to be controlled more easily,
reducing threats to power over society. In the present day, these two incentives increasingly
are working together even while many of those in power do everything they can to obscure
that fact.
The "Big Finesse" is to induce people into thinking they are exercising pure free will and
personal choice while at the same time constraining their options with regard to anything
important to the exercise of real power. It's easier to control people if they are not aware
that they are being controlled, because they will not even think to resist the control.
Bounded Choice is more commonly known as the (negative)
Double Bind. Here is an example from Wikipedia:
The classic example given of a negative double bind is of a mother telling her child that she loves him, while at the same time turning her head away in disgust. (The words are socially acceptable; the body language is in conflict with it). The child doesn't know how to respond to the conflict between the words and the body language and, because she is dependent on his [sic] mother for his or her basic needs, is in a quandary. Small children have difficulty articulating contradictions verbally and can neither ignore them nor leave the relationship.
Implanted Seeds
Bounded Choice affects both spiritual and practical aspects of life. When subtle messages determine the thoughts or behavior of a tender young heart, serious questions can arise regarding the exact nature of God and how He relates to His children. The level of disorientation promoted by this form of communication is devastating. And since God is not the author of confusion, many automatically assume the responsibility for error, adding further detriment to the situation.
Those raised with the double bind as a method of control learn that recovery can be especially daunting. Leaving an authoritarian climate only to realize the challenges of making simple, daily decisions is not unlike a form of culture shock.
Illusion of Freedom
Setting aside the controversial nature of adult autonomy within extremely conservative families, let's regard freedom as a neutral issue for the moment. Many authoritarian parents and leaders insist that adult offspring or followers are free to make their own choices. A case may be presented and wishes understood, but when the verbal statement communicates: "It's up to you," anything less than that is dishonest.
Here I referred to "baited choice", which is similar to the deceptive practice of retailers who lure customers only for them to discover that all is not as is portrayed. If an adult is given the option to make a decision only to suffer manipulative ramifications as a result, they truly do not have "free" choice.
Consequences
To be clear, what I refer to is not the natural consequence of an unwise action. Mistakes will occur as we learn life. I wholeheartedly advocate seeking the input of godly, wise parents, friends, pastors, and Scripture, while most importantly, seeking the will of God and direction of the Holy Spirit. These things do not insulate against every mistake, but mistakes are essential to learning. God can use them effectively in our lives and does not condemn us for them. This certainly isn't an appeal to apathy or willful sin, but a reminder that He is sovereign and faithful and His love is not dependent upon our performance or how high we measure up.
I do allude to an environment which responds sinfully to undesirable actions. Here are a few examples of real-life situations that many of my Quivering Daughter-Sisters have faced . . .
- manipulation: withholding love or affection, silent treatment, shunning—even up to complete excommunication; appealing to others—worried about what others might think
- labeling: foolish, stupid, ungodly, rebellious, unsaved, not walking with the Lord (remember: only the Lord truly sees the heart!)
- passive-aggression: shaming through prayers or "sharing"; patronizing, disrespectful, or condescending treatment
- overt aggression: raging; hot seats; intense, exhaustive criticism sessions, either privately or with others present
True, natural consequences to a mistake or choice are not manipulative. But it is not a natural consequence to deliberately retribute another person for having a differing belief or making a choice which does not reflect one's personal conviction. An argument may be made that "Carol is free to make up her own mind, but she knew what would happen if she decided to wear pants", for example, "and therefore she chose to be left out of our family photo". This is not free choice, it is bounded choice: controlling or ensuring the outcome of a situation using emotionally, intellectually, or spiritually manipulative tactics. If this occurs throughout a lifetime of subtle training, then it truly is the Big Finesse as Krimm so aptly describes:
[inducing] people into thinking they are exercising pure free will and
personal choice while at the same time constraining their options with regard to anything
important to the exercise of real power. It's easier to control people if they are not aware
that they are being controlled, because they will not even think to resist the control.
Many in favor of the double bind argue that it is out of concern for another's well-being—spiritual or physical—and a form of "tough love" which prompts their behavior. "If I didn't say anything, that means I didn't care", "Would I let them walk off a cliff without speaking up?" "I am just helping them to think" and "They need to learn wisdom" are all types of statements generated by those who genuinely do feel responsibility / love / alarm / anxiety towards those important to them.
But when everything is stripped away, most often a root of fear lies at the base of these and similar defenses. It is here that one has the opportunity to seek the face of God to help strengthen one's faith, because fear seeks control—knowing the outcome, ensuring predictability; whereas faith hands control back to God and says, "I'm willing not to know, but to rest knowing You."
e are probably all familiar with the “second mile” principle. Jesus, referring to the law that a Roman soldier could require a Jewish man to carry his heavy backpack one mile in any direction, said, “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.” Matthew 5:41 The Jews had no choice but to obey it or face the wrath of the Roman government. If the soldier wanted a rest, the civilian had to carry that pack. And I doubt that all the soldiers were considerate of the direction the civilian was headed or of the load he was carrying for himself.
