Until death do us apart…
In 1973, there was a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden. The captives after being released were interviewed and to everyone’s surprise they went on to narrate how kind and compassionate their captors were. These people who were accosted at gunpoint and were teetering on the verge of death just a while ago, were all praise for the gunmen.
Thus came to be coined the term, ‘Stockholm Syndrome’. A condition where victims start empathizing with their captors and start having negative feelings towards their rescuers, at times not complying with authority or even rescue efforts. This condition hasn’t been included officially in the DSM criteria as a mental illness and such victims are usually treated on the lines of PTSD. However, there are plenty such alarming stories.
To explain this bizarre behavior, one theory put forth is that it is some sort of a survival mechanism embedded in us where compliance is deemed important to survive the ordeal. Yesteryear tribes who were always in the danger of being killed if accosted by other tribesmen, decided that it was wiser to be compliant instead of retaliating and risking death.
Another theory is explained by the ‘Ben Franklin effect’ which states that when we like a person, we help them. So as a corollary when we help a person it would mean we like them. So in this case, if we are compliant, the brain interprets the behavior as liking the individual. Hence after a point, when the captors are especially nice and polite after initially threatening the person and end up spending too much time in close proximity interacting with their captives, the captives start developing a bond subconsciously and sometimes vice versa.
There are instances on record where the captives have justified the actions of their captors, some even visiting them in prison and taking their own lives while asking for their captors to be pardoned in their suicide note.
What I am building up to is that you can extrapolate the above findings in the context of domestic abuse and you will find a similar pattern in many cases. So is also the case with many sexual abuse survivors.
To quote a small anecdote, when a baby elephant is born in a zoo it is tied to a tree or a pole for everybody’s safety. When this elephant grows up and turns all mighty and ferocious it still remains obediently tied to the tree. It could easily with all it’s might break free, but it is now compliant with it’s mahout. Even when given a choice, it would not conjure up the wits to escape. It has started identifying with it’s oppressor.
There are plenty of cases of kidnapping and rape survivors who after being abused do not escape even when they get the chance to. Apart from fear determining their indecision, it is also believed that some of them start developing an affinity towards their abuser on an emotional plain or at other times, in their own mind they have accepted the power hierarchy and will unquestioningly and unconsciously pay obeisance.
The reasons in domestic abuse could be plenty. In many cases especially for the one’s not financially independent, it could be the fear of fending for oneself. With lopsided monetary dynamics, the relationship is often disrespectful and it becomes easier for one party to abuse and control the other. Even people who have been in a long term marriage often give their partner the benefit of doubt over and over again, only for the other person to continue the same pattern of behavior. The innate ability of wanting to see the good in every person very often leads to abuse of trust.
It is often difficult for them to believe that there is a life outside their trauma if they care to seek it. Also, it is known that adhering to a situation only on the account of familiarity when there is no other good in the equation, whether in relationships or work, sometimes steals you off better opportunities and outcomes.
One of my earlier roommates used to do this exercise when faced with a conflicting situation. She would pull out a pen and paper and write down the pros and cons of the situation at hand and base her decisions on the basis of that.
Attachment, even when one sided tends you to overvalue the pros more than the cons. You tend to undervalue the risks and overvalue the gains. That is where you need objectivity or a third person view point from somebody who gives a damn about you. Every friend who warns you against that huge ambulating red flag while watching you wither away isn’t doing it out of malice.
On the other hand, you need not take their opinion on face value. You can always critique it in your head or simply ask them upfront as to why they would have such and such belief about the other person.
Ask yourself, “What is your core personality like?” Are you the kind to take physical abuse or gaslighting and see yourself turn from this very headstrong opinionated individual to a ghost of a person where your feelings don’t matter, your opinions don’t matter and your life doesn’t matter? Are you okay being less than you can be and diminishing your presence and compromising your very basic rights to not injure someone else’s super fragile ego? Very often, you cannot see it, but other’s who have known you closely, can.
Talk to survivors of domestic abuse and you will know what I am speaking about. When the relationship is causing too much dissonance with what you are as a person or in other words, if your present reality is far too out of sync with what your idea of a mate is, it is time to cut chord and start again.
Whether it is empathizing but risking death with your captor or risking your life everyday with your abusive partner, it is not an endeavor which is either healthy or worth the effort.
In the context of a relationship, you may seem like the ultimate sacrificial poster boy/ girl for your sensitive understanding of a fellow human and fulfilling your vows to the best of your ability. However truly speaking, all what you are doing is literally turning into the living but lifeless embodiment of ‘Until death do us apart.’
References:
International Journal of Advanced Research (2015), Volume 3, Issue 11, 385–388
