Correcting the Narrative

Unpacking the Stockholm Syndrome Myth

For some reason lately, my social media feed has filled up with a considerable amount of posts on ‘Stockholm Syndrome’. Even though this term has been debunked several times by several authorities close to the case where this paleologistic reference was crafted. 

I just read a story on a pretty-popular column from the DV community on this very topic. I shake my head in distress and disbelief at the harm that comes from a community that I believe is doing the best they can to not spread misinformation on domestic abuse issues – and yet here is a case in point as to why we have a problem with what we teach in academia due to the proliferation of misinformation on the plethora of social media platforms, and among people-helpers of all types.

The problem they unwittingly participate in is the perpetuation of language that causes harm. For fifty-two (52) years, this term has been informing therapists and other people-helpers of a condition that isn’t even true.

Made-up Terminology

It happens – more than it ever should. It is incredibly problematic when people in a supposed position of ‘authority’ fabricate terms that take on a life of their own, without ever correcting their wrongs generated from their misinformed positions.

This is not a new phenomenon. It wasn’t new when this term (Stockholm Syndrome) was made up in 1973 during the bank robbery, or when assigned to another popular news story in 1974 in another part of the world. It is not new in our day when we still battle with victim blaming terminology or phrases such as,

• Trauma Bond
• Mutual Abuse
• Reactive Abuse
• “Asking for it”
• “She led him on”
• ‘See should have fought back”
• “She stayed, so it couldn’t have been that bad”
• “Why didn’t she leave?”
• “She must have done something to deserve it”
• “Boys will be boys”
• “She was drunk, what did she expect?”
• She’s just being dramatic”

The list of hurtful, offensive, and blatantly wrong words and phrases continue to permeate our social narrative, causing untold harm on the minds and hearts of countless victims.

Misinformation Leads to Abuse

The problem with this kind of misinformation is that it leads to abuse – abuse that hurts the victims, not the perpetrators. 

The real issue here is that this is more than just misinformation. Concocted terms inform theory. They inform medical diagnosis and treatment plans for perpetrators and victims. 

Do you see the problem here?

Prevailing Definitions

The following are three easy, yet very problematic searches for this term. You can see clearly where people become misinformed by other common terms – also patently false – (i.e. “trauma bond”) that achieve popularity, especially in the social media sphere.

1. Oxford Dictionary: Stock·holm syn·drome

/ˈstäkˌhō(l)m,ˈstäkōm ˈsinˌdrōm/

noun: Stockholm syndrome

• feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor.

Origin

1970s: with reference to a bank robbery in Stockholm.

2. Wikipedia: Stockholm syndrome is a proposed condition or theory that tries to explain why hostages sometimes develop a psychological bond with their captors. Emotional bonds can possibly form between captors and captives, during intimate time together, but these are considered irrational by some in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims.

3. People Ask: Victims of the formal definition of Stockholm syndrome develop “positive feelings toward their captors and sympathy for their causes and goals, and negative feelings toward the police or authorities”. These symptoms often follow escaped victims back into their previously ordinary lives.

It is critical to note

that the term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ has not been included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual oof Mental Disorders (DSM), the standard tool for diagnostics (for medical billing purposes not psychological states) in the United States, mainly due to the lack of a consistent body of academic research and doubts about the legitimacy of the condition.

Unpacking the Definitions

1. In what rational mind would you trust someone attempting to rob a bank or commit any type of violence against you? 
2. A psychological or emotional bond is not the ‘why’ or explanation for a protective behavior exhibited by someone in a potentially threatening situation. 
3. Calling it “irrational” is insulting to the intelligence of any human being navigating a dangerous situation.
4. Positive feelings are not the outcome of someone experiencing a threat. Suggesting that this experience will taint the future of a victim of social or relational violence is patently absurd. 

It’s blood-boiling to read definitions like this and see these types of irrational explanations fabricated, falsified and then presented as authority. 

Do No Harm

In every people helping profession there is an ethical stewardship to ‘do no harm’ when we are attempting to teach, treat, or help human beings with the issues we face in our human existence. Unfortunately, this is not a-well-adhered to practice. Designers of ideologies and constructs do not do their due diligence in researching the information they share on line, write about it self-help books or promote in their people-helper professions.

This may sound like a slight against science, it is not. I could talk for hours from decades of my own personal, academic and professional experience on why this is accurate. In addition, I can speak to the variety of ways and reasons that victims respond that do not align with the so-called terminology and theoretical models that pathologize and insult those who have lived experience with very different details of violence and abuse than what is manufactured by so-called ‘professionals.’

Social Response

The hope for a social, institutional and even individual response that a post like this could achieve is one of opening awareness that we are far-afield still from truth regarding victim experience and the perpetration of “Targeted Partner Abuse©” and coercive control. 

Victims respond to a perpetrator in a variety of ways. It may appear active, or passive. It may be silent or very loud and purposeful. With the right questions, a victim can explain to you the process.

When we craft language about a condition without those who experience the event, not the perpetrators of that event or the so-called “experts”, we are part of the problem. This is an epidemic practice with roots in many of the problematic social ills we still deal with. In a world like ours, it is unconscionable that these problems exist without the appropriate social appall that should result in change – change in our mental and medical practices. Change in our legal system. Change in academia and most importantly, change in the societal blind-eye to men who commit egregious acts of abuse and violence on their primary life partner.

Victim Advocacy

As part of our work at Center for Peace, we will continue to call out misinformation, correct assumptions from every field and population until we achieve a basis of understanding for what victims experience and how ‘they’ feel about what was done to them. We support those who actively work to shine light on the conditioning and brainwashing misnamed as “therapy”, “counseling,” ‘trauma-informed,” or whatever we are calling it these days. 

If you have questions about your experience or what you’ve been told is the reason for what you do/did, reach out to us via our contact page. We’d be happy to address your questions in upcoming posts and videos. 

If you would like to meet with one of our abuse specialists, please contact us at Center for Peace