Trauma Bond/Stockholm Syndrome

Breaking down the myths on the terms used to blame victims

It is not uncommon for beliefs to take deep root in our social stories to the point that these ideas become difficult to rectify. For example, it was long believed the Earth is the center of the universe and all celestial bodies orbit around it. Or, that disease was caused by bad air or “miasma” rather than by microorganisms.

Many still believe that a limbic system in the brain contains specific hardwired emotion sensors that cause or trigger emotions. Likewise, a belief in the triune brain continues to be taught in countless psychology and leadership courses. 

Each of these has long been proven false.

The So-Called Survival Strategies

If you Google the terms, “trauma-bond” or “Stockholm Syndrome,” you will learn about these in the frame of survival strategies that are developed by captees/victims. You may read that there are differences and similarities between the two terms. The idea is that in a trauma bond, you attach to the perpetrator, but with Stockholm Syndrome both the perpetrator and victim attach. Trauma bonds are said to be part of the ongoing abuse, whereas Stockholm syndrome has more to do with hostage situations.

Two well-known stories of Patty Hurst and Kristin Enmark are the genesis for men with social or academic power to create language or develop theories to diagnose the minds of the victimized and oppressed. 

In the trauma communities the terms, “trauma bond” or “Stockholm syndrome” continue to confuse those who seek treatment and the treatment professionals themselves.

Let’s unpack this.

Obscuring Violence

To hide the violence of a perpetrator through the renaming of the actions in a way that blames the victim has been a problem in the domestic abuse/violence communities for decades. The people renaming these behaviors and the victim’s response to the abuse are powerful individuals in the legal and academic systems. They create theories and terms that blame victims and excuse abuse and violence. 

These so-called experts are not talking to the victims they pathologize.

Trauma-bonds, Stockholm Syndrome, and Trauma-Informed Theories Blame the Violated and Oppressed

Theorizing the oppressed has roots in the psycho-social construct of internalizing. A problematic construct in and of itself. The supposed logic is that the oppressed (victims of abuse or violence) internalize the ideologies of the perpetrator. This is how people with authority or power create narratives (theories and terminology) that hide abuse and blame victims. These are the very stories that take root in our mental health fields of study, popular psychology, and the states of social influencers.

Here are a few other conditions. You may have heard of these.

• Codependency
• Battered women’s syndrome
• “These kinds of women are attracted to that kind of men”

Even the trauma-informed theory of flight/flight has roots in this narrative (BTW – for those of you who do not know — there is no fight/flight circuit in the brain.)

Basically, what has occurred is that these theorists have been making up things to explain and diagnose the conscious and unconscious actions and thoughts of countless numbers of people – without considering the accounts of these individuals. 

I find this practice ethically alarming.

Breaking this down: If a woman experiencing “Targeted Partner Abuse©” does not leave her abuser, it is because she has internalized or adapted to the logic or mind of their abuser. She no longer resists his abuse. In essence, she’s accepted him and bonded not only to him but to the way he treats her. 

It makes me ill to write that statement!  It is this type of narrative that gives rise to the acceptance of the DARVO condition.

The woman is blamed for her own abuse.

The narrative to all of this is straight out of the industrialized pornography complex which provides the guide for violence against women.

Agentic Resistance Has both an Active and a Passive State

Individuals in violent or abusive situations will agentically respond in direct and thoughtful ways. The response may be active and defiant, or passive, depending on what they know about their abuser. 

You probably have many stories of doing both. Sometimes we are quiet, and other times we might throw something across the room – both are agentic responses to abuse. 

Responses to abuse or violence are NOT reactive abuse – another victim-blaming term used often in so-called trauma-informed practices. 

Responses to abuse are conscious thoughts and actions. They have a basis in experience and understanding – not in an irrational state.

It is a social response.

The moral of the story of the woman in Stockholm who was said to have this syndrome — the term was developed to silence this young woman. Nothing about that term had anything to do with actual events or the woman.

Important note: Our responses to abuse may not always stop or prevent an abuse event, but it is a way to honor our dignity as we stand up for ourselves or our children in these abusive environments.

The Position of Center for Peace

The study of abuse and violence targeted to the wife by the husband, referred to at CFP as “Targeted Partner Abuse©” requires a wholesale change in the theory and model used to understand the behavior of the abuser and the responses of the victim. The terms that have been extrapolated from other theoretical modalities – even those that have been fondly added to the so-called trauma-informed models, all bear parts and pieces of victim-blaming/perpetrator-concealing narratives. 

There is a power differential in these interactions that disadvantages the woman. The hegemonic narratives of a male-dominated societal system create strong pathways for narratives to thrive – often both men and women support these narratives – either culturally, or due to applications from their religious upbringing. 

At Center for Peace, our mission is to reinstall a human-centered approach to our intimate partner interactions that honors the dignity of both women and men. Where marriages can be co-building and life-giving units for families to thrive in. 

If you find yourself at a relational crossroads or a theoretical one (due to misinformed interpretations of practitioners), please join us in January for our year-long program.