"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Again, referring to the understanding of 40 years ago, it was attributed
to
a psychological defense mechanism that came into play only when the
oppression was extreme and inescapable, or when the individuals
succumbed to
high levels of intimidation that were applied for a long time. The
victim
eventually snapped and identified with the aggressor in order to escape
the
oppression. It isn't a conscious thing; psychological pressure takes
over.

The kind of generous and familial treatment you're describing could well
have led to compliant and supportive slaves, but that's a lot different
from
the psychological reversal that's traditionally been called the
Stockholm
Syndrome, or, more generally, "Identification with the Aggressor."

Again, I think that it's not all that complex. The survival instinct is
perhaps the strongest of the instincts, so it's the "inescapable" part
that counts the most, where the deep likely unconscious calculation is
that one must conform or die. A little kindness goes a long way in such
an environment.

The effects you're attributing it to are the standard and traditional ones,
but the reason the Stockholm Syndrome came to attention is that it became
clear after WWII that those old attributions just didn't fit the behavior
and attitudes of the subjects in question. Some Jews from the camps, and
Swedes who had never shown a hint of sympathy for Nazis, really *believed*
they were Nazis.

Researchers said it looked like full-blown psychosis. And it explains a lot
of similar behaviors recorded throughout history. People like you and me,
who likely (in my case, anyway) have never experienced that kind of
oppression, nor any kind of psychosis, are likely to attribute it to more
familiar causes. The whole point is that those causes didn't fit the
situation. It's something that's beyond the experience of all but a small
percentage of people alive. It isn't like ordinary political and social
oppression, or lawful imprisonment; it's absolute, with the threat of death
coming in an arbitrary and unexpected way.

I don't think this is something you can analyze from an armchair.


It's interesting that we come to a similar conclusion from different
angles.
I've only read the timelines compiled by people with an ax to grind,
without
much biblical education, but I've tried to do it from both sides.

Yes. I would tend to dismiss out of hand any analysis claiming that the
ancients, cared a fig for, or would even understand, the present-day
abortion debate. It's simply too remote, in every sense of the word.

That said, one perhaps relevant datapoint comes to mind, the Vikings.
Basically, while there was no such thing as abortion in their world,
their law was that a couple had one week to decide to keep a newborn.
If the answer was No, they abandoned the child on a hill after
announcing their intention in the public square. If the newborn was
healthy, a childless couple would be hovering, and would take the
abandoned baby home. If the newborn was not healthy, nobody would come.

Ref: The Icelandic Sagas, which are oral traditions from 800-1000 AD
written down in the 1200s, and are still in print (Penguin). There is
also much academic literature on the laws and social mores of the
Vikings. (The Klingons of Star Trek are modeled on the Vikings.)

Very interesting stuff, Joe. I'll have to keep that in mind.

--
Ed Huntress