In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"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.

"Standard and traditional" is my point.

As for the attributions, I assume that this is from the then equivalent
to the psychologists handbook (by whatever name), which was shown to be
inadequate. No doubt, as it came from treating some mixture of rich
neurotic and floridly psychotic patients, none under any real pressure.


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 buy the theory that it was a psychosis. I think it was a normal
(that is, hardwired) response to an extreme situation that has
fortunately become uncommon, at least in western countries. There is a
lot in human psychology that isn't pretty, that evolved in the jungle,
long before there was any law save that of the talon.

You might find "Chimpanzee Politics : Power and Sex among Apes", Frans
de Waal (Harper and Row, 1982, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989,
1998, and now 2000) interesting albeit disturbing. And funny.


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

This is fortunate for us personally, but that sure leaves the
psychiatrists out of it too.


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.

Thanks. Another book you might find interesting is "Ancient Law", Sir
Henry Sumner Maine, Dorset Press, 1986. First published in 1861. Can
be a bit of a slog, but has lots on the ancient law regarding slaves and
slavery. The Roman law was pretty complex in this area.


Joe Gwinn