I’ve recently been doing some research on Stockholm syndrome for an article I’m writing and I’m more and more coming to the conclusion that the assumption that there really is something like Stockholm syndrome poses serious challenges to libertarian theory on a wide range of issues. In a nutshell, I’m afraid that the distinction between consent and coercion might not be as clear as most, if not all, market anarchists would like to think.
First, let me try to summarize what psychologists have to say about Stockholm syndrome. Prof. Ulrike Ehlert from the University of Zurich (who works in the field of cognitive behavioral therapy) informed me that many psychologists are unsure whether Stockholm syndrome actually exists because there is very little empirical data on the subject. When I told her that I see many similarities between the (alleged) workings of Stockholm syndrom and battered person syndrome, which is a “real” syndrome by psychology’s standards, she told me that this might very well be true.
In any case, Dr. Joseph Carver (whose bias I’m not sure of though his writings strike me as also displaying a cognitive-behavioral tilt) has a very interesting article called “Love and Stockholm Syndrome: The Mystery of Loving an Abuser” over at Counselling Ressource. In the article, Carver lists four factors which contribute to the development of Stockholm syndrome and which help explain why people in a physically or emotionally abusive relationship (such as a kidnapping or a destructive romantic relationship) sometimes develop very strong positive emotions towards their abuser:
It has been found that four situations or conditions are present that serve as a foundation for the development of Stockholm Syndrome. These four situations can be found in hostage, severe abuse, and abusive relationships:
* The presence of a perceived threat to one’s physical or psychological survival and the belief that the abuser would carry out the threat.
* The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim
* Isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser
* The perceived inability to escape the situation
I think the second point about the perceived small kindness is crucial. Carver has the following to say about it:
In threatening and survival situations, we look for evidence of hope — a small sign that the situation may improve. When an abuser/controller shows the victim some small kindness, even though it is to the abuser’s benefit as well, the victim interprets that small kindness as a positive trait of the captor. In criminal/war hostage situations, letting the victim live is often enough. Small behaviors, such as allowing a bathroom visit or providing food/water, are enough to strengthen the Stockholm Syndrome in criminal hostage events.
In relationships with abusers, a birthday card, a gift (usually provided after a period of abuse), or a special treat are interpreted as not only positive, but evidence that the abuser is not “all bad” and may at some time correct his/her behavior. Abusers and controllers are often given positive credit for not abusing their partner, when the partner would have normally been subjected to verbal or physical abuse in a certain situation. An aggressive and jealous partner may normally become intimidating or abusive in certain social situations, as when an opposite-sex coworker waves in a crowd. After seeing the wave, the victim expects to be verbally battered and when it doesn’t happen, that “small kindness” is interpreted as a positive sign.
Thus, because the abuser puts his victims in a situation where they feel like they can’t escape, the victims will cling to any sign of hope and will thus focus on all the positive things the abuser has to offer. In addition to these four factors Carver also mentions that many victims of Stockholm syndrome suffer from cognitive dissonance because in many cases they’ve invested a lot into the relationship which turns out to be abusive. I guess this is only true of romantic relationships and not of kidnappings.
So, if we assume that Stockholm syndrome actually does exist and victims of an abusive relationship sometimes develop — irrational — positive emotions towards their abuser, at least one aspect of libertarian theory comes to mind which might be challenged by that assumption: libertarian opposition to any form of paternalism. Of course, there are many more aspects which might be affected by that assumption, but I’ll focus on this one.
Let’s imagine parents who lock up their child in the basement of their home and constantly insult, starve, torture and rape her. However, from time to time the parents show small signs of kindness. At the age of 21 the child is freed from captivity and the parents are forced to pay reparations. Because the parents are rich this isn’t a problem for them. In captivity the child has developed Stockholm syndrome, is deeply in love with the parents, and wants to go back to live with them.
Now, would you allow the child to go back to the parents or would you force her to stay away from them? I guess from a libertarian perspective you could force the parents to stay away from the child because they pose a serious danger to her — just like I think you should be able to lock someone up who has repeadetly killed people in cold blood and shows no signs of remorse. However, if the child really wants to live with the partents there seems to be nothing a libertarian could do to prevent the child from going back to a life of abuse, torture, and rape. If the child in her seemingly right mind chooses to live with the parents we, as libertarians, should let her, just as we, as libertarians, would let a heroin addict or a depressed person kill herself.
Well that’s kind of a weird conclusion, to say at least, isn’t it? I don’t know about my libertarian readers but it certainly runs against my ethical intuitions, and lacking any other ethical theory that strikes me as convincing my intuitions are all I’ve got.
Now, I guess there are three objections libertarians could have against my claim that letting the child live with the parents is the libertarian thing to do. First, they could say that they have different intuitions and they don’t think that letting the child live with the parents is weird. Secondly, they could say that there isn’t such a thing as Stockholm syndrome. I guess libertarians of the Szaszian kind might say this. The third reaction, which isn’t really an objection to my claim, might be that Stockholm syndrome does indeed challenge libertarian commitment against paternalism, but since the above case isn’t one that we would expect to happen too often, it can be disregarded.
As might be expected, I don’t know what to say about the first objection. And at the moment, I also don’t know what to say about the Szaszian objection because I’m not familiar enough with Szasz’s thought. I’ve been meaning to read Bryan Caplans paper about him but I haven’t gotten around to do it yet.
I think, though, that the third reaction is mistaken and I’ll use the remainder of this post to try to explain why.
I think the mechanism at work with people who develop Stockholm syndrome can’t just be found in kidnappings or allegedly rare cases of domestic abuse. I think they can be found in a lot of human relationships, maybe even in a majority of them. Just watch your typical cop movie. Whenever there’s a police questioning there’s a “bad cop” and a “good cop”, the latter being responsible for small acts of kindness. Or read one of those guides by those pathetic pick-up artists: Don’t call the girl until a few days after you met her, i.e. make her suffer a bit before doing the kind act calling her. I think especially in romantic relationships our culture strongly encourages this type of behavior and I’m not even sure that there’s a clear bias towards one gender. And this “small kindness” scheme doesn’t even need to be conducted consciously. Imagine the poor, hard-working man whose poor wife is at his mercy because she’s completely dependent on his money and schedule. She might not run away from him if he ever starts abusing her because his previous acts of small kindness during those grim times together where they just barely made it through the day with very little time to spend together and hardly any money to spend for luxury goods made her love him more than ever. Or how about the boss who mistreats his employee. Even these employees might develop positive emotions towards their boss if she shows signs of kindness.
Wherever there’s a power discrepancy between two people and a one-sided or even mutual dependency there’s a danger of Stockholm syndrome.
This even means that, just through emotional abuse, the powerful party in an abusive relationship can make the weak party do things that she wouldn’t do if she weren’t emotionally abused. Thus without physically coercing the weak party the strong party can do what amounts to forcing the weak party into something.
Of course, what all of this can be reduced to is the question of human nature. Are humans always rational, autonomous creatures who are at all times, except when they’re physically assaulted, free to act according to their clear conscience? Or are their acts completely determined by their environment? In following Chris Sciabarra’s dialectical approach I’ll say that humans are neither atomic beings nor unconscious parts of an organic whole. Humans have a rational, autonomous side to them which some of the time allows them to make free choices. But those choices are always made within the boundaries of their given context — biological, cultural and psychological.
Our rational, autonomous side is what seems to make liberty and equality, or at least equality in its intellectually honest sense, possible. But the mechanisms of Stockholm syndrome pose a constant threat to liberty and equality because it follows that the “social anarchists” are right in one thing after all: liberty can only be achieved if we combat authority in all its forms. Only when two people of absolutely equal power interact is there no risk of Stockholm syndrome. But since absolute equality in power will always be an illusion, there will always be the risk of Stockholm syndrome. And whenever someone decides to abuse her power do we find a situation where it isn’t as easy to distinguish between consentual acts and acts of coercion.
Liberty and equality are ideals that will never be attained in any meaningful sense. Of course, this doesn’t mean that liberty and equality can’t be ideals nonetheless or that this somehow justifies inequality, aggression or statism. As long as we hold that humans are born equal, there really isn’t any moral alternative to anarchism.
Or at least that’s what I think at this point of my examination of libertarian ideas. As is probably made clear by this rambling post I have far from reached any definite conclusions about whether libertarianism and the project of emancipatory politics can be rescued from its many pitfalls. As soon as my thoughts are a bit more fleshed out, I might talk a bit more about the implications of Stockholm syndrome for libertarian theory and analysis. Maybe I’ll also at some point summarize the argument I make in that article I’m writing, which unfortunately will appear in German and in which I attack the typical libertarian dualism of the state and civil society or the market. Though I guess if the point I make here about Stockholm syndrome is comprehensible, which I’m afraid it might not be, the falsehood of this dualism should be pretty obvious. Just think of what agents of the state do with their power and how the state’s (civil) victims might react to that. Oh and at some point I might also talk about the importance of Ayn Rand and about that bit about “social anarchists” being right after all. This has to do with the underlying causes of Stockholm syndrome such as lack of self-esteem and cognitive behavioral therapy’s approach to battered wife syndrome which includes raising the victim’s self-esteem.
But anyway, that’s it for tonight. Please excuse my very liberal use of language and proper (argumentative) structure. I tried to convey my basic point, which really are a lot of different points, as clearly as possible. Please feel free to comment and tell me if I succeeded.
Tags:
equality,
libertarianism,
liberty,
market anarchism,
paternalism,
stockholm syndrome 
Immer drauf auf die staatsfromme Lumpenbourgeoisie! 