The ‘Stockholm’ state

[Solomon2]

​

The ‘Stockholm’ state
By Chris Cork
Published: November 20, 2013

The writer is editorial consultant at The Express Tribune, news junkie, bibliophile, cat lover and occasional cyclist

It had been nagging away at the back of my mind for weeks. There was something a bit odd about Pakistan. Something not quite right; collectively not quite right, rather than at the level of the individual. And then, the light went on — Stockholm Syndrome!

The Stockholm Syndrome, otherwise known as ‘capture bonding’ has its origins in a bank robbery in Sweden in 1973. The robbers took some bank staff hostage and over the six days of the siege, the hostages developed an emotional bond with their captors, an empathy rather than a sympathy. At one point, they rejected assistance from government officials and even when they were eventually released, some of them defended the actions of the men who had terrorised them.

The incident gave rise to much psychological head-scratching, eventually evolving into what is now a recognisable psychological condition with known and understood parameters that trigger it. The condition is one where the victim’s thoughts are irrational in light of the real danger they are being confronted with. Sometimes sufferers interpret a lack of abuse on the part of their captors as an act of kindness.

The condition does not have to occur in a hostage scenario, but any situation where there are strong emotional ties between two or more people and where one or more partners in the interaction sometimes beats, or threatens or harasses others in the group. The bond that develops is the response of the individual to becoming a victim by identifying with their aggressor as a way of preserving the integrity of their own ego, a core element of Freudian theory. Thus, when the victim comes to believe the same values as their aggressor, they cease to be a threat. Has a light come on yet?

The Stockholm Syndrome can have an economic aspect as well. This is a recent development and first arose at the June 2012 International Conference on Developments in Economic Theory in Bilbao. It was proposed that some governments have in effect been ‘kidnapped’ by international capital — or lending agencies — because of their need to refinance public debt (lights, anybody?). Those governments are then forced into acceptance of high rates of interest and, it was argued, a compromise to their sovereignty.

And who is it that is attaching a range of swingeing conditionalities that require ‘adjustments’ of real-time governance in Pakistan? Why, none other than our old friends at times of fiscal need (there is a measly $4bn FOREX in the bank right now) — the World Bank and the IMF. Agencies, which if you are willing to accept the ‘Stockholm’ analysis, are as much our captors as our benefactors.

Let us leave aside the evolutionary theories about female abductions in hunter-gatherer societies as a historical root for the Stockholm Syndrome and instead consider the way in which the nation is hostage to extremism in the broadest sense.

There are those who would appease those who have killed their fellow captives by the tens of thousands. There are those who, whilst not directly threatened themselves, are a part of the captive-collectivity and act in silent concert with their fellow hostages. The abusive actions of the captors are rationalised irrationally by the citation of external or hidden forces ‘making’ them commit acts of abuse and terror.

Thus, it is that rescue is difficult for what has become the ‘Stockholm state’. Difficult because those trying to do the rescuing — and their motives might not be driven purely by altruism either — are up against a hostage group that is in cahoots with the hostage takers and will frustrate the efforts of the rescuers at every twist and turn.

So what is it to be? Captivity or freedom of thought and deed? My bet is on captivity and as for the hostage negotiators whispering at the door: no thanks, not today, we are choosing servitude and compliance. But thanks, anyway.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 21st, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

 

[Solomon2]

The condition does not have to occur in a hostage scenario, but any situation where there are strong emotional ties between two or more people and where one or more partners in the interaction sometimes beats, or threatens or harasses others in the group. The bond that develops is the response of the individual to becoming a victim by identifying with their aggressor as a way of preserving the integrity of their own ego, a core element of Freudian theory. Thus, when the victim comes to believe the same values as their aggressor, they cease to be a threat. Has a light come on yet?

Has "preserving the ego" become the most deadly of Pakistanis' sins? Is that why there is so little response to this article - not even someone calling it nonsense?