Stockholm Syndrome?

[lostforgottensoul]

I'm just saying it's something that may be worth of having its separate title and discussions.

I can see that. When i think of "trama bonding" i think of Stolkholm, though I can see varying of degrees maybe? Is that what you are saying? Trauma bonding and Stalkholm being different of varying in degrees?

I wasnt 'diagnosed' with it but it was advised to me in therapy i had it and then we did a lot of working with it.

 

[joeylittle]

Trauma bonding: Coined by a researcher named Patrick Carnes. Originally meant:

the misuse of fear, excitement, sexual feelings, and sexual physiology to entangle another person.

Has come to be used to describe:

a strong emotional attachment between an abused person and his or her abuser, formed as a result of the cycle of violence.

There's nothing in the definition of trauma bonding that precludes defense of the perpetrator. It's a very accurate term for anyone who has been in a log-term abusive situation and has been manipulated into a bond with their abuser.

Stockholm Syndrome:

Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors.

It is a form of Trauma Bonding.

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."

In trauma bonding, it's possible for the individual to have both positive and negative feelings towards their abuser. But in Stocklholm Syndrome, the feelings that are developed are predominantly positive towards the captor.

Several symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome have been identified in the following: positive feelings toward the controller, negative feelings toward the rescuers, supportive behavior by the victim helping the abuser, and lack of desire by the victim to be rescued.

There is no actual diagnosis of either of these phenomena, they are used to describe...well...phenomena. But the critical difference (as I understand it) is that the psychology that underlies Stockholm Syndrome is entirely dependent on being captured or abducted. The psychology under Trauma Bonding is much more subtle and complex.

Stockholm is, essentially, a way of fitting into a new tribe, where the onset is sudden and the power dynamic is immediately apparent. Trauma Bonding is something that occurs over time, that allows an individual to simultaneously contain two realities- one where the abuser is wrong, and one where the abuser is right.

All quotes taken from:
Abuse and Relationships dot org
Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing for Canadian Practice
Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Abstract]

Thank you. I was sort of formulating that in my head but being unable to express it. I do sometimes use Stockholm loosely. In reality sometimes in situations where it wouldn't apply even other than the need for literal captivity as there is a requirement of no actual abuse happening to the victim with Stockholm. I suspect I also have an instinctive distaste for the words "trauma bonding".

I think I use "Stockholm ish" loosely when I feel like I have been captive. Literally, through circumstances, or psychologically. In reality I know it is a form a trauma bonding that applies to specific situations. In truth I find that there are complex factors involved with various situations for which I feel there isn't a clear description. Captive, actual harm or not, identifying/protection of the aggressor, conflict of feelings for them, loss of self etc. I find it interesting they talk about the symptoms of those with Stockholm coming closest to PTSD or Acute Stress Disorder. It's a bit of a tangled thing for me.

All loosely of course as none of it is an actual diagnoses as far as I understand.

 

[Sideways]

I was programmed to become incredibly attached to, and defensive of, my childhood sexual abuser. I can see similarities in the way I continue to side with him with the descriptions they use for Stockholm.

But I was not abuducted, or held hostage. And while there are similarities in my psychology with Stockholm sufferers, I believe that what I experience is not just adequately covered by complex and developmental trauma models, I also believe that it's more appropriate to understand my condition that way, rather than squeezing my pathology into the Stockholm model.

In the same way that complex ptsd offers chronic abuse sufferers an explanation and validation for what they're experiencing as a consequence of their abuse, I reckon that if you are a hostage survivor, Stockholm would provide you with a similar model, understanding and validation for what you're going through. So I kinda think that, out of respect for those who have experienced that type of abuse, leaving the use of the Stockholm diagnosis in that realm might be quite important to those victims.

To illustrate, it gets up my goat when people who haven't suffered Type A trauma diagnose themselves with ptsd because their symptoms and suffering is similar. It may be similar, but the point is that it's not the same. And when you have ptsd from a Type A trauma, you really do tend to "get" that it's not the same.

I'm guessing that it's much the same for Stockholm hostage survivors. People with other experiences may relate really well, but at its core, it's not the same. So I suffered really bad abuse, and my suffering is legitimate, and covered by complex ptsd. I don't need to borrow from (and potentially minimise) the specific, unique type of experience of those who genuinely suffer Stockholm. It adds nothing to my diagnosis, but potentially waters down theirs...if that makes sense.

 

[shimmerz]

To illustrate, it gets up my goat when people who haven't suffered Type A trauma diagnose themselves with ptsd because their symptoms and suffering is similar.

True, but PTSD is a real diagnosis. What gets my goat is when there is no real diagnosis for something that does large amounts of psychic and mental damage to the people I love and I can't describe it properly because the powers that be have not yet identified it in a way that is clearcut. So, I stand by what I say.... when I speak about my children's situation in the way I did I will reference Stockholm until psychiatrists come up with something that describes precisely what has been happening to them. I won't minimize what they have gone through just because there is not an official label or diagnosis for it.

Stockholm-ish sounds like a good happy medium that I will attempt to use, but I don't have an interest in being corrected for using a term that better describes what I am trying to articulate, especially when it isn't an official diagnosis. Sorry.

 

[Abstract]

The irony in my opinion is that if one was to rigidly go with the original meaning and description it precludes any abuse or harm being done. Other than captivity. Obviously a big one. In fact kindness as a possible reaction to the victim is listed. I agree that there is a wide and muddled field of experiences for which there doesn't seem to be accurate enough descriptions at present.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

The question in this title of the thread is do you have to be kidnapped to get Stolkholm and the answer is no you dont.

Me having it came from my therapist. He never uttered trama bonding but he said that i likely have "a bit of" and so it was likely a mixture of the 2.

There was a time where i was adult, still controled by the cult, and any efforts made by people to take me away from, or what would be "rescue me", were pushed away. It was all that i was.

@shimmerz, i dont think anyone on the internet, not knowing everything can say one does or doesnt have something. I leave that up to the professionals.

I do think its smart to seperare the 2 though, as they are two different things.

 

[joeylittle]

The question in this title of the thread is do you have to be kidnapped to get Stolkholm and the answer is no you dont.

No. The answer is, yes, you do. It only can be assigned to a kidnap or hostage situation.

Trauma Bonding is the term you are looking for. People use stockholm casually, because it's better recognized and 'sounds' like a thing. Trauma Bonding and Stockholm are both syndromes. Phenomena. @lostforgottensoul - without knowing the minute detail of the beginning of your trauma, it's hard for me, as on outsider, to say whether you would have identified as being kidnapped by your step-dad. Maybe you did. You should read about Patty Hearst, if you haven't.

@shimmerz - I'm not sure why you aren't comfortable using 'trauma bonding', because it actually is the correct label for all the attributes you are talking about applying to your children.

What gets my goat is when there is no real diagnosis for something that does large amounts of psychic and mental damage to the people I love and I can't describe it properly because the powers that be have not yet identified it in a way that is clearcut.

Trauma bonding.

Sorry, I know I sound curt. Some of this is my own baggage, to be sure - both about these particular terms, and just about language in general. I get really bothered by words/terms not going in their right places.

But, I personally believe it's important to use the most accurate descriptors for things, when they are available.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

you would have identified as being kidnapped by your step-dad. Maybe you did. You should read about Patty Hearst, if you haven't.

I havent read about her but to answer your question, yes I very much did, but you dont have to be kidnapped to be "captured" and another word for stalkholm syndrome is "capture bonding". When you throw in chained to a wall and locked in a closet (and other stuff), its not hard to see that I was indeed a captured. A prisoner.

What hits me is how long it took me to accept these things and then in an instant I feel they are taking away. That's my issue, Im owning it. Not putting it off on anyone.

I am very down with naming things the way they are. I really honestly have no issue with "trauma bonding" rather than "stalkholm" and did admit it could be both, a little of each or straddling the line or how ever one would measure that. My issue lies with reasearching this, which is what I did all night last night, and some aspects dont fit with trauma bonding and fit more with stolkholm. I do feel that a lot of it is trauma bonding and again, ok with that, but a few things just dont add there so the only other place for them is stalkholm.

And then a therapist that advised a had a bit of stolkholm and worked with me for a few years straight with it.

My point was, you dont have to be kidnapped to be captured. No, lables should not just be given out and yes, most would fit with trauma bonding. And I agree that we need to name things as they are. Im not fighting for stolkholm, im fighting to answer issues i had to overcome and trauma bonding doesnt answer them all.

 

[joeylittle]

I understand. Here's the thing - with stockholm, you would be defending your step-dad and your mom. You would not be able to call them abusive.

Look, it's an under-researched area, that's for sure. And everyone knows their own history better than a stranger on the internet. But ultimately, trauma bonding is very all-encompassing, and includes both defending and criticizing the abuser. The biggest difference between the two is that. Stockholm - defend the abuser only, either actively or passively. Trauma bonding - both defend and (correctly) blame.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

I understand. Here's the thing - with stockholm, you would be defending your step-dad and your mom. You would not be able to call them abusive.

I was! For 6.5 yrs of my therapy i was. It wasnt until the night Anthony helped move blame that i ever dared to call them abusive. I justified and took up for them all over the place and they were right and i was the wrong one.

Im not saying its any where near cut and dry. But that is what i am saying, things dont fully fit with trauma bonding. Things i had to work through for years before i ever got here to this site. Am i saying i have it now? No! Not at all. But i did work through it.

ETA: Also, I wasnt in therapy because I thought I needed it, I was forced into therapy. If you had asked me 7 yrs ago, I wasnt abused. Hell I would of said I wasnt a few years back. My therapist didnt know for a year. And then when he knew for years I justified every single little action of theirs into 3 words "I was bad".

 

[shimmerz]

Look, I understand JL that you are invested in this emotionally as well. I get it. I am not trying to minimize your experience.

It would take a book for me to detail what has happened to my children, and I am attempting to work out a gut wrenching situation. And my decision will affect my grandchildren's life in a very serious way. I need to identify properly what my children have lived through so that I know how to handle this issue without causing psychological damage to my children and future psychological damage to my grandchildren.

The original posting that this came up in was my posting about Narcissists being 'good'. I was looking for experiences of others where people identified so strongly with their abusers that they wouldn't say a bad word about them and in fact praised them at all times. That is SS type behaviour.

My children were literally tortured both psychologically and physically anytime they expressed any nicety that a mother enjoys (like being loved or liked or visited). They are now their own people and buy in fully to this model.

Trauma bonding does not cover what happened to them. I watched it. I payed attention to it. The closest phrase that I can find is Parental Alienation Syndrome. If you look up it and stockholm syndrome (put a reference to dr in there as well), there are many links that discuss how PAS causes children to act in ways that closely resemble SS.

THAT is why

I'm not sure why you aren't comfortable using 'trauma bonding', because it actually is the correct label for all the attributes you are talking about applying to your children.

this ^^^^. And no, trauma bonding doesn't cover it. Not even close.

Why we are arguing over a 'thing' that isn't even a recognized diagnosis is beyond me. I feel like because of that posting we (Lost and I) are having to justify what happened to us or those that we loved. Should we not be able to sort this stuff out with the words we identify with without someone taking us to task?

If someone else gets confused by it, then they can research it, talk to their T's, whatever and get to what feels right to them. But please don't overlap my experiences or others by having word police who censor them when those who are censoring don't understand fully the situation of others.