Stockholm Syndrome - The Newfoundland & Labrador Experience

Bonding to one's captor (abuser) is a recognized victim survival strategy that has been observed in a variety of situations over the years. This strategy, known as the Stockholm Syndrome, was so named after a hostage situation that developed during a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden in 1973 and has since been seen in several well publicized incidents including the kidnapping of U.S. newspaper heiress Patricia Hearst.

During the Stockholm event, three women and a man were held hostage for six days. Over that time the four hostages and their captors bonded bi-directionally. The hostages even came to see their captors as protectors rather than abusers. This bonding sparked great interest at the time and led to much study. Today the effect is no longer considered unusual by professionals who negotiate during hostage situations. In fact, it is often encouraged, as it is believed to improve the hostage’s chances of survival.

In some circles it is believed that bonding with an abuser may actually be a universal survival strategy for victims of abuse.

Precursors to Stockholm Syndrome:

1. Perceived threat to one's survival.
2. Perceived small kindness from the captor to the captive.
3. Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor.
4. Perceived inability to escape.

Psychodynamics' Underlying Stockholm Syndrome:

The scenario generally plays itself out in a familiar pattern where by an abuser traumatizes a victim (who doesn’t believe they can escape) with a threat to the victim's survival. The traumatized victim, who perceives isolation from outsiders, who might provide nurturance and protection, must look to the abuser to meet those needs. If the abuser shows the victim some small kindness, the victim then often bonds to the perceived positive side of the abuser, denying (or dissociating) the side of the abuser that produced the terror.

The victim begins to see the world from the abuser's perspective in order to discover what keeps the abuser happy, thus helping to ensure their own survival. The victim comes to see the world from the perspective of the abuser, losing touch with their own personal perspectives and needs, which are deemed unimportant or even counter-productive to survival. As a result, over time, it becomes progressively harder to recognize the abuser for what he is and more difficult to separate from the abuser due to the fear of losing the only relationship identity that remains.

Institutionalized Transmission Mechanisms:

There appear to be a number of different avenues for transmitting an institutionalized form of Stockholm Syndrome. While the setting for each varies, what all have in common is the introduction of the notion that the governing state is all-powerful and indispensable, and that it has done great things for the people.

Government schools have proven to be an important contributor to the epidemic as have pre-indoctrinated authority figures such as parents, teachers, local leaders, etc. Needless to say, political parties and personalities have contributed greatly as well. Major media also plays a critical role in reminding the public (the victims) of the power of the state and by acting as a role model for being subservient to it. While this list is by no means exhaustive, the methods of transmission identified appear to be the most significant and common place in this context.

Regardless of the setting, there are a couple of key transmission mechanisms involved. The act of invoking a form of wide spread Stockholm Syndrome is an ongoing and never ending task that governments undertake on a regular basis, either consciously or not, however during times of specific unrest or when major issues arise there is generally a marked increase in activity by the aggressors. This often includes the use of vague and confusing language or messages intended to induce a form of blind loyalty. Typical campaigns include terms such as:

• Working for social justice
• Fighting to make the world safe for democracy
• A new deal for our people
• Support the troops
• Government of the people, by the people and for the people
• The people’s government

Alongside these words and phrases is the teaching of a view of history which, while paying lip service to occasional government mistakes, will on the whole transmit the message that the ruling state has a glorious history and that things have gotten steadily better over the course of that history. The determination of what actually represents “improvement” or “betterment” is made of course by the controlling power and is itself open to debate. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador for example, what is best for the majority of Canadians (namely the populations of Ontario and Quebec) is not necessarily in the best interest of the province itself.

Finally, there is the actual or threatened ostracism invoked when an individual says something that may call into question his loyalty to the Country or to a specific government agenda. The individual then discovers that he or she is "Un-Canadian," an "Isolationist," a "Social Darwinist," a "Separatist," or any one of many characterizations, depending upon the nature of his or her position and the people reacting to it.

When all else fails and when intimidation or shame is not enough to silence a so called “zealot” or “anarchist”, new and drastic measures are often introduced by the governing body. These often range from covert attempts to destroy an individual’s reputation, livelihood or family life, to the broad based cancellation of services and avenues of redress such as advocacy funding, legal funding for government court challenges and so on. They may even, under extreme circumstances, lead a government to enact legislation such as “security tickets” thus allowing for the incarceration of individuals without charge or explanation by claiming that the individual poses a “potential threat” to the nation.

Management of Stockholm Syndrome:

1. Isolation is a major factor - Help identify and organize sources of supportive intervention; Self-help groups or group therapy (group needs to be homogeneous to needs), also hot lines, crisis centers, etc.

2. Denial - Victims are often in denial and it may be necessary to ask directly about the different types of abusive behavior they’ve witnessed. Journal keeping, autobiographical writing, reading of first hand accounts or seeing films that deal with the abuse may be helpful.

3. Perceived Kindness - Encourage the victim to look past the “small favors” provided by their abusers and to look for alternative sources of nurturance and caring.

4. Validating both the good and bad - Help the victim integrate both disassociated sides of the abuser and to see the reality of their existence. This will assist them in gaining freedom from the syndrome.

This article contains personal observations, commentaries and summarized material from various sources including the author and articles by Graham, D, Ph.D. and Rawlings, E. Ph.D.

The Stage Has Been Set in Newfoundland and Labrador

In a few short months Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will return to the polls in a provincial general election. For political junkies like me, the past few years have been the roller coaster ride of a lifetime. They say there’s never a dull time in Newfoundland and Labrador politics. This has never been truer. With the possible exception of the Smallwood era, the past few years have arguably been some of the most politically charged and exciting days since 1949.

The level of political intrigue and interest seen under the current government is at a fever pitch when compared to the decade of comatose foot dragging during the previous Liberal regime.

Since Premier Danny Williams’ took office the province has gone to war with two separate minority governments in Ottawa. Once over the Atlantic Accord and then over equalization and fallow field legislation. Big oil provided a fat target over benefit arrangements from Hebron Ben Nevis and new developments at Hibernia. Local spending scandals have abounded, MHAs have fallen by the roadside with their careers and legacy in ruins and at least one law suit is pending in the courts between a sitting Minister and a former Premier. All in all a buffet of activity capable of satisfying the tastes of anyone interested in the political scene.

Although the happenings of the past few years have been diverse and involved many players, through it all there’s been one underlying thread that winds its way around the issues like the knotted ropes in a fishing net. Some call it stubbornness, others determination. Some say it’s an angry streak a mile long while others believe it’s just smart politics. From my own perspective I think of it as shrewd negotiating. I’m referring of course to the general attitude, demeanor and actions of the Premier himself.

Williams started his political career very much in the spotlight. His first days in office were spent embroiled in a battle of wills with a weakened and desperate Prime Minister Paul Martin. Months of haggling, flag waving (and lowering) and public debate, eventually led Williams to win the battle for improved financial benefits from offshore oil.

With the fall of the Liberal government in Ottawa the next target became the current Conservative government and the challenges of equalization and fallow field legislation, battles that are still ongoing.

Williams fired the first shot in this latest war by publicly bitch slapping Stephen Harper during a visit to the province, much to the bemusement of the press and utter shock of party loyalists. He then crossed the Country in a highly publicized and very successful effort to gain support from western premiers over equalization. In doing so the province now finds itself with the very real possibility of gaining some sort of victory (partial or otherwise) on that front. A victory on fallow field legislation is much less assured but not beyond hope. In politics anything can happen, especially during elections.

When it comes to big oil Williams’ tactics have been far less effective but once again, who knows what tomorrow brings. Oil companies have deep pockets and very powerful friends. They aren’t susceptible to the whims of public opinion or election results like governments are and this makes them a much tougher opponent. Time will tell where those battles will ultimately be won or lost but the battles themselves serve a much broader and perhaps less recognized purpose.

The impact of past battles, won or lost, are being felt right across the province. Today we see evidence of a new way of doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Danny Williams way, and this became abundantly clear this past week.

Without even saying a word on the subject, Williams attitude and the public perception of it, served to make one of the most troublesome companies in the province simply back away from their position and agree to let government take the lead. I’m referring of course to Fishery Products International and its decision to provide the provincial government with the details of two bids for the purchase of its assets.

This is a company that has locked horns with government every step of the way for years now. Provincial legislation says that the sale of the company is subject to provincial approval, but the meek acceptance of this reality by FPI is the first time in my memory that the company simply acquiesced to government demands with little more than a groan and a whimper.

My first reaction to the situation was to ask myself, “Where’s the bluster and fight we all expect from the board of FPI?” The answer came to me in a flash. The fight may not be completely gone from these guys but the stage has already been set for all negotiations or discussions in this province and that stage is not a flat one. It’s more like a step ladder where the government is perched firmly on the top while others cling to the steps, a position that the province has not been in at any other time in its history.

Companies like FPI now know that it does them absolutely no good to scratch and claw, make demands or fight because once the Williams government has taken a position, either rightly or wrongly, it simply won’t back down. The end result of this attitude shift, in the case of FPI, is the company’s quiet agreement to let government make the final decision on which of two acceptable bidders will actually win the right of purchase the company.

There has definitely been a paradigm shift in this province. No longer is our government negotiating from a position of weakness. The days of entering a negotiation with hat in hand are gone. They may return with a change in leadership but one can always hope that the public will recognize the benefits inherent in holding a strong position and not allow future leaders to bow and scrape at the feet of others in the hope of winning a few crumbs from the table. Time will tell.

There are those in the province who have come down on both sides of the debate over whether Williams’ tactics are effective or not. Some think he’s fighting the good fight and should continue to take government and big business out behind the wood shed for a tanning every now and then. Others believe his often abrasive approach has done far more harm than good when it comes to attracting business and federal largesse. I see pros and cons on both sides. The reality is that business can and does adapt to its environment. As long as the rules are clearly spelled out, something that needs to be done here as soon as possible, no matter what those rule are, business will continue to grow and prosper and with any luck so will the people.

No matter which side of the debate you come down on one thing is clear. The province is a lot more interesting with Williams in office than it was without him. There is an ancient saying that goes, "May you live in interesting times." The only question remaining is whether this is a blessing or a curse.

Air Canada: Canada's Spoiled and Greedy Airline

This past week the airport authority at St. John’s international airport officially announced that Astraeus airlines will now be serving the province with regularly scheduled flights to Gatwick England year round. Earlier this year Air Canada cancelled its regular daily flights between Newfoundland and England in an attempt to appease Halifax bound passengers who were displeased with the need to pass through customs here on the island.

Although the route was profitable for Air Canada, even after many public displays of anger and in spite of local business leaders, government and concerned groups explaining the financial and personal impacts of such a move, Canada’s major airline refused to maintain the flights, a connection that predated Confederation and even Air Canada itself.

The impact was not only felt by passengers regularly using this route but by local business as well, including the local oil industry. In an industry where any delay can cost millions of dollars, a quick turnaround on the shipment of parts and custom materials is essential. With a flight time of approximately six hours, the non-stop flight now in place makes the UK easily accessible once again.

St. John’s Mayor Andy Wells noted that the arrival of Astraeus was a great thing, however he cautioned the public to make sure they choose the new airline whenever doing business in the UK. This comment was likely in response to the fact that Air Canada itself has decided to offer a limited number of flights to the UK during the off season and more regular flights in the summer months, likely in an effort to undercut Astraeus business.

It appears that Canada’s airline is caught in a bit of a conundrum. It doesn’t really want the business on the Newfoundland to UK route but also doesn’t want anyone else to have it either. Welcome to the warped world of Air Canada, Canada’s Spoiled and Greedy Airline.

I'd like to second the sentiments of Mayor Wells (something I never thought I'd do) and even take it a step futher by asking everyone who intends to fly to the UK to use Astraeus rather than Air Canada. I'd also suggest that anyone flying anywhere else consider the option of using another carrier. Why should anyone support an airline that has arbitrarily decided that Halifax bound passengers are more important than those here?