Stockholm Syndrome is Misogyny With a Fancy Name

Stockholm Syndrome is a pretty well understood psychiatric condition. One could say our media represents the issue pretty well. I don't think anyone will need it defined, but for the sake of it -

Stockholm syndrome is a condition in which hostages develop a psychological bond with their captors during captivity

That's the first line of the Wikipedia article on Stockholm Syndrome. If you care to read more than a few paragraphs, you'll see that the article describes the condition as a 'contested illness.' There is established doubt about it's legitimacy.

You could also scroll down a little bit to the handy 'criticism' subheading, and discover that its never been established in the DSM-5.

So, what's the go? Its clearly not a recognized condition, and even if it was, it more appropriately falls under post-traumatic stress disorder.

It doesn't take much digging to figure out how it has caught on in pop culture, although it does take a certain perspective to understand why that happened.

We'll have to start at the very beginning of Stockholm Syndrome's life. The beginning. The Norrmalmstorg robbery, or the Stockholm bank robbery.

The Robbery

In late August, 1973, actual arsonist Jan-Erik Olsson, was enjoying temporary leave from his prison sentence when he decided to rob the 'Kreditbanken' - literally 'credit bank.'

The police were quick to respond when Jan-Erik entered the Kreditbanken, and a short gun fight ensued. Jan-Erik seized four people as hostage. One of these hostages - Kristin Enmark - would go on to perform incredibly heroic acts, and get absolutely none of the credit.

Jan-Erik made demands. He wanted money. He wanted guns. He wanted a getaway vehicle. Most importantly, he wanted his dear friend, Clark Olofsson.

Now, when I say he made 'demands,' it wasn't exactly a hostage taker-police negotiator situation. Back in the 70s, the art of negotiation wasn't as well understood as it was today. The officers negotiating the situation approached it with hostility and aggression. It wouldn't be unfair to say that they were itching to open fire.

Still, his demands were relayed to the Swedish government, and Clark Olofsson was authorized to be transported from prison to arrive at the scene. He was to act as a communication link between Jan-Erik and the police.

When Clark arrived on scene and entered the Kreditbanken, he had found that a reliable communication link had already been established.

Kristin Enmark had taken it upon herself to be in the middle of the hostages and the gunman - she had already taken great measures to calm the situation down and reason with Jan-Erik.

Under Kristin's persuasion, Jan-Erik had the everyone moved to a wider area, to account for the claustrophobia of one of the hostages. They were also allowed to contact friends and family over telephone at the behest of Kristin.

Meanwhile, the Swedish police were organizing a barricade outside. Their firing line pointed directly into the Kreditbanken and endangered the hostages.

This agitated Jan-Erik greatly, though Clark was reportedly more level-headed. Clark and Kristin spent the next few grueling days managing Jan-Erik's temperament and aggression, while organizing a contact line directly to the Swedish Prime Minister - Olof Palme.

The amateur negotiators conceded to the possibility of a getaway vehicle being provided to Jan-Erik, but only that. No money, and no leaving with Clark.

Using the contact line established with the Prime Minister, Jan-Erik made a rare threat to execute the hostages. Screaming was heard on the line.

This must have been an unsettling experience for Olof. It, at the very least, was an aggravating one.

The next time the contact line was used - this time by Kristin to chide Olof for increased police aggressions, and to remind him that the hostages could be released if a getaway vehicle was provided - Olof was furious.

He was irrational, personally offended, and attacking Kristin and the other hostages. If you understand Swedish, you can listen to the audio yourself. It's something to behold.

For context, Kristin - this 23 year old hostage who has not slept for almost three days - is calmly explaining that the situation is under control, that it can all end if Olof takes her solution. Provide the getaway vehicle.

Olof, the leader of his people, is ravenous. He refused to give the kidnappers any concessions, and told her -

You are going to have to be content to die at your post.

Inspiring stuff.

Eventually, the hostage room was breached by police, and after some more exchange of gunfire, the police opted to go for what the hostages were all actively fearing: tear gas would be deployed.

A debilitating hour of having tear gas pumped into the room, and, amidst the gagging and choked cries, Jan-Erik finally surrendered.

Thankfully, no one was injured. They were shaken, certainly, but thankful to be alive more than anything.

Jan-Erik and Clark were brutalized by the police and paraded around town. Victory had been achieved. The day was won and all was well.

Well, not really.

The Criticism

Raining on the parade of everyone patting themselves on the back, Kristin was quick to take to the media and voice her complaints.

The police were openly criticized for consistently escalating the situation. The Prime Minister was criticized for not listening to Kristin's warnings, and failing to assess the situation properly. She had more than enough criticsm for the head honcho of the whole operation - very shoddy psychiatrist and criminologist, Nils Bejerot.

Nils and Kristen had a bit of an adversarial relationship through the days Kristen was a hostage. It was a fun rivalry, a bit of back-and-forth. That is, Nils was comfortably bossing around the police, itching for a chance to use their tear gas, while Kristen was desperately trying to survive against impossible odds, and also, if she could help it, not get tear gassed.

Kristen shouted this to the rooftops. She was loud and proud about it. Everyone that would listen to her was told how she had consistently been defusing an escalating situation, how she felt she was getting through to the criminals and that people could truly walk away from that situation unharmed.

This perspective was not unheard of. Even today it is somewhat contemporary knowledge. Still, the truth didn't win out in this instance. No, the heroics of that young 23 year old woman would be spurned for a different interpretation of events. One a bit more...manly.

The Condition

Nils response to the public criticism was what any reasonable man of science would do - make no attempt to contact the subject, and deny rigorously.

Clearly, from his perspective, the hostages were in persistent danger, and Jan-Erik was impossible to reason with. Her willingness to try and cooperate with the hostages, to prevent harm to body or loss of life, couldn't be from any rational place. After all - he didn't think of it.

No, instead, it was clear that a new psychiatric diagnosis would need to be invented. "Stockholm Syndrome."

Kristen had clearly fallen in love with her captors. Not at first, but over the six days, she had begun to emphasize with Jan-Erik and Clark. There was no other explanation.

This perspective coming from a man with authority easily squashed the narrative of reality. Suddenly, it was a sordid affair. That woman, that crazy girl, falling in love with the bad boy. It was probably something to do with her hormones or how women just always choose the assholes.

Somewhere along the line - no one is quite sure where it came from - rumors of sex sprung up.

Kristen wasn't the 23 year old hero that pioneered many of the negotiation tactics used to this very day. No, she was a loose little girl, caught up in the throughs of violence and, unsure what to do, seemingly reverted to baser instincts.

It's a neat way to wrap up the problem of unnecessarily tear gassing a room full of hostages, isn't it?

I don't need to elaborate on the conclusion there. Stockholm Syndrome rapidly became understood as a legitimate psychiatric condition, despite Kristen never being contacted, a case study never being made, and all future attempts at studying it being futile or contradictory.

So, what is Stockholm Syndrome? It's everywhere in our media. How do we, culturally, understand it?

As mentioned above, many of what people attribute to Stockholm Syndrome in the way of strange or erratic behaviors can be attributed to PTSD, an incredibly wide-ranging diagnosis that can be caused by, and often causes, an incredibly varied amount of variables.

Yet, that doesn't mean that it's a consistent pattern of symptoms. The FBI found that, out of 1200 hostage incidents, only 8% of victims ever displayed what is typically associated with Stockholm Syndrome. When victims who showed negative or positive feelings toward law enforcement personnel were excluded, the percentage dropped to 5%.

No, it indeed seems unlikely that there is any discernable pattern of symptoms that indicate a diagnosable condition associated with being held captive. Instead, the common link between all hostage situations is one incredible basic, very primitive notion - survival.

Victims are out to survive. They are out to overcome their situation and make it out to the other side. In some cases, if the aggressor seems reasonable and a way out that eludes harm is possible, humans will resort to empathy, cooperation, bordering on manipulation.

This is not some trick of the mind, a survival instinct that is urging us to act in a specific way. No, it's human nature itself. Negotiating a way out of conflict, understanding both parties - that is as old as violence.

The Misogyny

Kristen doesn't have a happy ending here.

She never really stopped asserting her side of the story. She never stopped believing in herself. She never accepted the narrative that society tried to feed her, that she was weak, overcome, that her very thoughts were symptoms of a condition and not her own survival instinct.

She wrote a book. It was never translated and sees very little discussion.

She tried therapy, once. The therapist asked if she had sex with her captor.

In the end, she never quite stood a chance. A 23 year old woman battling slander from an established psychiatrist would be difficult today. It was impossible in the 70s.

Kristen got to enjoy a world where her trauma was a shoddy case study in a widely understood condition, that doesn't actually exist.

It would be entirely fair that this is it - this is misogyny. A man, established, respected, and, flatly, wrong, receives favor over a woman. The experiences of the woman, the material reality of her world, it's discounted. She doesn't even get a session with the psychiatrist that diagnosed her.

Nowadays, her instincts are used by police forces to deescalate hostage situations. Her wisdom and intuition leaves a legacy that she'll never truly be recognized for.

As for Nils - most of his work still persists. Not all of it is as uncertain in origin as the Stockholm Syndrome. Indeed, Stockholm Syndrome is one of the few works to receive wide criticism. Nils, for the most part, seemed to have a competent understanding of the human psyche.

It's just a shame it was tinged in a disgusting, primitive bias. Misogyny.

Stockholm Syndrome, when examined with any careful rigor, falls apart, without this discussed context. Have you ever noticed that Stockholm Syndrome in media is always depicted with a woman as the victim? If a male is the victim, then it is played up as a joke, and never does a man decide to have sex with his captor.

It reinforces bioessentialism. It calls back to the dudebro understanding of women, only swayed by 'alphas' and power.

Just like misogyny, it's accepted. It's normal. You don't bat an eyelid if someone casually mentions Stockholm Syndrome. Under the lens of the fake condition, men are constantly asking themselves that one question whenever a female victim of traumatic kidnapping is uncovered.

'Did she have sex with him?'