Even if you have not taken psychology 101 and you will hear the definitions and examples of the Stockholm Syndrome, you will find it a curious fact about humans and their propensity towards violence and brutality. And – I will add here – the various perspectives on love and feelings at the same time.
The predominate perspective by which the Stockholm Syndrome is introduced to us is from the perspective of the capturer. Though when we look at it in depth, by looking at it from the perspective of the victim, we see that was lies at the essence of the Stockholm Syndrome is the discrepancy between how we define love, and how we actually live these definitions in our daily reality, individually and collectively.
The Stockholm Syndrome which is still debated by some, who are unwilling to face the incongruity of human existence, contributes to the lack of a widely accepted diagnostic criteria. This is in spite of an overwhelming amount of cases, some of them widely publicised – to name a few: Jaycee Lee Dugard, Patty Hearst, and more recently Shawn Hornbeck and Natascha Kampush. There are also many unknown cases of the terror-bonding or trauma-bonding behaviour as the Syndrome is also called.
What exactly happens within each of these victims is unknown, what is known that they “develop feelings” for their capturers while being held captive and coerced into intensively detrimental living conditions. The famous case in Sweden involving thieves Jan-Erik Olsson and Clark Olofsson and four hostages, ended with the freed hostages hugging and kissing their capturers as they were taken to jail.
One argument that tries to explain away the incomprehensible notion of why someone would fall in love with one’s capturer is that this behaviour supports the victim to survive until being freed. What this argument reveals, if we take the perspective of how we accept love to exist in our reality, is that love is predicated by abuse. In the most extreme rendering of abuse that humans are capable off, this translates to: for love to exist, then there must be war.
A first reaction to such statements would prompt most to delineate that not all love is the same, and that the kind of love experienced through terror-bonding cannot be considered true love. However, this delineation is a form of fragmentation, a separation in how we see ourselves, exemplified by definitions and behaviours. It does not let us see that the perception of and believe in these differences is the denial of the evil that is humanity.
Once we let go of this fragmentation and look at contextualising our understanding of love as it exists in the world, we find that love, for example “true” versus “not true” – is indicated by degrees of abuse. Thus, it is the combination of ‘love as degrees of abuse’ by which we define ourselves in the world as loving beings.
Similar degrees of abuse as with the Stockholm Syndrome appear in the phenomenon of the battered wife who goes back to her abusive husband knowingly that she will repeatedly face situations of abuse. The love of conventional partnerships, on the other hand, reflect the standardised approach to ‘love as degrees of abuse’ which is not physically referenced yet is part and parcel to the repertoire of emotions we use to manipulate and sabotage our relationships. For example: jealousy and competition constitute the hidden outcomes of abuse. Whether sexual or non-sexual, relationships with humans operate from this same emotional premise and abuse – in the name of love.
When we move away from the human-directed ‘love as degrees of abuse’ formula, we arrive at spiritual love. The most devastating version that permeates all spheres of society but especially the economic and religious societal arenas of cultures worldwide. The two foremost mechanisms that conjure up high degrees of abuse are self-righteousness and self-interest. In the former we are dealing with a ‘brand of god’ that the individual or the group is willing to wage war for, be it the holy war of Islam or the war of consumerism by the god of the law of attraction. The economically supported self-interest of spiritual love starts off with the physical manifestation of a monetary system of have and have-nots which – in god we trust – will give permission to its believers to invade entire countries and wage war to take over resources that facilitate the ‘good life’.
The tools to conduct abuse are hidden behind a deceptive facade of oneness and goodness, which enables its followers to conveniently justify all kinds of atrocities. Self-righteousness as well as self-interest enable believers of spiritual love to neglect and deny responsibility as a member, a participant, in the group called humanity. Spiritual love followers negate physical application towards changing the system so that it is best for all. In conclusion, the Stockholm Syndrome shows that all love is coupled with abuse and this abuse is accepted when it is within the stanardised approach to conventionally defined partner and relationships.
Evidently, the point of supporting an abusive monetary system can be seen when suggesting an EQUAL MONEY SYSTEM where those who react in fear cannot bear the loss of abuse. Abuse which emanates from our current economical system and which causes each to live their life in fear of survival. The suggestion of an EQUAL MONEY SYSTEM which would grant a free life from birth to death by taking care of all equally, brings up the identical dynamics as the Stockholm Syndrome: The belief in a good and loving delusion which maintains the abusive system as it is – than to stop all abuse and give to all what one wants for oneself. It is associating with ego, the abuser and emotional capturer, than associating with equal living for all and the end of all abuse.
At Desteni we say stop the deception of how we define love and stand up for the only definition of love: oneness through equality and what is best for all.
and for more reading and listening material visit: