I was nine years old in April 1974 when the images of  Patty Hearst -- newspaper heiress and Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) kidnapping victim -- wielding an M1 carbine while robbing a San Francisco bank with the SLA splashed over the news.  Because I was nine, I wasn't aware of the whole back story or who the SLA or Randolph Hearst were.  I knew Ms. Hearst was some kind of an "important person" who normally doesn't go around robbing banks.  I was aware of the debate as to whether she had voluntarily joined in the SLA or whether she had been somehow brainwashed into doing so.  And somewhere along the line, I became aware that Ms. Hearst's apparent new revolutionary tangent was purported by some to be a consequence of the Stockholm Syndrome.

For those who though Ms Hearst was “innocent,” how else could the following be explained: Nine days after the robbery, a recording from the SLA was delivered in which Patty Hearst stated, using her newly adopted name:

Greetings to the people, this is Tania.  My gun was loaded, and at no time did my comrades intentionally point their guns at me. As for being brainwashed, the idea is ridiculous to the point of being beyond belief.

Stockholm Syndrome is an apparently paradoxical psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.

It is important to keep in mind:

No widely accepted diagnostic criteria exist to identify Stockholm syndrome — also known as terror-bonding or traumatic bonding — and critics insist its apparent prevalence is largely a figment of the media's overactive imagination. One FBI report called such close victim-captor relationships "overemphasized, overanalyzed, overpsychologized and overpublicized."

In another bank robbery involving hostages, after terrorizing patrons and employees for many hours, a police sharpshooter shot and wounded the terrorizing bank robber. After he hit the floor, two women picked him up and physically held him up to the window for another shot.

Still, this syndrome does exist.  And it can be seen in other situations beyond those where a person or persons are held in a hostage situation.  Any situation where abuse is present has the potential for the abused to experience Stockholm Syndrome. 

Clinical Psychologist Dr. Joseph Carver makes the case that the spouse caught in an abusive and controlling relationship is suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

[The abused individual] emotionally bonding with an abuser is actually a strategy for survival for victims of abuse and intimidation.

Local law enforcement personnel have long recognized this syndrome with battered women who fail to press charges, bail their battering husband/boyfriend out of jail, and even physically attack police officers when they arrive to rescue them from a violent assault.

One doesn't have to go far on the web to find people who relate Stockholm Syndrome to those who continue to support and defend the current economic and political system.  Just one example from the Parlez Moi Blog:

I keep trying to figure out why average citizens, making a decent living but far from billionaires, are so angry about the idea of taxing the super-rich at the same rate as the rest of us pay? It's a total mystery to me. I know people who are well-off, making a nice salary and with a good lifestyle, who just get rabid at the notion of millionaires having to pay the same percentage of taxes that made this country prosperous back before all the tax cuts for the uber-wealthy spent us spiraling into the current abysmal situation. I'm starting to think it's a form of economic Stockholm Syndrome.

It isn't just those on the left side of the aisle.  The "other" side is just convinced those who want they consider to be big government as suffering from this infliction.  And each side is convinced they need to come to the rescue, to save those who don't believe they need to be saved.

Dr. Carver lists the four conditions or situations that serve as the foundation for the development of Stockholm Syndrome.  The application to our current economic situation is rather easy to see.

1. The presence of a perceived threat to one’s physical or psychological survival and the belief that the abuser would carry out the threat.

The perception of threat can be formed by direct, indirect, or witnessed methods….Their history of violence leads us to believe that the captor/controller will carry out the threat in a direct manner if we fail to comply with their demands. The abuser assures us that only our cooperation keeps our loved ones safe.

Witnessing violence or aggression is also a perceived threat….Witnessing the thoughts and attitudes of the abuser/controller is threatening and intimidating, knowing that we will be the target of those thoughts in the future.

First, there is the constant threat of losing what one has gained if one does not continue to play the game.  No one want to end up being the lead character in a re-enactment of a Death of a Salesman. 

And for those who have been economically fortunate, it is also too easy to witness those who have been discarded by the system, forgotten, and left to the violence of the streets. The foreclosed homes, the shut down factories, the food lines. Better to just play the game.

Second, there is the threat to those who choose to resist or push back on the system and the status quo.  Aside from the perception of having to give up and leave behind what they have achieved in order to join the struggle, there is the belief that some undesirable punishment would be a consequence, like jail time or pepper spray. And it  isn't jus the government.  

Many grassroot community groups who have tried to stand in the way of corporations have been slapped with lawsuits.  Even in cases where the community groups would have eventually won the case, they lack the financial resources to endure the drawn out court battles the corporations’ team of lawyers are able to throw at them.

2. The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim

In threatening and survival situations, we look for evidence of hope — a small sign that the situation may improve. When an abuser/controller shows the victim some small kindness, even though it is to the abuser’s benefit as well, the victim interprets that small kindness as a positive trait of the captor.

In relationships with abusers, a birthday card, a gift (usually provided after a period of abuse), or a special treat are interpreted as not only positive, but evidence that the abuser is not “all bad” and may at some time correct his/her behavior. Abusers and controllers are often given positive credit for not abusing their partner, when the partner would have normally been subjected to verbal or physical abuse in a certain situation.

Not only are people fearing the threat of losing what they do have, there is a gratefulness for the luxuries of life they have been able to accumulate over time. The system they believe has been good to them.  They convince themselves those who are less fortunate have somehow chosen the path of poverty and disenfranchisement. 

They hate insurance companies, but they are glad their company offers some form of health care benefits.  

And the system does throw a bone from time to time.  For some, it throws a lot of bones and their is promise if they do as they as they are told, play the game, they, too, will get a lot of bones.

3. Isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser

For their survival, they begin to see the world through the abuser’s perspective. They begin to fix things that might prompt an outburst, act in ways they know makes the abuser happy, or avoid aspects of their own life that may prompt a problem….We become preoccupied with the needs, desires, and habits of the abuser/controller.

Taking the abuser’s perspective as a survival technique can become so intense that the victim actually develops anger toward those trying to help them.

Simply put, we grow up in a culture that indoctrinates us before we are aware enough to resist.  From our parents to our schools to the media that washes over us, we are surrounded by praise for the status quo.  Just play the game in the greatest country on Earth.  US is number one!

Trying to survive, we do become preoccupied with the needs of the socio-economic system.  If you are gay: stay in the closet.  If you are a racial minority: know your place.  If you want praise: make a lot of money, have a big house, and shiny new cars. 

We don't hear those on the edges who are trying to tell us we are in an abusive situation. And when we finally do, a lot of times our reaction is anger towards those who seem to be upsetting the boat.  We are back to being to feeling threatened.

4. The perceived inability to escape the situation

As a hostage in a bank robbery, threatened by criminals with guns, it’s easy to understand the perceived inability to escape. In romantic relationships, the belief that one can’t escape is also very common….locked together by mutual financial issues/assets, mutual intimate knowledge, or legal situations.

Even if we are able to perceive the abuse, there is no other viable alternative available. Few of us are willing to go "off the grid."  And 307 million people going off the grid really isn't a solution to the problem. 

Few of us are unwilling to leave behind the comforts and the responsibilities we have to others.  We need a roof over our head and food in the cupboard.  We need to be able to have access to medical care.  We need to ensure our children have a quality education.

So just play the game and smile.

Yet with all the threats of abuse and actual abuse, whether experienced or witnessed, we know, if only deep down below the surface, the situation isn't the way it should be.  We do want to escape, to break the isolation, to end the abuse. Yet things go on.  Same as they always was.  Same as it always was. 

Dr. Carver adds to these conditions leading to the presence of Stockholm Syndrome a companion: cognitive dissonance. 

“Cognitive Dissonance” explains how and why people change their ideas and opinions to support situations that do not appear to be healthy, positive, or normal. In the theory, an individual seeks to reduce information or opinions that make him or her uncomfortable. When we have two sets of cognitions (knowledge, opinion, feelings, input from others, etc.) that are the opposite, the situation becomes emotionally uncomfortable. Even though we might find ourselves in a foolish or difficult situation — few want to admit that fact. Instead, we attempt to reduce the dissonance — the fact that our cognitions don’t match, agree, or make sense when combined. “Cognitive Dissonance” can be reduced by adding new cognitions — adding new thoughts and attitudes.

We all know the passion of those who defend the status quo. One only has to watch Fox News or go to sites like Red State.  It is a dog eat dog world and we like it.

As Genghis related in After the Rapture, Cognitive Dissonance Will Strike .

Festinger theorized that rationalization can somewhat reduce cognitive dissonance but that for it to be fully effective, people need others to ratify the rationalization.

But in the case of severe dissonance, even the affirmation of a few peers may not be sufficient to relieve the psychological pressure. To truly assure themselves of the validity of their rationalization, people may feel the need to persuade a wider audience.

As Festinger explained:

If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must, after all, be correct. Consider the extreme case: if everyone in the whole world believed something there would be no question at all as to the validity of this belief. It is for this reason that we observe the increase in proselyting following disconfirmation. If the proselyting proves successful, then by gathering more adherents and effectively surrounding himself with supporters, the believer reduces dissonance to the point where he can live with it.

So we have those who have rationalized their support for the status quo. And there are those who have rationalized the need for change.

The question is: whose rationalization is actually rational?

Each side has to believe they are right.  Each attempting to awaken the other.  As it should be.  The marketplace of ideas and all that. 

For those looking to persuade others for the need to change the system to something more progressive, more sustainable, less abusive, we need to remember in the words of Dr. Carver:

...once they decide it doesn’t work and can’t be fixed, they will need our support as we patiently await their decision to return to a healthy and positive lifestyle.

How do we support them as they have the little epiphanies? How can we talk to them in a way that can facilitate those little epiphanies?

The first thing to remember is that it can only be done from within.

If you’re not part of the problem

You’re not part of the solution.

There really is no escape. This is the system we have.  We are the grid.  The grid is us.  It becomes a matter of tweaking the system, and then tweaking again.  And then more tweaking.  Without upsetting the boat, as they might say. . 

We can only hope to be successful in making the necessary changes if we break the isolation, and not just our own.  We have to find a way to leave the abuser behind, but that means persuading its supporters to do so, as well.

The framework I believe that seems to be hold the greatest promise, to end the affliction of our socio-economic and political Stockholm Syndrome is the framework used but the organization the Stockholm Resilience Center.  

is a leading research centre on the dynamics and interdependencies between social-ecological systems.

The human pressure on earth has reached a scale where it is increasingly acknowledged that humans constitute the dominant driver of change to the whole Earth system. These changes are outpacing the capacity of governments and institutions to deal with them and transformational changes of governance are urgently required. Stockholm Resilience Centre applies a resilience framework to identify the complex social and ecological challenges that humanity is facing, from local ecosystem degradation to global environmental change. Resilience is about turning crisis into opportunity. It is about social learning and sustainable innovation. Research at Stockholm Resilience Centre builds upon this combination.

The ability to turn this crisis into opportunity depends on our ability to reach those who continue to support the status quo.  As I pointed out in my last blog regarding Agenda 21, there are those who have come to believe the word "sustainable" is a four letter word.

Sustainability is a threat and they will do what they can do to stick up for the abuser who they believe gives them their way of life and their freedoms.  Sustainability seeks to take away their private property and their luxuries.

So the challenge before us from SRC's perspective:

We are confronted with a new scientific endeavor – to generate insights supporting transformations of societal development towards respecting planetary boundaries and cultivating global resilience for sustainability.

Social-ecological interactions in complex systems are the glue for all the research at the Centre, with a common denominator in resilience thinking and covering processes from individuals to global level.  In general, the scientific understanding of interdependent social and ecological systems is still poorly developed and needs to be considerably advanced in order for the academic systems to offer robust insights in dialogues with practice and policy on those issues.

We cannot get away from the dialogue.  As difficult as it might seem at times, we can force sustainability on the current system. 

How do we first develop the insights to infuse into those dialogues.  I believe SRC's core features for research will provide as a great guidance for any endeavor - regardless of the fields, be it the fine arts or biology - if the goal is move in a progressive direction:

Since the beginning of the SRC all research efforts have been framed by the three core features or boundary conditions for SRC research (referred to by Clark as the framework questions):

Society and nature represent truly interdependent social-ecological systems;

Social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems; and

Cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent social-ecological systems and ecosystem services.

These three core features provide a broad research direction, and will continue to serve  as a significant attractor  that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing.

The research strategy of the SRC is very open and welcomes any approach, method, perspective, epistemology or ontology from the social sciences, humanities and natural sciences that can contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenge of governance of social-ecological systems in the context of the three features above.

Moreover, SRC sets down three major challenges for goverance of social-ecological systems - in other words the challenges we humans face in attempting to guide and govern the vast number of interdependent, complex adaptive systems across scales and through interactive dynamics:

The existence of potential tipping points (thresholds) and regime shifts and the challenges that implies;

The adaptability of social-ecological systems to deal with such changes, uncertainty, and surprise;

The ability to steer away from undesired regimes and possibly even transform social-ecological systems into new improved trajectories that sustain and enhance ecosystem services and human well-being.

Which brings us back to the notion of resilience.

We emphasize three features of resilience for analyzing social-ecological systems in relation to sustainability;

Persistence – in the face of change, buffer capacity, withstand shocks

Adaptability – the capacity of people in a social-ecological system to manage resilience through e.g. collective action

Transformability – the capacity of people in the social-ecological system to create  a new system when ecological, political, social or economic conditions make the existing system untenable.

Why resilience?

We have seen it during financial crises and we are beginning to see it in ecosystems: if brittle systems fail, they can do so abruptly and in the worst case have catastrophic effects.

Despite growing evidence that surprise, abrupt change, thresholds and regime shifts constitute normality in ecosystems, we still govern and manage forests, water resources, agricultural land and other natural resources as if they follow linear, predictable pathways.

Resilience thinking helps us avoid the trap of simply rebuilding and repairing flawed structures of the past – be it financial strategies, city development plans or fisheries management. Resilience encourages us to anticipate, adapt, learn and transform human actions according to changes that take place.

Resilience is about the capacity to withstand shocks and disturbances such as climate change or financial crisis and to use such events to catalyse renewal, novelty and innovation. It is about taking stock in diversity and spreading the risks.

Loss of resilience tends to lead to more vulnerable systems and possible undesirable shifts in how ecosystems provide humans with crucial goods and services such as fish, crops, flood control and water purification. Clear lakes risk turning into murky, oxygen-depleted pools, grasslands into shrub deserts and coral reefs into algae-covered rubble.

With increasing urbanisation, it is becoming equally essential to maintain healthy biodiversity in order to secure ecosystem services that are crucial for humans.

For those who prefer video, Centre science Director Carl Folke has done a whiteboard video on the essence of resilience.

So breaking the isolation, with a just and sustainable persistence, adaptation, and transformation we just might be able to leave the abuser behind.