The Unbroken Spectrum: Stockholm Syndrome

This series of entries on the“unbroken spectrum” began as an effort to outline just a couple mechanisms which work to obscure the demographic where paler shades of the autistic spectrum shade over into “normal.” Soon enough, and appropriately enough I think, it began to be about the ways in which much of the spectrum, or much of the autism with which the world rubs shoulders every day winds up being hidden from view. One was described in a comment by Lili Marlene which ended up shoehorned into my entry on self-hatred, but I’m no longer so sure that’s where it belongs. Here is how she concluded her comment:

My theory is that these people have seen autistic family members at odds with society and losing the battle, and have decided to take what they see as the easy path – siding with neurotypical society and adopting the value system of their neurotypical age peers, adding a few explicitly anti-autistic features just to make it clear what side they are on. It’s an attempt to be normal that paradoxically appears to lead to mental illness and alienation from family. Life is a constant battle for those who refuse to consider acceptance as an alternative. You make your choices and you live with the consequences.

There are elements here of self-hatred, yes, certainly of self-betrayal. I can recall in my own experience being confronted with incentives to go this route, and dismissing them again and again with the thought, “That’s just a piece of suicide.” For all that this is the case though, what Lili Marlene has described is more of a defense mechanism, one built around identifying with “neurotypical society” and adopting its value system. We already have a term for this. It’s called Stockholm syndrome.

As critics like to point out, this syndrome—much, I might argue, like autism itself—is perhaps even more so than autism at least as much a social construct as it is anything “real.” It does however refer to a recognizable human dynamic, a “piece of suicide” in which those who feel they lack power take on the values of those who seem to have power over them, all in order to avoid the threat of a more complete death. Allow me then to re-construct the conditions under which Stockholm syndrome can occur, simply by substituting one handful of nouns for another.

Here, according to the FBI, are those conditions followed by their restatements altered so as to apply—instructively if not perfectly—to autism in society.

A person held in captivity cannot escape and depends on the hostage taker for life. The captor becomes the person in control of the captive’s basic needs for survival and the victim’s life itself.

An autistic person in society cannot escape and depends on society for acceptance. Society is in control of the autistic’s basic needs for social legitimacy.

The hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captor’s perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world’s response to their actions from captives to keep them totally dependent.

The autisticespecially when unaware that he or she is autisticendures isolation from other autistics and has only society’s perspective available. As there is no “outside world,” there is no response or accountability regarding society’s actions. Society acts as perpetrator, judge, and jury, a self-contained, self-justifying package.

The hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception as having the capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor than to resist and face murder.

The society threatens to deny social legitimacy—employment, sexual companionship, freedom from humiliation—to the autistic and demonstrates the capability to do so in ways both large and small. The autistic judges it safer to align with society, endure the hardship of isolation, and comply with society than to resist and face the hardship and humiliation of reduced social legitimacy.

The captive sees the perpetrator as showing some degree of kindness. Kindness serves as the cornerstone of Stockholm syndrome; the condition will not develop unless the captor exhibits it in some form toward the hostage. However, captives often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness and may develop feelings of appreciation for this perceived benevolence. If the captor is purely evil and abusive, the hostage will respond with hatred. But, if perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response to the terror and concentrate on the captors’ “good side” to protect themselves.

The autistic sees society as showing some degree of kindness. Kindness serves as the cornerstone of Stockholm syndrome; the condition will not develop unless society exhibits it in some form toward the autistic. However, autistics often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness and may develop feelings of appreciation for this perceived benevolence. If society is purely evil and abusive, the autistic will respond with hatred. But, if society shows some kindness, autistics will submerge the anger they feel in response to the terror and concentrate on society’s “good side” to protect themselves.

To those who might feel that “humiliation” is an inadequate substitute for the literal death threatened by the sort of hostage-takers encountered by the FBI, I would point out that humus is the Latin root that gives humiliation its motivating power. It is not for nothing that we speak of “dying of humiliation;” the humus it refers to is the self-same dirt of “six feet under.” If you are still unclear what humiliation has to do with autism in society, see The Unbroken Spectrum: Ridicule.

There’s plenty more to be said here, I believe; Lili Marlene may well have hit on the richest vein yet in this series. My intent here though has simply been to provoke thought, to evoke a small shock of recognition at the similarities between the situations of hostages and autistics in society. If there’s a more specific take-away to be gleaned from the above, I suggest it is that we might look with a more skeptical eye at the kindnesses bestowed by society upon autistic people.

Beyond that, I would point out that for all that documented cases of this syndrome are known to go on for years, and undocumented cases we can only assume, for entire lifetimes, those are individual tragedies. To the extent that what Lili Marlene and I have described here happens to the autistic population as a whole, this is a systemic, collective tragedy which whether it is engaged in unknowingly or with cowardice aforethought, “appears to lead to mental illness and alienation from family”—perhaps on a scale we can hardly begin to measure.

related:  Pieces of Suicide

related:  The Unbroken Spectrum: Ridicule

related:  The Unbroken Spectrum: Projection

related:  The Unbroken Spectrum: Self-Hatred

related:  The Unbroken Spectrum: The Shared Closet


on 06/25/10 in featured, Society | 5 Comments | Read More



Comments (5)

 

  1. Clay says:

    These words reminded me of yet another group, those who have experienced latent homosexual feelings, but negate them, and become virulent homophobes instead.

    Changing a few words around:

    “These people have seen homosexuals at odds with society and losing the battle, and have decided to take what they see as the easy path – siding with heterosexual society and adopting the value system of their heterosexual age peers, adding a few explicitly homophobic features just to make it clear what side they are on.”

    These sorts of “adaptations” don’t lead to happiness. Who’s the most “autism-hatingest” guy you know of? There’s a mental illness on a scale we can’t begin to measure.

  2. Mark Stairwalt says:

    Yep. You’ve just looped this post back to the one on which Lili Marlene made the comment that I quote above. There’s plenty of overlap and blurred edges between the mechanisms covered in this series; at the same time there are different angles from which to approach and recognize them.

  3. Lili Marlene says:

    I’ve just had a read of the Wikipedia on the subject of “internalized homophobia” and I do believe Clay’s rewording of my text does make a very good point.

    A few thoughts have come to mind regarding autism while reading the descriptions of the conditons that give rise to Stockholm syndrome.

    “The hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captor’s perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world’s response to their actions from captives to keep them totally dependent.”

    There is only one bookshop that I know of in my city that has a section specifically about autism, and the works you will find there are either fifth-rate medical text-type books that offer nothing but the disease/disability view of autism with a bit of quackery on the side, but the majority o the books there are works from the one UK publisher which utterly dominates the area of publishing books about autism, and which aims much of it’s output at parents, teachers and therapists, and generally offers books that treat the subject of autism as a disease or disability. Next to these books I found some brochures advertising books about the spectrum. It was actually a promo for THAT publisher, promoting only books from that publishing house. In this section of the bookshop only the captor’s perspective was available. The books were about cases and disorders, not people. If I’d gone upstairs to the biography section I might have found one or two autistic autobiographies that do something to humanise people of our type, and of course, these books are not published by THAT publisher. As long as autistic authors keep supporting a publisher that has a near-monopoly of publishing about autism, serious works that offer fresh and subversive perspectives will not be available to the reading public.

    “The autistic—especially when unaware that he or she is autistic—endures isolation from other autistics and has only society’s perspective available. As there is no “outside world…”

    It’s no secret that I feel cheated because I was never informed by anyone as to why I have always been different. I had to figure it all out for myself. And looking back on my life with much more insight I have recognized that I’ve possibly missed many opportunities to establish some type of trust or friendship with other weird folk. One obstacle to meeting other people who are considered odd is the habit that neurotypical people have of warning people away from such people, within workplaces and within familes. I guess these simple sociable folk mean well, and autistic or unusual people often do need a warning label, but the neurotypicals who issue vague warnings certainly do a fantastic job of componding the problem of social isolation for already isolated individuals, and then they sit around talking about the outsider behind their back “She’s such a loner…I feel so sorry for her…I wish she would try to change…” It’s just a game for them.

  4. FUBAR says:

    In some ways this feels like appropriation of mental illness as metaphor. Yet I’m not sure how much of this is metaphorical and how much is literal. Obviously the dynamics you are talking about are very real… I just feel a bit odd seeing “stockholm syndrome” attached to them as somebody who survived being held captive… but I also experience the oppression dynamics in society (from a trans perspective not an autism perspective) that you are talking about… Would I describe my experience of internalizing the perspectives of my oppressors as the same as my experience of internalizing the perspective of my rapist and captor? No, I wouldn’t, though I can see the parallels… maybe it’s all only a matter of degree…

    Bottom line is I can’t pick apart how much of this is a metaphorical appropriation of stockholm syndrome and how much is literal and dead serious and so I can’t figure out how I feel about it.

  5. Mark Stairwalt says:

    FUBAR —

    Can you clarify how you’re using the term “mental illness” and exactly what you are (and are not) referring to with it?

    And, if you start again from “As critics like to point out, this syndrome—much, I might argue, like autism itself—is perhaps even more so than autism at least as much a social construct as it is anything “real,” does that clarify anything for you?

Leave a Reply