Stockholm syndrome in the narrow sense of the term is a situation when the victim (primarily the hostage) begins to feel sympathy for the aggressor (primarily the invader) and in one form or another takes his side. First described at the beginning of the 20th century and now known by its name in the 70s, this phenomenon is explained as a protective psychological reaction caused by the collapse of a person's internal barriers under the pressure of severe stress. Having no more emotional strength to cope with the situation of victim-executioner, victim-aggressor, a person rethinks it in such a way as to perceive himself not as an object of violence, but as an ally or an instrument of its source. Removing confrontation also relieves tension and sometimes even gives a feeling of euphoria through identification with the source of strength: since you are on his side, nothing threatens you, moreover,you can partake of the joy of using it.
Erich Fromm in his landmark book "Escape from Freedom" described a more general phenomenon, which he called sadomasochistic addiction, understanding by it a situation in which one person in different spheres of life gives himself over to another (masochism), and that, in turn, enthusiastically accepts this sacrifice and enjoys his power over him (sadism). This phenomenon is clearly visible in the field of political and ideological relations: the subordination of a person to a leader, a church, an organization, or an idea is a masochistic surrender of one's own will into the sadistic hands of leaders trembling with delight. Sadism and masochism as psychological phenomena very often merge together in any hierarchical and bureaucratic system: a person readily, and often with zeal, submits to what stands above him, and at the same time, enthusiastically commands and pushes everything below him.
Both sadism and masochism are forms of bondage and painful addiction - a sadist is just as incapable of enjoying life and existing without sacrifice, just as a masochist cannot be without an object of submission.
It seems to me that sadomasochistic addiction (it is from a slightly different angle - Stockholm syndrome) is an even more general phenomenon than is described by Fromm or in modern psychology. They characterize not only the relationship of people with each other, but the relationship of people with life.
It has long been known that a person, starting in his youth with great hopes and aspirations, gradually, under the pressure of disappointments, failures, weakness and uncertainty, or a more sober assessment of opportunities, usually gradually lowers his bar lower and lower. At the same time, so that the contrast between what we really wanted and what we have or may have at our disposal is not too painful, we make a substitution. According to Michel Montaigne, "not having achieved what we want, we begin to pretend that we wanted what we have achieved." Giving up your true goals and ideals and putting something more accessible in their place is much easier than realizing them. Such a substitution partially relieves stress, anxiety and guilt, which are caused in us by the knowledge that we are not at all where we would like to be in our life. Which turns out to be an unpleasant surpriseso it is the fact that this self-deception destroys our personality and steals life as much as the very refusal of what we really need.
At every step we have to meet people who hypnotically assure others and, of course, themselves that everything is fine with them, that on the whole they are satisfied with the situation in which they find themselves, that more is not needed, even if their situation is deplorable and radically different from their true desires. Along with this “acceptance of reality for what is desired,” there is also a second mechanism of psychological self-defense - slinging mud at the unattained object of desire, the next stage in rationalizing one's defeat. At the most elementary level, this is observed in how often people of intellect ridicule the world of the flesh, and people who are not disposed to mental work laugh at naive intellectuals, the poor blaspheme the rich, and the rich despise the poor, the beautiful despise the plain, and the ugly tend to devalue the physical beauty as a value,oozing from all pores with spirituality.
Here it is - Stockholm Syndrome in action: we are unable to fight the resistance that life gives to our dreams, we cannot resist the forces of regression that carry us along, and therefore we obey it, take the side of the enemy, we renounce our own shrines and throw them to mockery, refusing to notice and admit this annoying fact.
It is with this, I think, that the obvious moral and mental degradation that has to be observed in many people as they grow older, accompanied by a series of humiliating compromises and deviations from themselves, is connected. This phenomenon is touched upon in their book by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer:
Promotional video:
It is necessary to admit the unpleasant truth: very few of us will have to achieve our cherished goals, and, of course, we will not realize our ideals, because the ideal is unrealizable. Does this mean that it would be better, as the renegades do, to abandon and replace them so as not to torment their own hearts in vain? At first glance, this looks reasonable - but this is only at first glance. The betrayal of the best in us destroys this best, blinds the eyes and suppresses the creative potential of our personality, provokes neuroses and dooms to a rapid "premature decay". It is enough just to look at those who have chosen this path; their fate is unenviable.
It should not, however, be taken as praises of all-or-nothing maximism. There is another option, the middle one: we must continue to strive for our true goals and invest ourselves in our ideals, while at the same time learning to enjoy what we already have, no matter how small it may be and no matter how far from our destination. The path, in fact, turns out to be more important than the goal, it is he who constitutes our life, its pain and pleasure, and how and where we move is a hundred times more important for our personality and sense of life than how far we are from the goal. We just need to really understand this and not allow the distance between the desired and the actual to break us, it is necessary to realize the emptiness of our torments, their illusory nature as biologically cognitive distortions inherent in humans. And while it's not easy, it's not that hard at allas it might seem.
In other words, there are two extremes. The first is a hostage who does not make any compromises, who invests himself without reserve in the struggle despite the setbacks and difficulties and sacrificing everything for this. This is the path of an obsessive heroic person or a fanatic, it can carry greatness, but it is difficult, thorny, often joyless, and most importantly, only a vanishingly small number of people are able to follow it. The second is a hostage who internally sided with the enemy, a renegade who has betrayed his personality for the sake of the specter of psychological comfort. And we already know that they are in the majority, and what it turns out to be. However, there is a third option, the same path between the two extremes, the Aristotelian golden mean. This is a manwho methodically and courageously fights against an immensely superior force (and such is life and its resistance to the goals and ideals we set) and draws excitement, inspiration and joy from this creative struggle. He knows how to enjoy the path itself and its intermediate, albeit small, results, without betraying his true desires, not content with faking them, but he also does not reach torment and obsession in striving for their realization. It seems to me that his life is fuller, more worthy, and more beautiful, and happier.
© Oleg Tsendrovsky