Stockholm Syndrome Lite

Persons are especially perplexed by the fact that intelligent and well-grounded individuals fall prey to cult initiatives. While there is probably no one explanation that will account for this phenomenon, the Stockholm Syndrome needs to be factored into the equation.

The Stockholm Syndrome derives from an event in 1973, concerning four persons held in a bank vault for five and a half days during a robbery.

While the robbery itself caused little stir in the international community, later interviews with the hostages provided cause for reflection. It seems that they had developed a bond with their captors, growing out of their efforts to survive the ordeal. This pattern was subsequently identified in a variety of abusive situations.

In more specific terms, the victims begin to identify with their captors. This appears as a defense mechanism, based on the hope that they will not be hurt if they are cooperative. For the moment at least, there seems to be no credible alternative.

The victims also realize that any initiative from their would-be rescuers may have adverse effects. If not harmed by those attempting their release, they may be exposed to the wrath of their captors–who have little to lose. Any hope for rectifying the situation must come from within, rather than from without.

Long term captivity builds an increasingly strong attachment to the captors. This allows the victims time to become familiar with their grievances and aspirations. In the process, to recognize in them a common humanity. In some instances, to embrace their cause as just and their means born out of desperation.

No opportunity is given for a reality check with the outside world. Former experience goes through a period of reconstruction. One that fashions an alternative reality short of data.

This characteristically generates mixed feelings of gratitude and fear. Gratitude for what would seem under normal conditions of little importance. Such as something to eat or the opportunity to clean oneself. Fear that the captors may inflict their frustration on the helpless hostages. In depriving them of some indulgence, or even in terminating their lives.

How might all the above apply to the cult dynamic? Initially, there is likely no threat to life itself, the Jonestown tragedy notwithstanding. However, some crisis already in place or initiated by the group is manipulated to cultivate a dependency relationship. Such as when a marriage is endangered, and the cult leader intervenes so as to make himself seemingly indispensable.

Consequently, he or she takes on the role of deliverer. In this capacity, the person for all practical purposes covenants with the couple to facilitate their relationship--conditioned on their continued loyalty. Otherwise, the offending partner may be put on probation. This, in turn, may require that the couple not discuss the matter except in the presence of the self-appointed mediator.

In any case, the cult goes to great lengths to isolate the convert from the influence of outsiders. Family is singled out for special attention. Contact is kept at a minimum, and this is carefully monitored.

In particular, these limited contacts are allowed as a means to ensnaring family members in the cult web. Short of achieving this goal, they serve to intensify the pain associated with the loss of cherished relationships–not uncommonly interpreted as the cost of discipleship. From the cult perspective, it qualifies as a win/win situation.

Meanwhile, the cult victim is shown token expressions of kindness. Such as a warm embrace when the individual complies with the wishes of the cult authority figure. This reenforces his or her identity with the group, as over against any and all alternatives. In a curious but well documented phenomenon, this may include generating false memories–intended to validate the cult’s teaching.

What can be done to curtail the efforts of the cults? In popular idiom, prevention is the best cure. Learn to distinguish cult characteristics. An abbreviated list consists of the following:

If the group isolates members from family and friends, it might be a cult.

If it interferes with the ability of the individual to think matters through on his or her own, it might be a cult.If it is dominated by a leader said to have unique qualifications that sets the group apart from the rest, it might be a cult.If it requires that persons suppress their individuality to achieve group goals, it might be a cult.If it instills in its members a fear that leaving the group will have disastrous results, it might be a cult.If two or more of the above pertain, it is likely to be a cult.

For a more precise characterization, see Robert Ellwood’s Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America, pp. 27-31. I found his discussion very helpful in a follow-up study comparing churches with cults.

Assuming that the Stockholm Syndrome provides a valuable clue to the cult dynamic, recovery is calculated to be difficult. The success rate is considerably higher when appropriate action is taken early on. Contact of any sort should be accompanied by concerted prayer. It is preferable that it proceed in keeping with common sense guidelines. For instance, persons should consider matters deliberately, rather than skipping from one thing to another. Moreover, without recourse to or interference from the cult leader. Anything less will likely not prove successful. For a more extended discussion, see Ronald Enroth’s ,Recovering From Churches That Abuse, a sequel to his Churches That Abuse.

In any case, we should not write off the cult member. As C. S. Lewis reminds us, only God knows when more time will serve no good purpose. We ought always be ready and happy to welcome the prodigal home.