Since some of you don't read GD - about the whole Stockholm Syndrome thing

[Rebkeh]

Is the Stockholm Syndrome claim racist?

Yes. And No

I had hoped this issue would die and fade away quietly in DU, mainly because it does more harm than good. I have stayed out of the fray mostly because my conflicted take on it is so nuanced, it would get lost in the shuffle anyway. I saw no benefit to wading into the muck.

But, lo and behold – somebody resurrected it earlier this week. On the one hand, it’s troll fuel, used as bait to incite discord and it’s an excellent distraction from the issues. On the other hand, it’s a legitimate issue in need of discussion. I suppose it’s not going to go away until we work it out, so here’s hoping I can help put it to rest.

If a conversation follows from this OP, and it goes destructive, as opposed to constructive, I will either ask to have the thread locked or delete it altogether. I will not be party to yet another source of negativity and divisiveness at DU, there is enough of that already without my contribution. The issue has been used as a football by both sides, neither one fully comprehending what I see the issue to actually be about.

First, why it is not racist:

To use Occupy’s terms, it is against the 99%’s interests to vote for a supporter of the 1%. This is an indisputable fact regardless of race. Rather, it is against our ECONOMIC interests for the vast majority of us to vote for the handful of people pulling the strings. Where we go wrong is assuming that others' interests are the same, and in this case, economic.

But hold on.

We liberals and progressives are constantly saying that poor and working class republicans are bamboozled by the GOP and vote against their (economic) interests ALL THE TIME. I’d wager that every DU’er at one point or another has said this very thing about republicans, perhaps not by using the term Stockholm Syndrome, but the same sentiment. Be honest. God knows I have, and it’s a truth. They do hug their abusers close, protecting them. They cling to their abusers with their identity tied up in their rule over them. The abusers know full well how to manipulate their anxieties, mostly by using their racial ones.

Therefore, it follows that it is true here with the Stockholm Syndrome flap when people want to vote for what most of DU perceives as a 1%er democrat. The sick irony is that the racial anxiety is on the flip side now, but it still is being used to mask the truth about what the 1% is doing.

Now, as to why it is racist…

The intention of the Stockholm Syndrome claim is probably not racial at all, but it was tone deaf for sure. But it became a racial issue at DU because of the way it was handled by DU’ers that didn’t know what they were doing and didn’t fully understand the implications of what they were saying. So now, every time the issue is raised within the context of DU, it’s going to be a racialized. The impact (impact trumps intent, remember) of the claim is hurtful and destructive. It is VERY insulting to assume that everyone’s interests are the same as yours and if you come from a place of privilege, it’s an act of oppression to decide for someone with less privilege. It is patronizing and infantilizing. As a black woman, I can understand why being told by a white person, or by a man for that matter, that I don’t know what’s best for me and mine is triggering. No self respecting feminist is going to allow a man tell her how to vote, that he knows what is best for her, now would she? Even if he "didn't mean it that way." Ladies, this is just a taste of what it feels like, it's actually worse coming from a white person than a man.

Also, there is no guarantee that restoring economic justice for the masses will benefit black people and other poc, in fact, history suggests we would be left out altogether. So it makes sense to go with the candidate that has been speaking directly to you for twenty years, one who has (appeared to) have your back for so long. Even if she is lying about her true intentions, the safer bet is the person that has been there for you and with a lot at stake (not every black person is poor, yet another racist assumption), it’s just too risky. Mutual political interest keeps the unspoken agreement intact. Bernie is too new on the scene, loyalty is earned over a long time for people with a lot to lose. He just hasn’t been around long enough.

Where I divert from this stance is that the only way to get economic justice for anyone is to come together, work out the racial issues, form a coalition and demand equality. Sadly, Occupy failed in this regard and here we are with even less time needing to take a crash course in intersectional activism, and get solid with each other within a few short months. It is going to be very hard for white people to earn enough confidence of some black people. There simply isn’t enough time, but we have to try anyway. I wrote about this several times (links below*).

As for me personally, I don’t make much of a distinction between racial injustice for poc and economic injustice in America, they are directly related. Not everyone, black or white, holds this position, those who do tend to be on Bernie’s side.

Also notice that republicans respond to the similar claim by calling us elitists. Admittedly, there is some truth to that, it’s infantilizing to assume we know their interests - until they start complaining about the loss of job and economic security which is an indication of cognitive dissonance.

There you have it fellow DU’ers. I hope this brings clarity and understanding.

Some Bernie supporters see the same cognitive dissonance we all know from the republicans, some black Bernie supporters see a sick and ironic use of race as a cudgel to divide and conquer, and some black Clinton supporters see abject arrogance and confirmation of the Bernie Bro stereotype.

At least, that how it appears to me.

From where they stand – all of these people are correct. So let’s stop talking past each other and start talking with each other. Even if we don’t agree on who should be president.

I hope we can finally put this subject to rest.


* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511397357

* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511193813

Also worth reading:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027749969

[Meteor Man]

1. Clarity and Understanding

Good luck with that! It's good to have goals, but they should be achievable.

You know, like peace on earth. Goodwill towards man. Easy, achievable goals. Prudent. Pragmatic.

Glad we still have our dreamers though.

[Rebkeh]

2. I hear you. Seriously though, I'd rather die trying than have not tried at all

Too many before me have died, and I benefit today.

It's a marathon, not a race.

[Meteor Man]

3. On fleek mama

Give it everything you got with the tools the good Lord gave you.

[Bread and Circus]

4. I am tired of hearing the word privileged. It's so overused and not accurate.

I work with a lot of really poor white people and the last thing I think of is them being priveleged.

That is unless you think of serial rape, extreme poverty, drug addiction, lack of education, childhood abuse, and neglect as privilege.

Could they hail a taxicab in NY City? I don't know. But what I do know is they couldn't afford the fare, let alone live or visit NY City.

I really wish the left would stop overusing this canard when they can't find a better way to make a point.

[Rebkeh]

13. I respectfully disagree

We need to compare apples to apples. Would you argue that a 1%er is right to say that wealth privilege doesn’t exist because he has a disability, a legitimate disadvantage in its own right? That opportunities to become wealthy are just as accessible to you as they are to him? Of course not, and his denial of wealth privilege doesn’t make it any less true.

While it is true money is part of white privilege, money is one (of many) indicators, it is not the primary determining factor. Things like access, representation, application of the law, unequal policing, unequal demands, and systemic support are much bigger factors. On balance, it goes something like this: white guys get arrested, black guys get shot. White women get rehab, black women get jail. Unemployed white women are "stay at home moms," unemployed black women are "lazy welfare queens." So on and so forth.

A rich white person has wealth privilege compared to a middle class white person just as a middle class white person has white privilege compared to a black person regardless of money or wealth.

The wealthy white person has privilege compared to both of them, because of that, it stands to reason that there be an alliance to gain political equality for black/poc people and middle class/poor whites. That alliance requires acceptance of white privilege. It is non-negotiable.

You can categorically reject the notion of white privilege, but you do it at the expense of your fight for income fairness. That’s how oppression works, the pain trickles down on everyone but does not distribute evenly. Equality will either include poc, or it won’t happen at all – because the system is set up to oppress black people. Thanks to neoliberalism, inequality has devolved to oppress more white people than ever before, so any solution must be inclusive. You can’t have one without the other. Not unless you restore the days of old and that’s not going to happen.

My initial response turned into a longer piece which I am still working on, I will post it soon as an OP. I'll let you know when I do, if you'd like.

[Bread and Circus]

14. I don't reject the concept of white privilege. It exists. But it is oft over-invoked and inaccurate

I never said it doesn't exist. We both agree it exists.

What I said and what I still feel it is an overused concept that is used as a rhetorical cudgel which displaces true debate and true understanding. I think it also minimizes the very real and painful, even deadly struggle that many white Americans face in this country.

Even Bernie got caught up in the concept when he said "white people don't know what it means to be poor" during a recent debate. He's took the "white privilege concept" to a laughable extreme.

Yes white privilege exists but how it manifests depends on the context, place, and situation where differences in treatment occur.

But even so, what does "white privilege" even mean? I am not sure really. It just seems to be a catch all phrase that means whatever a writer wants it to mean and that's the problem I have with it.

Many of your examples are examples of institutional racism, prejudice, and bigotry but you allude to them all as examples of "white privilege".

I love the discussion but to go further, I think a more defined definition of what "white privilege" really means would be helpful. And even if we define it, that doesn't really mean it's not used in myriad ways that are somewhat an abuse of the term.

[Rebkeh]

15. Some people are abusing it for political purposes, which is despicable

You're right, it does sometimes become diluted but the thing to remember is that it is more like a syndrome than a disease. It's a cluster of symptoms that bear a specific pattern, so its specificity does get stretched from time to time. But it is not so vague that it becomes meaningless, the pattern is distinct. When one group of people has such deep, widespread cultural and political advantage over another, it's impossible to narrow it down too tight and still maintain any meaning in other forms.

At its simplest expression, it is an imbalance of political and cultural power based solely on race, and race alone. You can get deeper into the weeds within individual applications but that's the common denominator. Contexts vary a lot but it's always that specific imbalance.

[Bread and Circus]

16. I don't view whites as "one group" though with the same...

Access to power, justice, and fairness in society.

To act like they they kind of do is the crux of this whole argument for me.

I literally have people walk miles to see me in my office for doctor visits because they can't afford a $1 "dial a ride" bus service. I often pay their fare out of my pocket.

To lump these people in with the Kochs or Jane Rich Soccer Mom from Posh Suburb, USA is like comparing ants to elephants.

[Rebkeh]

17. That's where context and degrees of privilege come in

It's messy because people are messy. It's complex but it's supposed to be complex, or dynamic, if you prefer. The distinctions may sometimes be vague, the definitions occasionally too loose for some, that doesn't make them any less relevant. It's simultaneously a general and specific concept.

It is, after all, a sociological term.

We won't overcome together if we try to micromanage every nuance to make the edges line up perfectly every time.

[Bread and Circus]

19. Another problem I have with "white privilege" as it is usually applied is that is it undisproveable.

For something to be considered scientifically valid, it has to be disprovable. That's why the existence of God is not part of science. You can't disprove he, she, or it exists.

White privilege in the way it is popularly used is somewhat similar in that once applied it is undisprovable.

Author A: You are arguing from a vantage point of white privilege.

Author B: No I am not.

Author A: You cannot understand that you are arguing from a vantage point of white privilege because of white privilege.

Author B: ...

There's just no way to refute it or disprove it. Just by being white, you have no ability to defend what you say because it is always tainted by the undisprovable belief that white privilege in inherent in the author.

It truncates true discussion instead of fostering it.

[Rebkeh]

21. Why does it have to be disprovable? Why must it be a "fact" in a formal sense at all?

It's not science, we are human beings, not machines.

It is, however, supported by evidence and plenty of it. Our word is, and should be, enough. There's nothing more to say. That we have to jump through hoops to prove it at all is the epitome of racism, actually.

We either overcome, or we don't. People want to make race and racism a thing of the past, good. And this is how you do it - on these terms. It's non-negotiable and it's not possible to get there comfortably. So, we all have to just do it.

The only way out is through.

The oppresor does not get to decide the terms - that would be oppressive, see?

And now I'm getting the feeling you really don't want answers or to understand, that you want to go in circles to avoid the work. So I'm just gonna leave it at that.

[eridani]

5. "Stockholm Syndrome" is based on a flat out wrong hypothesis

Namely that voters actually know candidates' positions and vote accordingly. They don't, and they don't. Regardless of race, creed, color, gender or orientation.

[HereSince1628]

7. I don't think that's true. I used that term soon after Rahm Emanuel's comments

about progressives being f'ing 'ret'ds with no place to go. If there is actually knowledge involved, it's knowledge of the political class that they can exploit brand loyalty openly argued on the notion that the devil you know is much better than the republican devil you believe to always to be worse.

Indeed, nothing in standard uses suggest Stockholm Syndrome involves rational decision making at all, it's about irrational and quite counter-intuitive emotional bonding of victims.

Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon first described in 1973 in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. 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.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly eight percent of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome

So, Stockholm Syndrome is a fairly common psychological adjustment response to the anxiety of being a hostage victim.

But, like all things psychological assigning it by long-distance amateur psychologists is obviously questionable. But isn't it a bit curious that in the bigoted exchanges between political camps on DU such attribution of mental disorders to opponents is very common and actually accepted by Duers in general and the site's Admin in particular ? Indeed in a DU email response to me asking for controlling stigmatizing language, Skinner wrote that the Admin thought a rule to ban using stigmatizing language about mental disorders would make 'discussion' impossible.

Stigmatizing language is accepted as pragmatic by the Admin in making conversation go, So, what's up with the outrage of the use of Stockholm Syndrome?

1) It's an excellent description of what's happened, and it because it's excellent it makes people uncomfortable, very uncomfortable about blind brand loyalty to the pro-corporate anti-labor big money dependent pro-professional politician caucus that dominates democratic politics. People say OUCH! when it's applied because in large part the truth hurts.

2) No one wants to be stereotyped. No one. So when it's applied people complain. Of course no one cares when the stereotyping is applied to unprotected groups such as the tea-party, or for that matter minor marginalized groups. But it is especially objected to when the stereotyping is applied to a protected group that everyone wants to shield from prejudice on DU. And imo that's what's happened with the use of the term "political Stockholm Syndrome". The use of a pretty good description of what's happened to the democratic base in general has become objectionable because it's use is linked to an application to African Americans. I missed the post that initiated the use of Stockholm Syndrome as racialized but that's now the zeitgeist. Like many perfectly good words that achieve the baggage of being racialized it's use has become highly objectionable.

If you turn the arguments about stereotyping on their head you'll see that Sanders doesn't enjoy any protection from gender and racial bias and has been regularly argued to be an icon of the privilege of white patriarchy. That's truly an unfair characterization of Sanders based on his life and dedication to social justice. But white patriarchy is an accepted enemy of many liberal causes, and Sanders is an old white man from a state with few minorities who is an opponent of the candidate widely pushed as aligned with all the racial and gender minorities. So the attacks stand with very very little objection even though they are hammering an inappropriate stereotype.

If you can achieve a perspective above the personal insults and pain, it can be seen that the conflict over this terminology occurs as a matter of within group social pressure that is trying to reconcile it's value as a useful descriptor and existing group beliefs. That process is always at work determining what is and what isn't acceptable within group speech.

The crux of the problem is really that the notion of who is within the group is under assault because of the primary contest. The within group of DU is near the point of breaking the links that might bring it back together. That the Sanders group members accept Stockholm Syndrome as an unusable term suggests the links that hold the group together remain, under stress but not yet broken

[Autumn]

8. Banning the use of the words Stockholm Syndrome would make the "discussion impossible" but

ban a long tern member for posting articles using it. Interesting

But, like all things psychological assigning it by long-distance amateur psychologists is obviously questionable. But isn't it a bit curious that in the bigoted exchanges between political camps on DU such attribution of mental disorders to opponents is very common and actually accepted by Duers in general and the site's Admin in particular ? Indeed in a DU email response to me asking for controlling stigmatizing language, Skinner wrote that the Admin thought a rule to ban using stigmatizing language about mental disorders would make 'discussion' impossible.

Stigmatizing language is accepted as pragmatic by the Admin in making conversation go, So, what's up with the outrage of the use of Stockholm Syndrome?

[HereSince1628]

9. I'm not sure you meant that to link to my reply, I never suggested banning words or people

I was one of the early users of the phrase Stockholm Syndrome on DU. I merely sought to explain how it became a contentious word, unusable in some places on DU.

[Autumn]

10. I didn't say you did. I found your email exchange with the admins to be interesting

I understand how and why it became a contentious word.

[HereSince1628]

11. Yes, using mentally disorders as adjectives is approved by the Admins

[Autumn]

12. Do you remember Patty Herst? That was a perfect example I think and the

first time I ever really heard the term.

[eridani]

18. You are talking about progressive activists, not typical voters

You have to do a lot of doorbelling and phonebanking to realize that. I was canvassing for a transportation bond issue, and one 3 for 3 voter told me she had thrown her ballot away because she didn't want to wast a stamp on just one issue. In an open city council primary, one guy told me thaqt he was skipping the primary because he didn't want to read up on nine candidates. He'd just wait for the general election so he would only have to read about two. People like that outnumber issue policy wonks by at least 100 to 1.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

6. Nuanced and refreshingly thoughtful. Thank you! n/t

[riderinthestorm]

20. Thank you for this! !