Domestic Abuse: Are Victims A Part of the Problem?

The title itself seems offensive but as I learned from listening to the Radio Lab program on National Public Radio January 11 this is a very complicated topic where we like to have simple solutions.

Domestic violence is typically viewed as binary. Perpetrator. Victim. But the program on Saturday delved into something called “Stockholm Syndrome”. This incident involved a 1973 bank robbery in Sweden where, during their captivity, the hostages came to sympathize with their captors. The concept came to the attention of Americans a year later when a group of robber/terrorists, called the Symbionese Liberation Army captured a wealthy young woman named Patricia Hearst. Within a few weeks, Hearst joined her captors in robbing a bank and those who witnessed the robbery perceived that Hearst was a very willing participant in the event. The evolution of Hearst’s captivity is captured in a book by Jeffrey Toobin, American Heiress.

The NPR podcast then heads into the ticklish subject of why women who are abused by men either physically or emotionally remain in those relationships. Of course, abuse is committed by both men and women but while women do seem to be catching up statistically as perpetrators of violence, men still hold a commanding lead in that category.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the podcast was an interview with one of the female hostages of the Stockholm robbery. It turns out that her own recollection was that she acted in concert with her captors because she had decided failure to do so would not just risk her own life but those of her fellow captives. The suggestion here is that the fellow captives (who also seemed sympathetic to their captors) may have acted for the same reason; empathy for and protection of their fellow victims. The Hearst case is not helpful to this analysis because Patricia Hearst was taken alone.

A book I am currently reading offers another piece to the puzzle. In 1836 Caroline Norton was married to a magistrate in London. By all accounts she was talented, pretty and a descendant from a prominent theater family. Her mother arranged her marriage as was commonly done in early Victorian England and mom had not chosen wisely. While George Norton was a lawyer and from another relatively prominent family, the money was all in the hands of George’s brother. George and Caroline had three children under seven when George sued Britain’s prime minister, Lord Melbourne, alleging that Melbourne was “conversing” sexually with Caroline. Melbourne was acquitted but George was having none of that. He exercised his legal right to move away and take all three children. Caroline saw them very little and only for a few hours at a time for the next several years because in England and pre- civil war America a father had exclusive rights to his children unless he chose to let their mother see them. For several years, George Norton dangled access to the then young boys as bait to get his estranged spouse to do his bidding; whether it related to property, support or reconciliation. He would promise a visit only to have the children fail to appear. What emerges is a picture of a woman driven to distraction by the inconsistency and maliciousness of her husband’s conduct. What also seems clear is that her beauty and wit brought her to the attention of not just the prime minister but a variety of other men. Indeed, the correspondence shows Caroline Norton was infatuated with Lord Melbourne and intrigued by others. But she remained married to George Norton in a day when divorce required an act of Parliament and George Norton was none to pleased that his violent ways had been exposed and his half hearted proposals of reconciliation were not accepted. Meanwhile he was aware that his wife was still attracting the attention of men.

Children seem to be the “binder” that hold dysfunctional families together despite some disturbing conduct.  Often the attorney is told: “I am treated miserably but he loves the kids.” These clients miss the risk that their kids will see violence as a normal response to frustration.  There are also people whose low self-esteem allows them to tolerate bad behavior. Another factor not often discussed is the economic impact of an arrest or finding of physical assault. If the person charged is a health care professional or is involved professionally with children (e.g., teacher, coach)  that person may be terminated or suspended from employment. That can hurtle the entire family including the victim into a state of financial chaos.

This is a topic where the best advice is to take the conversation to a counselor. But, in the meantime, there is much to learn from: How Stockholm Stuck. The story of Caroline Norton is told in Diane Atkinson’s The Criminal Conversation of Mrs. Norton and more recently Antonia Fraser’s The Case of the Married Woman.  Caroline Norton changed Britain’s child custody laws just as her friend, actress Fanny Kemble contributed to that change in America. The lesson here is that even pioneering women are conflicted about their rights to live in a peaceful world.