Personal responsibility vs power imbalance

[IrisAlthea]

I read about the case against Ghislaine Maxwell and about her defence being partly built on the idea that she was manipulated by Epstein.

Ever since Eve was accused of tempting Adam with the apple,” Maxwell’s attorney proclaimed, “women have been blamed for the bad behavior of men.” So her team will try to blame a man for the bad behavior of a woman — when really there is more than enough badness to go around for each of the accused, dead and alive, to take their share.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/30/elizabeth-holmes-ghislaine-maxwell-trial-feminism/

In Sweden Katarina Frostenson, poet and former member of the Swedish Academy, released her third book, since her husband Jean-Claude Arnault was convicted of rape, following a tumultuous #metoo scandal including the groping of amongst others Swedish Crown Princess Victoria.
In the wake of the scandal, a lot of discussion followed about Frostenson’s possible guilt in keeping quiet (as did just about everyone in cultural circles) and by power of her own status, giving Arnault access to circles and victims. On the other hand it was also pointed out that it was unfair that she would be brought down because of his actions.

TL;DR: So I started thinking about personal responsibility and how it is influenced by relationships and power imbalance.
Do you think there is a point where personal responsibility ends, because someone else is in power over you?
And since I took my time posting and Maxwell has been found mostly guilty, any thoughts about the case?

 

[wickedpanda]

Your in the car and the group your with robs a bank, your now part of a crime and your not going to the cops but going along with the group for decades and living well doesn't make you like a victim or very innocent.

[Removed content that violates Lit Forum Rules]

 

[Specula]

I read about the case against Ghislaine Maxwell and about her defence being partly built on the idea that she was manipulated by Epstein.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/30/elizabeth-holmes-ghislaine-maxwell-trial-feminism/

In Sweden Katarina Frostenson, poet and former member of the Swedish Academy, released her third book, since her husband Jean-Claude Arnault was convicted of rape, following a tumultuous #metoo scandal including the groping of amongst others Swedish Crown Princess Victoria.
In the wake of the scandal, a lot of discussion followed about Frostenson’s possible guilt in keeping quiet (as did just about everyone in cultural circles) and by power of her own status, giving Arnault access to circles and victims. On the other hand it was also pointed out that it was unfair that she would be brought down because of his actions.

TL;DR: So I started thinking about personal responsibility and how it is influenced by relationships and power imbalance.
Do you think there is a point where personal responsibility ends, because someone else is in power over you?
And since I took my time posting and Maxwell has been found mostly guilty, any thoughts about the case?

A military tribunal has decided that a deserter is to be executed by firing squad and you are chosen to be a member and take aim. You cannot be held responsible for the death.

 

[SissySalina]

Then what about?
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/patty-hearst-kidnapped

 

[IrisAlthea]

A military tribunal has decided that a deserter is to be executed by firing squad and you are chosen to be a member and take aim. You cannot be held responsible for the death.

Warcrime tribunals may have a different opinion.
Ask John Demjanjuk, Oskar Gröning and subsequent lower rank soldiers being sentenced for war crimes.
Following criminal orders can have consequences, meaning that you still have to make a decision to follow them and take personal responsibility for the choice you make.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Gröning

 

[IrisAlthea]

Then what about?
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/patty-hearst-kidnapped

Yes, she was convicted despite saying that she was brainwashed/had Stockholm syndrome. Not that she served much time, but that might be more about class…

There was a rather famous case here where a man killed a family over a bike. His girlfriend was convicted of complicity but only in assault and battery as it was found that she couldn’t have forseen nor stopped the murders.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Bergenström

 

[twister947]

Whistleblowers come to mind...they often pay a heavy price for speaking out; are those who stay silent complicit?

 

[IrisAlthea]

Whistleblowers come to mind...they often pay a heavy price for speaking out; are those who stay silent complicit?

Desmond Tutu thought so:

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

It’s not always about fear either. It can be about loyalty, gratitude, love…

It’s a very high standard to hold people to though.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yes, she was convicted despite saying that she was brainwashed/had Stockholm syndrome. Not that she served much time, but that might be more about class…

FWIW, "Stockholm syndrome" is a very murky diagnosis and it's not clear it's a real thing. Short backstory:

- Criminal attempted to rob a Swedish bank, things went badly, it turned into a week-long hostage situation.
- Authorities took an aggressive line in negotiations, with the Swedish Prime Minister telling one of the hostages (Kristin Enmark) "...you can’t get out of the bank. You will have to content yourself that you will have died at your post."
- After the police finally teargassed the bank and arrested the perp, Enmark was publicly critical of their response. In particular, she criticised Nils Bejerot, a psychiatrist involved in the police response.
- Bejerot responded by inventing a new mental condition and diagnosing her with it as a way of defusing her criticism.

From her side, it seems Enmark was simply pissed off at a gung-ho and callous police approach that could have cost her life, and she'd played nice with the robber for tactical reasons rather than because she'd formed any kind of attachment to him.

More detail: https://www.survivepersonalabuse.org/stockholm-syndrome-not-what-youve-been-told/

 

[Bramblethorn]

TL;DR: So I started thinking about personal responsibility and how it is influenced by relationships and power imbalance.
Do you think there is a point where personal responsibility ends, because someone else is in power over you?
And since I took my time posting and Maxwell has been found mostly guilty, any thoughts about the case?

I think there is a point at which power imbalance reduces personal responsibility (not sure about completely negating it). It's not clear to me that Ghislaine Maxwell was anywhere near that point, though.

 

[IrisAlthea]

FWIW, "Stockholm syndrome" is a very murky diagnosis and it's not clear it's a real thing. Short backstory:

- Criminal attempted to rob a Swedish bank, things went badly, it turned into a week-long hostage situation.
- Authorities took an aggressive line in negotiations, with the Swedish Prime Minister telling one of the hostages (Kristin Enmark) "...you can’t get out of the bank. You will have to content yourself that you will have died at your post."
- After the police finally teargassed the bank and arrested the perp, Enmark was publicly critical of their response. In particular, she criticised Nils Bejerot, a psychiatrist involved in the police response.
- Bejerot responded by inventing a new mental condition and diagnosing her with it as a way of defusing her criticism.

From her side, it seems Enmark was simply pissed off at a gung-ho and callous police approach that could have cost her life, and she'd played nice with the robber for tactical reasons rather than because she'd formed any kind of attachment to him.

More detail: https://www.survivepersonalabuse.org/stockholm-syndrome-not-what-youve-been-told/

I was to young when the Normalmstog drama happened to remember it, but it was discussed for a long time after. As you say, a big part of it seems to be about a reasonable idea of how to best survive and I think also a generational divide when it comes to the view of authority and personal sacrifice.

I think there is a point at which power imbalance reduces personal responsibility (not sure about completely negating it). It's not clear to me that Ghislaine Maxwell was anywhere near that point, though.

Yes, I think that’s where I’m landing too.
As for Ms Maxwell, I don’t really know her situation enough to call it. In the article I quoted, it was mentioned that Epstein stood by her when her father lost everything. From what I’ve seen with some distant relatives, some peoples loosing everything looks a lot as busines as usual for me and that is still affluent compared to others.
Her case and some other things I was reading just made me think about it and I think society sometimes tends to judge men more independently while women tend to be clumped together with others and sometimes smeared by proxy and other times not seen as fully responsible.

 

[EdwardsOtherSide]

Eric Hoffer's "The True Believers" talks about the followers desire to cede responsibility to a leader. The case could be made that Epstein was as much a cult leader as anything else.

Is a cult member responsible for their actions?

Personally, I say yes, but the point has been argued a lot.

 

[EdwardsOtherSide]

FWIW, "Stockholm syndrome" is a very murky diagnosis and it's not clear it's a real thing. ...UOTE]

Psychologists can quibble about the "real thing" all they want. Competent interrogators don't use torture, they turn Stockholm syndrome on it's ear.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff

 

[EdwardsOtherSide]

The "quibbling" is not nonsense. Why dismiss this? Psychologists aren't just sitting in armchairs writing down feelings. There are PsyDs doing research.

There is criticism in the field about whether Stockholm Syndrome can be an observable, singular phenomenon. Namnyak et al. (2008) states that the definition of the term has outgrown its specific use for kidnapping, and there is not much research on it. Specialists haven't come to a general consensus about Stockholm Syndrome, what it is, or how it works. It's not in any version of the DSM, so there are no clear and defined list of symptoms to diagnose Stockholm Syndrome.

Before you say, "why should there be," the same exists for plenty of well-researched mental disorders that many of us treat seriously. This includes PTSD which has been with us, our understanding of it changing, in different forms since the World Wars. The closest Stockholm Syndrome seems to come is some kind of PTS response or trauma bonding, but that doesn't require creating a new diagnosis for it.

And you bring up Scharff. So, exactly one interrogator as an example of this possibly existing? The description of his interrogation techniques, which have no direct citations on this Wikipedia article, don't necessarily convince me that Stockholm Syndrome is real.

1. Stockholm Syndrome is an undefined phenomenon usually invoked to describe a kidnapping, and the changing relationship between the victim and the captor.

2. This is not even close to that. This is a Luftwaffe interrogator. It's not a classic kidnapping, it's a World War. In kidnappings, victims are close to death at every second, especially depending on how young they are. In WWII, you could still be killed in captivity, but the stakes are different. And the fact that Scharff interacts with prisoners for reasons that are distinct from today's kidnappers... Using this one, MAYBE special case (IDK if it is even special, not a WWII historian not my field!), is not convincing.

Anyway, this conversation about Personal Responsibility v. Power Imbalance is interesting because that is a old, dusty conversation had among historians about WWII. Sometimes they can get pretty heated, depending on which historian you are talking to. And I won't explain why, since this isn't the Politics Board...

The behavior of transferring or transforming affliation is an observed, exploited pattern of behavior, whether by cult leaders or interrogators. How the PhDs want to categorize and dissect it doesn't change the body of proven technique.

The claim that Maxwell was "manipulated" or "brainwashed" by Epstein, so not responsible for her behavior is the issue. I, personally, don't accept the argument, and believe it is an attempt to make herself the victim rather than a willing accomplice.

(I bring up Scharff because the U.S. military's interrogation doctrine is largely based on his techniques, and the interrogators I have met are some freaks, and I strongly suspect closeted doms.)

((The student who inspired https://www.literotica.com/s/the-grading-scheme went on to become one of those interrogators; but damn, that is a convoluted story.))

 

[twister947]

Defense strategy...