On page 12 Douglass explains how slaves in America would sometimes fight with one another "each contending for the superior goodness of his own" master. This is certainly not a severe case of Stockholm's syndrome, but is similar enough for me to be reminded of it while reading.
At first, the thought of this idea surprised me. Why would the slaves defend the people responsible for their pain and suffering? I thought maybe because the enslaved people had such little personal identity that they began to use their masters as a part of their own identification, feeling that the "greatness of their masters was transferable to themselves" (12).
I soon realized that I really should not have been all that surprised with this form of identification. In fact, it is not so different from the way Americans identify themselves today. The things one belongs to whether it is a school, a town, a team...etc. becomes a big part of their identity. My peers like to take pride in and defend New Trier for an example, because it is what they belong to. Slaves will defend their masters, because they are who they belong to. Not that the Peculiar Institution and the Institution of New Trier is the most accurate comparison, but they are both used by a group of people to further identify themselves. Therefore, if one of them is being criticized, it is only natural to become defensive.
I actually had the same thought process when I was reading that passage as well. One thing I thought was interesting was that even in their poverty and enslavement, pride still had a lot of importance and value. If they had anything, it was pride. On page 12, Douglass also says it was "bad enough to be a slave, but to be a poor man's slave was deemed a disgrace indeed". They were all poor slaves, basically in the same boat, so they couldn't compare between each other. But, as you said, they identified themselves with their masters because it was the only thing they could identify with and that is how they retained their pride.
ReplyDeleteI think you and Kathleen both bring up valid points and quotes to support your theory, though I found quotes in Frederick Douglas that contradict the Stockholm Syndrome. On page eight Frederick Douglas says, "The competitors for this office sought diligently to please their overseers, as the office-seekers in the politcal parties seek to please and decieve the people" (8). Slaves did not "please their overseers" because of pride, but because Slaves knew it was advantageous to please and form good relationships with their masters in order to gain a higher position and be treated better.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the group you belong to has an influence on ones identity and actions. But I wonder if this influence depends upon on the degree of belonging one feels? Slaves may belong to their masters, but this kind of belonging is not the same as the feeling of belonging and pride students have for New Trier.