Post by Ealain on Jan 31, 2004 20:56:33 GMT -5
Started a discussion at FUS which is enjoying interested attention. So here it is here.....
This is incredible, folks. It is obvious that Ben Hurst's team of writers and concept artists truly delved into the human psyche and into the history of political and war trauma to create believable characters, each of whom reacting in a manner that is based richly in psychological studies. (Forgive me in advance, this is another of my philosophical/academic rants pertaining to psychology, which, were it not for art and creative writing, would have been my major in college )
Here are some excerpts from a book I am studying in my Psychopathology of Trauma class in college. it is by esteemed psychotherapist/psychiatrist Judith Herman, M.D. These are from her book Trauma and Recovery, and are found in the chapter "Captivity."
#1: "The perpetrator's first goal appears to be enslavement of his victim, and he accomplishes this goal by exercising despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life. But simple compliance rarely satisfies him; he appears to have a psychological need to justify hiscrimes, and for this he needs the victim's affirmation . . . George Orwell gives voice to the totalitarian mind in the novel 1984: 'We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When fnally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us, we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul.' "
Can we say ROBOTNIK?
If you aren't convinced, try this:
"Prisoners, even those who have successfully resisted, understand that under extreme duress, anyone can be 'broken.' They generally distinguish between two stages in this process. The first is reached when the victim relinquishes her inner autonomy, world view, moral principles, or connection with others for the sake of survival. There is a shutting down of feelings, thoughts, initiative, and judgment. The psychiatrist Henry Krystal, who works with survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, describes this state as ROBOTIZATION."
Dun dun DUUUUN!!!
#2 "Prisoners of conscience are well aware of the danger of ordinary human engagement with their captors. Of all prisoners, this group is most prepared to withstand the corrossive psychological effects of captivity. They have chosen a course in life with full knowledge of its dangers, they have a clear definition of their own principles, and they have a strong faith in their allies. . . . they protect themselves only by uncompromising refusal to enter into even the most superficial social relationships with their adversaries."
Can we say SONIC and SALLY?
#3 Now, let's contrast possible explanations for the psychological consequences of the trauma of Robotnik's Coup and reign on the FREEDOM FIGHTERS and on SNIVELY:
"In political prisoners who have not been entirely isolated, the malignant relationship with the perpetrator may be mitigated by attachments to people who share their fate. Those prisoners who have had the good fortune to bond with others know the generosity, courage, and devotion that people can muster in extremity. The capacity to form strong attachments is not destroyed even under the most diabolical conditions : prisoner friendships flourished even in the Nazi death camps."
And now: " In ISOLATED prisoners, however, where there is no opportunity to bond with peers, pair bonding may occur between victim and perpetrator, and the relationship may come tofeel like the 'basic unit of survival.' This is the 'traumatic bonding' that occurs in hostages, who come to view their captors as their saviors and to fear and hate their rescuers."
You tell me which is which, given those tidbits X^D Yeah, obviously Snively is the second instance. A bit of justification the next time someone feels like bashing him for being "weak" under the pressure of Robotnik's evil, while the FF's stayed strong in their moralconvictions: THEY HAD EACH OTHER, and a reference asdie the "perpetrator" (Robotnik) to love or hate as the sole indication of what other forms of humanity are. While there is an inherent socialization and comaradery, a strength, in certain prisoners of trauma (#2), it is proven statistically that 90% of the effect of trauma on a person depends on that *external* source of anguish--on its duration and intensity-- NOT on the internal character aspects of the person who undergoes the trauma. Everyone has a breaking point, no matter how valiant they are. It is neither good or bad, but simply human, to be horribly changed by an atrocity. This is both frightening and relieving at the same time, isn't it?
FASCINATING stuff, eh? Comments? Come on, let's think about these possible psychological explanations behind who these characters are in the backdrop of a war torn counry!
This is incredible, folks. It is obvious that Ben Hurst's team of writers and concept artists truly delved into the human psyche and into the history of political and war trauma to create believable characters, each of whom reacting in a manner that is based richly in psychological studies. (Forgive me in advance, this is another of my philosophical/academic rants pertaining to psychology, which, were it not for art and creative writing, would have been my major in college )
Here are some excerpts from a book I am studying in my Psychopathology of Trauma class in college. it is by esteemed psychotherapist/psychiatrist Judith Herman, M.D. These are from her book Trauma and Recovery, and are found in the chapter "Captivity."
#1: "The perpetrator's first goal appears to be enslavement of his victim, and he accomplishes this goal by exercising despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life. But simple compliance rarely satisfies him; he appears to have a psychological need to justify hiscrimes, and for this he needs the victim's affirmation . . . George Orwell gives voice to the totalitarian mind in the novel 1984: 'We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When fnally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us, we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul.' "
Can we say ROBOTNIK?
If you aren't convinced, try this:
"Prisoners, even those who have successfully resisted, understand that under extreme duress, anyone can be 'broken.' They generally distinguish between two stages in this process. The first is reached when the victim relinquishes her inner autonomy, world view, moral principles, or connection with others for the sake of survival. There is a shutting down of feelings, thoughts, initiative, and judgment. The psychiatrist Henry Krystal, who works with survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, describes this state as ROBOTIZATION."
Dun dun DUUUUN!!!
#2 "Prisoners of conscience are well aware of the danger of ordinary human engagement with their captors. Of all prisoners, this group is most prepared to withstand the corrossive psychological effects of captivity. They have chosen a course in life with full knowledge of its dangers, they have a clear definition of their own principles, and they have a strong faith in their allies. . . . they protect themselves only by uncompromising refusal to enter into even the most superficial social relationships with their adversaries."
Can we say SONIC and SALLY?
#3 Now, let's contrast possible explanations for the psychological consequences of the trauma of Robotnik's Coup and reign on the FREEDOM FIGHTERS and on SNIVELY:
"In political prisoners who have not been entirely isolated, the malignant relationship with the perpetrator may be mitigated by attachments to people who share their fate. Those prisoners who have had the good fortune to bond with others know the generosity, courage, and devotion that people can muster in extremity. The capacity to form strong attachments is not destroyed even under the most diabolical conditions : prisoner friendships flourished even in the Nazi death camps."
And now: " In ISOLATED prisoners, however, where there is no opportunity to bond with peers, pair bonding may occur between victim and perpetrator, and the relationship may come tofeel like the 'basic unit of survival.' This is the 'traumatic bonding' that occurs in hostages, who come to view their captors as their saviors and to fear and hate their rescuers."
You tell me which is which, given those tidbits X^D Yeah, obviously Snively is the second instance. A bit of justification the next time someone feels like bashing him for being "weak" under the pressure of Robotnik's evil, while the FF's stayed strong in their moralconvictions: THEY HAD EACH OTHER, and a reference asdie the "perpetrator" (Robotnik) to love or hate as the sole indication of what other forms of humanity are. While there is an inherent socialization and comaradery, a strength, in certain prisoners of trauma (#2), it is proven statistically that 90% of the effect of trauma on a person depends on that *external* source of anguish--on its duration and intensity-- NOT on the internal character aspects of the person who undergoes the trauma. Everyone has a breaking point, no matter how valiant they are. It is neither good or bad, but simply human, to be horribly changed by an atrocity. This is both frightening and relieving at the same time, isn't it?
FASCINATING stuff, eh? Comments? Come on, let's think about these possible psychological explanations behind who these characters are in the backdrop of a war torn counry!
