Once Upon a Time: Is Rumbelle a True Case of Stockholm Syndrome?

Since the premiere of episode twelve of season one of Once Upon a Time, many have been calling down curses on the heads of the writers for introducing a story and a relationship that generally garners a passionate reaction (and following) from viewers: Rumbelle. Supporters of the relationship claim that it demonstrates True Love, an overarching theme of the show (not so subtly reinforced throughout). Detractors decry the relationship as abusive and manipulative, and usually, though not always, pull out the Stockholm reference, citing the relationship as a "perfect tale" or example of the mental disorder ("Once Upon a Time: Stockholm Syndrome Alert" ColorTV).

Though the relationship between one of the show's most notorious villains and one of its heroes is not, of course, ideal or devoid of imponderables, some of the more serious allegations of Stockholm's Syndrome and the like seem misplaced at best. The more honest accusers admit that Once is not unique in inventing a tale that is an example of Stockholm (ColorTV), but that the source material (assumed in most cases to be de Villeneuve's or de Beaumont's version of Beauty and the Beast) is the real source of the problem. More about that in a later post; first, let's examine the allegations of Once's version of Beauty and the Beast being an example of Stockholm Syndrome.




Stockholm Syndrome is named for an event that occurred in Sweden in 1973 in which bank robbers held four employees captive for almost a week; after their release, the employees were found to sympathize with their captors to the point of hugging and kissing them ("A Brief History of Stockholm Syndrome" Time). Since then, many cases of assumed Stockholm Syndrome have been suggested, including those of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Natascha Kampusch. Though there is no current consensus on the exact diagnosis of Stockholm Syndrome, many of the cases cited as possibilities have the following things in common:

1. The victim is abducted or forcibly held hostage by the perpetrator, against his or her will (initially).
2. The victim is often (but not always) either physically, emotionally, or sexually abused, or witnesses some kind of negative behavior on the part of the captor.
3. When given the opportunity to escape, the victim often does not take it (this is not true of all cases).
4. When the captivity is over, the victim is found to sympathize with the captor, with varying degrees of affection or loyalty.

Discovery Health goes on to state that, in a case of Stockholm, the victim, "come[s] to identify with and even care for [his or her] captors, in a desperate, usually unconcious act of self-preservation.... and its effects usually do not end when the crisis ends...."("What Causes Stockholm Syndrome?"). The article suggests that similar symptoms can be found in slave/master relationships, domestic abuse between spouses, and amongst cults.

Such behavior, it should be noted, is generally the exception to the rule, as 73% of captives do not display any or all of these symptoms (Time).

What happens when we attempt to understand the Belle/Rumpelstiltskin relationship in light of Stockholm Syndrome? Well, in my opinion, we find a few bumps.

First, it should be noted that Belle, unlike the typical Stockholm victim, is not forcibly abducted, lured, or (explicitly) coerced into captivity by Rumpelstiltskin. Belle chooses to go with Rumpelstiltskin, and her choice is made knowingly; in fact, it has to be in order to be a true sacrifice - the kind that only a savior-figure (like Snow, Emma, and even Regina at times) can make. Some have argued that Rumpelstiltskin's deal with Belle (her family's lives at the hands of the ogres in exchange for her life's service as his personal maid) is enough to qualify her status as an unwilling or coerced victim; however, Belle's father and Gaston seem fairly sure that an alternate solution is available, even if Belle isn't, and as we learn from her later, the opportunity to do something brave was an event she had been waiting for. That anticipation and full acceptance and knowledge of the consequences of her actions negates much of the indication that this is a typical Stockholm victim-captor relationship.

Second, the nature of Belle's captivity and her attitude toward it and her captor are not at all typical of many cases labeled as Stockholm Syndrome. Unlike usual captives, Belle accepts her captivity with good grace, but without fearing her captor, consciously or unconsciously. She is often startled by him, or disgusted by his actions (usually voicing her disgust and displeasure), and even amused by him, but she is almost never afraid of him. She demonstrably disagrees with him, with his philosophy, with his very self, arguing over and over again that he needs to change, to conform to what she believes - this is the opposite of Stockholm, in which the victim generally sympathizes with the captor to the point of supporting his or her view or cause (take heiress Patty Hearst as an example). There is no wish to please or pacify him, or to go out of her way to agree with him. Many times throughout both the Enchanted Forest version of their story and the Storybrooke version, Belle acts in direct opposition to Rumpelstiltskin's expressed wishes, even challenging him in front of others.

Though she witnesses his many acts of cruelty (most, in classical fashion, kept offstage), Rumpelstiltskin does very little that I would constitute as abuse. He does require Belle to stay in a dungeon, though it is never implied that he locks her inside it any other night than the first (she is free to come and go by "Lacey" when she is still wearing her gold dress, indicating that this is fairly early in their "couple of months" long relationship).  He requires her to clean the castle, his clothing, and to prepare meals for him, seemingly without pay, but again, the payment was her family's safety, and the most we can say is that he treats her like a maid-of-all work. She clearly gets food and shelter (and books and pretty dresses). The victims of the original Stockholm incident, it should be noted, praised their captors for giving them these things (well, except for the books and pretty dresses), but Belle never thanks Rumpelstiltskin for anything (nor does she seem anything but dissatisfied with his treatment of her) until he saves her life. The most that we could suggest is abusive in their relationship (in the Enchanted Forest) is that Rumpelstiltskin often says unkind things to Belle. When she releases Robin Hood (who really has more qualifications, perhaps, to suffer from Stockholm than Belle does, torture not withstanding), he declares that he will make her watch Hood's death at her hands (manipulative guilt-tripping, admittedly), but this attempt to break her, if it is such an attempt, ends up in his changing his mind. Belle wins this encounter, as she tends to do.

Third, though within the cannon of the show (the aired material), Belle does not attempt to escape, this was apparently (source not found) one of the scenes that was cut from "Skin Deep." The fact that the writers considered her escaping seems to imply that they did not intend Belle to accept her fate unequivocally, which is in keeping with her characterization throughout most of the show. When offered the chance to run away, the character later admits that she fully intended to take Rumpelstiltskin up on the offer, but only changed her mind after (it is implied) she learned that she could change him.

Finally, and perhaps this is the strongest argument in favor of Once's Beauty and the Beast being an example of Stockholm, once Belle is released from captivity (forced to leave by Rumpelstiltskin), she inevitably becomes his champion to others and fights her way back to him. This does at first seem to have all the hallmarks of Stockholm Syndrome, but a closer examination of the whole shows that this judgment would be premature. When Belle leaves, she leaves her captivity completely at outs with her captor. She then goes to a bar (foreshadowing?) and drowns her sorrows, but she does not go back to him despite her feelings and her freedom to do so (she has flown in the face of his edicts many times before). In most cases of supposed Stockholm, it takes a long time for the victim to recover from the "brainwashing" effect (for lack of a better term) of captivity, and the victim attempts to stay with the captor despite all obstacles. After Rumpelstiltskin's coldness to her, Belle calls him a coward, details his emotional problems, and implies heavily that their relationship (or the one they might have had) is over. It is not until she has started her new life as a hero, coming off of unmitigated success won by her own two hands, that she thinks about returning and fighting for (with) Rumpelstiltskin. This hardly smacks of a woman under the influence of a psychologically traumatic bonding with her captor.

What Belle's experience as a captive most resembles, in fact, is the real case of Elizabeth Smart. Smart was abducted at the age of fourteen by a man named Brian Mitchell and held by him and an accomplice for nine months. According to Smart, he kidnapped her with the understanding that he would kill her family if she didn't come with him. Throughout her experience, Smart continued to resist her situation, frequently refusing to cooperate, though she was often threatened or forced to capitulate, and when she appeared at the trial she spoke clearly and articulately about her captor, describing him as, "smart, articulate, evil, wicked, manipulative, sneaky, slimy, selfish, greedy...." (The Salt Lake Tribune). She was cited as a hero by People's Magazine (well-deserved!).

This is not to say that real life hero, Elizabeth Smart, is fully comparable to a fictional character; the only point I want to make is that Belle's resistance to her captor/master's intentions (though most were not toward her) and her clear understanding of his dark character, coupled with her lack of fear, are closer, psychologically, to Smart's reactions to captivity than to Dugard's, Hearst's, or Kampusch's. This is also not to say that those women are not heroes, for they certainly are.

On the face of it, the misdiagnosis is understandable. However, a closer reading coupled with a more detailed comparison with real cases of abduction and captivity indicates that Rumpelstiltskin and Belle, whatever else they may be, are not the best example of a casebook Stockholm Syndrome. This doesn't mean, especially in light of parallels with Smart's case, that they are the best example of an ideal relationship either, of course, but perhaps Stockholm Syndrome ought not to be reckoned amongst their shortcomings.