The Stark Sisters II - an anlyses of survival reflexes

[sweetsunray]

I've already posted an analyses of the family dynamics between the Stark sisters Sansa and Arya and other characters that heavily influence how they relate to one another.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/127160-the-stark-sisters-an-analyses-of-family-dynamics/

This analyses is about how both of them deal with danger and traumatic events. Both sisters are seperated from the moment the true horror show for the Starks begins and it shows two complete fundamental ways in dealing with threats and trauma. However, these survival responses are already shown to us in a few ways in aGoT when they are still together.

You are probably acquainted with the term instinctive fight-flight response. We can easily see it in animals, but also in humans when they perceive a threat (imagined or not, emotional, mental or physical). There are actually not just two instinctive responses, but four: Fight, Flight, Freeze and Fawn. The first three are self explanatory: "I fight back", "Time to run!" and "I'll play dead." A fawn response is the "I'll please the other."

None of the four Fs is intrinsically better than the other one. It all depends on the circumstances and situation which of the four are to be preferred. If someone is holding a dagger against your throat, from behind and demands your wallet, then a physical "freeze" response (not moving) followed by a "fawn" response (surrendering the wallet) is your best option. If you are being followed by someone in an alley, a confrontational "fight" response by walking deliberately towards them and shouting in anger might make the other freeze long enough in surprise that you then have the opportunity to "flee". While healthy individuals may naturally prefer one of these four over the others, they are flexible in their choice of F-response, depending on the situation as outlined above. But people who've been traumatized or abused tend to become fixated on one or two of the possible 4Fs. As a result they cannot choose the most appropriate F anymore in a future threat or traumatizng event.

Early on already from both first chapters of Arya and Sansa in aGoT we can already see that they have developed an almost automatic F-choice when dealing with problems, threats, and painful events. At 9 years old, Arya is already has a fight-flight preference: she deals with pain and bullying by shouting, pushing and then running off and she avoids situations where similar confrontations can occur (not riding with the Queen and Myrcella, not going to the Hand's Tournament). At 11 Sansa already almost exclusively responds with the Fawn response: she's a people pleaser, doing whatever someone else with power asks of her, speaking softly, moving gently. And when she's put on the spot, like when she has to tell the truth of what happened between Arya and Joffrey at the Trident, she Freezes. So, Arya: Fight-Flight (in that order) and Sansa: Freeze-Fawn (in that order). From the first analyses, I posited that most issues for both girls have been caused by Septa Mordane's treatment and rearing.

We can group FIght-Flight and Freeze-Fawn in two major divisions along Leary's interaction circle (yup, the famous Leary). Leary posited certain interaction laws and interaction behaviour along a circle divided in 4 major quandrants. You may be familiar with it as an interaction circle with 8 different type of animals, often used in kindergartens, where there's a Lion on the right-top, and a turtle in the bottom left. The circle is divived in top-down behaviour and left-right behaviour. Top behaviour is dominant behaviour, and any type of behaviour that requires an individual to take initiative or comes up with ideas of their own and suggests them. Bottom behaviour is follower behaviour, which means any behaviour where the individual goes along or followes the initiative of someone else. Meanwhile the right half of the circle is we-behaviour, that is behaviour aimed to unite and empathize. The left half is antagonistic behaviour, that is behaviour to reject the other or oppose them.

Examples:

Top-we: someone who proposes an idea for a group of people (if they are only two) and decides how to accomplish it. This is the behaviour of a "leader" (even if temporarily). They take initiative in the interest of both people. Arya inviting Sansa to go riding with her one day is an example of such Top-we behaviour.

We-top: someone who suggests ideas (initiative taking) to help the group/other person. This is called "helper" behaviour. Arya shows this behaviour when she voluntarily apologizes and suggests all kinds of ways to make amends with Sansa for ruining her dress.

We-down: someone who agrees with the ideas and asks for help. This is called "cooperative" behaviour. Sansa is cooperative in the needlework scene, when she reveals what they (Sansa, Jeyne and Beth) were talking about and when she asks for Arya's opinion about Joffrey. Sansa asks for help when she shouts at Joffrey and Arya to stop fighting so that her day isn't ruined. She's trying to make them get along by demanding they help her.

Down-we: someone who agrees with the ideas and does what they've been asked to do or told. This is called "follower" behaviour. Sansa's told to write a letter to Robb and she does it, fully believing it will help her father and her brother and herself.

Down-antagonistic: someone who does not agree but unwilling to reveal it, and so will say they agree and do what they've been told. They may act against you behind your back, without you ever knowing it. This is called "reclusive" behaviour, or what I personally refer to as the "mine" (you don't know you stepped or hit one when it's too late and it blows right up in your face). Sansa's told to fetch Arya by the Septa and to instruct her what to wear, even though she has little faith in succeeding. Sansa sneaks out and informs the queen of Ned's plans to evacuate them to WF, without Ned ever knowing it.

Antagonistic-down: someone who does not agree or is distrustful, but does not feel they are in a position to openly say "no", but will let you know what they think through barbed comments and via snipes, aka passive agressive (rebellious) behaviour of a sceptic/critic. Sansa's negative responses towards Arya's proposals to make ammends for the ruined dress, or telling Joffrey that perhaps Robb will bring her his head.

Antagonistic-up: someone who is openly aggressive and fights. This is "attacking" behaviour. Arya uses her stick to hit Joffrey to stop him from hurting Mycah. Arya calling Sansa a liar and flinging an orange at her. Sansa calling Arya horrible and screaming they should have killed Arya instead of Lady.

Up-antagonistic: someone who disagrees and suggests alternatives. This is "competitive" behaviour.

http://www.testjegedrag.nl/tjg/zelftest/engels/figaenb.gif

It should be clear that in one situation two people can move around the circle a lot, certainly across many situations. When people are stuck in a certain quadrant it's pathological behaviour (which is not important here). Now Leary's laws about the interaction circle states that

1. UP behaviour will always cause DOWN behaviour in the other. If someone shouts at you in your face, you'll instinctively cower if only for a moment. This works vice versa too: DOWN behavoiur will always cause an UP response. If someone asks help, the natural impulse is to suggest solutions.

2. WE behavioiur will cause WE behaviour with the other (althoug it may require a lot of it, with time and patience). And ANTAGONISTIC behaviour will cause ANTAGONISTIC behaviour.

Ok, so far for the theory. But it should be clear that Arya's Fight-Flight response belongs in the Dominant half of the circle (left and right), whereas Sansa's Freeze-Fawn response belongs in the non-dominant half of the circle (left and right). In other words, Arya's responses and behaviour mostly involve her taking initiative, whereas Sansa's involve her doing what others tell her to do.

Arya's impulses and initiative taking has as a downside that she often gets into conflict and people think badly of her, which harms her self-image, but it is to her very advantage when she has to survive. Against all odds, she manages to avoid being taken captive at KL, to flee from the battle where Jory is killed, to survive Harrenhall, to free it from the Lannisters and then to flee Roose Bolton, etc, until she actually escapes Westeros altogether and gets to Braavos. Of course, she does not manage to do this all by herself, but she regularly takes initiative and recruits others to help her.

Sansa's impulses and following has as an upside that she can minimize conflict and altogether is seen as a "good girl". It helps her survive in the way that she avoids getting killed. But on the downside it makes her overall dependent on the goodwill of others and in a way keeps her a captive throughout the books. She gets help, but she does not take initiative to recruit it. And even mistrusts it when it's offered.

Arya's fight-flight versus Sansa's freeze-fawn preference also has a deep impact on their emotional life. Which of the 4 Fs someone will end up doing in a particular situation relies heavily on two emotional components: the amount of emotional self-regulation for one, and the emotional reactivity (intensity). The stronger emotions are felt and the less emotions are self-regulated, the more chance for either fight or flight response. The less emotions are felt and the more emotions are self-regulated, the more chance there is for someone to freeze or fawn.

The process model of emotions is as follows:

1. situation that is emotional relevant

2. attention is directed towards the situation

3. appraisal of the situation through evaluation and interpretation

4. emotional response (which can alter the situation and we go through the loop again)

Each of these 4 can be regulated by

1. Situation selection: avoiding or disengaging from a situation increases the chance of avoiding to feel an emotion altogether; engaging or approaching a situation increases the chances of having an emotional reaction. We often witness Sansa doing the first, and Arya doing the latter.

2. Situation modification: to alter the external, physical environment, by making a joke to make others laugh or physically stepping away from someone to create a physical distance. This will change the emotional impact of the situation. We regularly see Arya attempting to modify the situation.

3. Attentional deployment: this involves direction attention away or towards a situation. Arya for example crawls on Baelor to see better and when everything goes wrong, she physically moves towards her father about to beheaded. It is here that Jory steps in and forces Arya to a standstill and prevents her from seeing what she shouldn't see. Arya also often ruminates the situations over and over, recalling the memories of it, which leads to her list, until she does it every night like a prayer. This only aggrevates her emotions about it. Meanwhile Sansa is forced to see the heads on a spike, but tells herself Joffrey can't make her see it (suppression) or her mind is focused on clothing and dresses on her wedding night with Tyrion (distraction). Both choices help her avoid feeling the emotions. Ruminating, suppression and distraction are maladaptive attention deployment actions: they either prevent someone from processing the emotion they have by not having them felt and so they will need to be dealt with later (causing PTSD) or they make someone cling to the emotion and in that way prevents them from moving on.

4. Cognitive change: to alter the internal appraisal of the situation and therefore alter its emotional meaning. Sansa does this a lot. We see her do this the first time during the Hand's Tournament when Ser Hugh gets killed by the Mountain. She alters the emotional meaning of what she witnesses by thinking of songs and how people won't sing songs of him. Sansa regularly reduces the meaning of events (positive and negative) to songs and stories. This is a form of reappraisal (big picture thinking) and distancing (3rd person thinking), and though often regarded as adaptive, the way Sansa uses it is maladaptive, because she puts it way too much in perspective.

5. Response modulation: Sansa modulates her response when she does feel emotion by suppressing her responses (she hides it, wears her lady behaviour as an armour), which is maladaptive. Arya modulates her emotional responses with physical activity (going riding, training with Mycah, dance lessons with Syrio), which is adaptive and helps her reduce emotional distress as well as improve her emotional control enough to step up the plate and apologize and attempt to make ammends.

From all this we can conclude that Arya is in every way very much in touch with her emotions, that she takes all the necessary initiative to not just survive but to get to safety. Syrio has been of great help in making her aware that sometimes flight is altogether safer and better than fighting, and she often uses his words as a reminder to choose which of the two is best in a given situation. Her sole maladaptive tactic is ruminating. I know that many regard her as being on a monstrous path. But the combination of staying in touch with her emotions, her physical activity and her initiative taking is exactly what prevents her from ever losing her identity. It also suggests that towards the future she will come out of it in a manner that actually little of her traumatic experiences still need to be processed.

It is an altogether different story for Sansa. While she seems so admirable in the way she copes with her ordeals, most of her tactics prevent her from actively escaping her captors and tormentors and are maladaptive when it comes to processing emotions. It's not because you avoid feeling emotions, that the emotions aren't there. And you can't process an emotion, without ever feeling it. So Sansa has a huge load of processing to do for the future. I know some think she might become a queen or leader who takes revenge and who can manipulates, but as the above analyses shows, Sansa has to learn to take initiative, something she is not inclined to do at all before all the horrors befall her. Worse, she has been deeply ingrained by Septa Mordan to do the opposite. But she's learning this, step by little step, by suggesting ideas to LF in the Eyrie. She has grown stronger, but she's a far cry from being anything close to a leader, after she manages to deal with the massive PTSD she'll have to work through if she manages to survive.

[Mladen]

I truly wish to read more of these analyses once author includes something other than AGOT in the work. Basically, the problem is that the author judged Sansa and Arya on AGOT, and is completely lacking any sort of analytic thinking regarding other novels. Overall, while these analyses might work for AGOT, we passed that book long time ago.The analysis, in this case, is completely missing the growing of Arya where she doesn't just run away and where she waits, observes and acts upon the information she has.

Furthermore, even though I am one of those who used animal behavioral patterns as the basis of the analytic observation of the characters, the problem here is that author doesn't modify the behavioral patterns to humans. Humans, as intelligent beings, acts differently from animals from one simple reason - brain. So, even though we can talk about these reactions as types of responses to danger, necessary modification is needed for this analysis to make some sense. After all, both Arya and Sansa are girls, human beings, not she-wolves or whatever animal we talk about here.

Lastly, we all like different things and find different things better. Author of this piece clearly thinks that "Arya's way" is better. The one problem is that Martin kinda disagrees. We are aware that if there weren't for Syrio and Yoren, she would have been caught by Lannisters, just as with Brotherhood, we see two escapes, and only one was successful solely because of Hound. So, fight-fight, even though author thinks is the better way, is something Arya leaned to control and actually acts appropriately to situation.

[sweetsunray]

I truly wish to read more of these analyses once author includes something other than AGOT in the work. Basically, the problem is that the author judged Sansa and Arya on AGOT, and is completely lacking any sort of analytic thinking regarding other novels. Overall, while these analyses might work for AGOT, we passed that book long time ago.The analysis, in this case, is completely missing the growing of Arya where she doesn't just run away and where she waits, observes and acts upon the information she has.

Furthermore, even though I am one of those who used animal behavioral patterns as the basis of the analytic observation of the characters, the problem here is that author doesn't modify the behavioral patterns to humans. Humans, as intelligent beings, acts differently from animals from one simple reason - brain. So, even though we can talk about these reactions as types of responses to danger, necessary modification is needed for this analysis to make some sense. After all, both Arya and Sansa are girls, human beings, not she-wolves or whatever animal we talk about here.

Lastly, we all like different things and find different things better. Author of this piece clearly thinks that "Arya's way" is better. The one problem is that Martin kinda disagrees. We are aware that if there weren't for Syrio and Yoren, she would have been caught by Lannisters, just as with Brotherhood, we see two escapes, and only one was successful solely because of Hound. So, fight-fight, even though author thinks is the better way, is something Arya leaned to control and actually acts appropriately to situation.

Actually I mentioned some examples of later books or referred to them. But I guess since you didn't read it (well enough). I picked out the aGoT examples because they are pre-horror to analyse where they were at the start in comparison to later on (and see what new tactics they've incorporated).

As for your last point, I did not claim that Arya did it without help, but instead she very much did it with help. And Syrio and Yoren forced the help on her and prevented her from her fight response (going to the situation). Syrio gives her an opportunity to escape, but it are her choices and her fight response with the boy in the stable that eventually makes her escape from the red keep succesfull. What is her advantage in survival towards Sansa is her ability to be pro-active. Sure, she gets caught again several times by others. She's traveling through a war-thorn countryside where neither foe nor ally is a friend. Besides she's a kid. Still, it's not a miracle she managed to get from KL to Braavos, because she quickly adapts to every new situation and thinks and acts pro-actively time and time again. And yes, I consider most of Arya's survival tactics better and well adaptive in comparison to Sansa's. I don't blame Sansa for it, or even think badly of her because of it. But

suggesting a few things to LF to organize

isn't enough for me to conclude she can lead, let alone manage to get herself to safety. It's a beginning, a very welcome beginning, but she's far from there yet.

As for animals versus humans... humans are biologically animals, smart animals, cognitive animals, I'll give you that. But the fight-flight-freeze-fawn responses are regulated by the instinctual brain part as well as the cognitive part. Our whole physiological respnse alters under stress and threat, preparing for either 4 responses. Leary's rose has nothing to do with animals at all. It's pure human interrelation sociological theory. Same goes for emotional processing. We have no idea how animals process their emotions. So, your critique is so off the charts it's ridiculous.

[Mladen]

Actually I mentioned some examples of later books or referred to them. But I guess since you didn't read it (well enough). I picked out the aGoT examples because they are pre-horror to analyse where they were at the start in comparison to later on (and see what new tactics they've incorporated).

I did read them but they don't actually contribute to what the main thesis is. I usually tend to read very carefully posts I respond to and I would appreciate if you wouldn't turn my counter-arguments into "you didn't read" whenever there is lack of arguments in question. You are free to pick whatever you want, but then be clear about what you actually analyze. Basically, this is not an analysis of Stark sisters, this is analysis of Stark sisters at_certain_point_of_their_lives.

As for your last point, I did not claim that Arya did it without help, but instead she very much did it with help. And Syrio and Yoren forced the help on her and prevented her from her fight response (going to the situation). What is her advantage in survival towards Sansa is her ability to be pro-active. And yes, I consider most of Arya's survival tactics better and well adaptive in comparison to Sansa's. I don't blame Sansa for it, or even think badly of her because of it. But suggesting a few things to LF to organize isn't enough for me to conclude she can lead. It's a beginning, a very welcome beginning, but she's far from there yet.

Please be more careful with spoilers. There are those who simply don't want to read about unpublished materials.

Sansa is pro-active person. Having bad instincts or being in love doesn't negate that. Sansa did go to Cersei. Passive person would obey to father and never actually "fight" for whatever she feels is OK. Sansa was pro-active in saving Dontos, when no one asked her, manipulating Joffrey to be a bit merciful to his subjects, she was pro-active when she calmed the women of the court during Blackwater battle. She was proactive in telling Margaery and Olenna the truth, choosing to accept Dontos' help. Sansa was proactive, she just didn't run around with the sword. Apparently, something you need to be considered a proactive person.

The real question is whether person, who according to you, reacts "fight-fight", which, in translation is, acting without thinking can actually be a ruler? I am sorry, but if your argument is that Sansa can't be a ruler, then what you say or argue about Arya makes her even less desirable choice.

[BitsOfBrains]

Pretty sound analysis.

This is pretty much what my inarticulate self means when I say Sansa is a traitorous disloyal stupid catty little girl and Arya is a brave strong little girl.

[sweetsunray]

I did read them but they don't actually contribute to what the main thesis is. I usually tend to read very carefully posts I respond to and I would appreciate if you wouldn't turn my counter-arguments into "you didn't read" whenever there is lack of arguments in question. You are free to pick whatever you want, but then be clear about what you actually analyze. Basically, this is not an analysis of Stark sisters, this is analysis of Stark sisters at_certain_point_of_their_lives.

Please be more careful with spoilers. There are those who simply don't want to read about unpublished materials.

Sansa is pro-active person. Having bad instincts or being in love doesn't negate that. Sansa did go to Cersei. Passive person would obey to father and never actually "fight" for whatever she feels is OK. Sansa was pro-active in saving Dontos, when no one asked her, manipulating Joffrey to be a bit merciful to his subjects, she was pro-active when she calmed the women of the court during Blackwater battle. She was proactive in telling Margaery and Olenna the truth, choosing to accept Dontos' help. Sansa was proactive, she just didn't run around with the sword. Apparently, something you need to be considered a proactive person.

The real question is whether person, who according to you, reacts "fight-fight", which, in translation is, acting without thinking can actually be a ruler? I am sorry, but if your argument is that Sansa can't be a ruler, then what you say or argue about Arya makes her even less desirable choice.

Sansa informing the queen is a reclusive response, because she avoids open opposition to Ned about it. (it's landmine behaviour). She does try to change Ned's mind, but that too she does from a down position, the please-help-me position. That's not pro-active at all. It's avoidance and dependent behaviour. And her father is not the enemy. Heck, she even knows Cersei is bad news, because in the beginning at the Red Keep, she expresses Cersei as one of those to blame for the loss of Lady (in defense of Joff).

Yes, she manages to take initiative occasionally for others. Dontos is one such great example, I agree. She takes initiative too when she pleads for mercy for her father (however that too is from the cooperative position- asking for help). I did not claim that Sansa was always passive. But it's the position where she attempts to have effect the most often. She gives power away that way and it keeps those who dominate her in the dominating position. But with Margaery and Olenna she's not pro-active: her thoughts show nothing but fawn-thinking (pleasing them, flattering them, trying to say the right thing), and Olenna must almost practically drag Sansa's opinion abotu Joff our of her. How's that pro-active? Not. It are Margaery and Olenna who are the pro-active ones in aSoS.

Arya's response even from the get go is not fight-fight alone. It's fight-flight. More, in her first scene she first tries to "flee" the needlework class, but the Septa confronts her, until eventually she gives a "fight" response. Meanwhile aCoK shows often enough how she contemplates the choice between either two. More often than not she chooses "flight" over "fight". And yes, Syrio taught her that. And it's got nothing to do with holding a sword. What an over-simplification!

[Mladen]

Yes, she manages to take initiative occasionally for others. Dontos is one such great example, I agree. She takes initiative too when she pleads for mercy for her father (however that too is from the cooperative position- asking for help). I did not claim that Sansa was always passive. But it's the position where she attempts to have effect the most often. She gives power away that way and it keeps those who dominate her in the dominating position.

In all those situations, Sansa holds no power to actually give away. She is proactive by begging for her father's life. That is all she can do. What else could she have done? No, seriously, these pieces of analysis never actually go that deep. Ned proactively protected Jon by lying, and he admitted guilt to save Sansa. Ned gave away his power to protect those he loved and even that was proactive. A powerless girl doing what she can, even begging, is proactive by definition.

Arya's response even from the get go is not fight-fight alone. It's fight-flight. More, in her first scene she first tries to "flee" the needlework class, but the Septa confronts her, until eventually she gives a "fight" response. Meanwhile aCoK shows often enough how she contemplates the choice between either two. More often than not she chooses "flight" over "fight". And yes, Syrio taught her that. And it's got nothing to do with holding a sword. What an over-simplification!

Yes, you oversimplified Arya to basically animalistic level. She is someone who is able to think, she had the thought process about everything. Just like people say Cat was emotional. No, she wasn't. She was just quickly deciding. And such is Arya. She is able to make quick decisions based on her observations. So, it is not fight/flight, she outgrew that couple of books ago.

[sweetsunray]

Yes, you oversimplified Arya to basically animalistic level. She is someone who is able to think, she had the thought process about everything. Just like people say Cat was emotional. No, she wasn't. She was just quickly deciding. And such is Arya. She is able to make quick decisions based on her observations. So, it is not fight/flight, she outgrew that couple of books ago.

No, I didn't oversimplify, you interpreted it in too simple a meaning. You regard fight/flight from a pure instinctive meaning alone, and I never meant it like that. While that is a part of it, humans can still hold that reflex and think about it and then go with the best choice. The fawning alone is more than instinctive. Pathological freezing and fawning requires cognitive maladaptions beyond the instinctive.

[Mladen]

No, I didn't oversimplify, you interpreted it in too simple a meaning.

Well, it is just my opinion. :)

[sweetsunray]

In all those situations, Sansa holds no power to actually give away. She is proactive by begging for her father's life. That is all she can do. What else could she have done? No, seriously, these pieces of analysis never actually go that deep. Ned proactively protected Jon by lying, and he admitted guilt to save Sansa. Ned gave away his power to protect those he loved and even that was proactive. A powerless girl doing what she can, even begging, is proactive by definition.

Proactive = Proactive behavior involves acting in advance of a future situation, rather than just reacting. It means taking control and making things happen rather than just adjusting to a situation or waiting for something to happen.

Being invited to a supper and having Olenna demand Sansa to finally tell the truth about Joffrey is not pro-active from Sansa. It's Olenna who takes control and makes thing happen, including the wedding proposal.

[sweetsunray]

Also, I disagree with the claim that Sansa is in a powerless situation and she has no other option. Up behaviour causes down behaviour, down behaviouir causes up behaviour. People dominate her, because for a big part they know they can, because she'll let them. This is the image she actively seeks to project: "i'm a good girl, I won't do anything to upset you, I'll do whatever you ask me to do." That behaviour just reinforces the belief she can be trampled all over. It's tiwsted, but it's interrelation 101. I know she doesn't realize it, that her own meek fawning is what makes others think they have a license to abuse her, and I can't even fault her that (the Septa instilled that belief in her, and the responses by others whenever she did dare to show more dominant behaviour curbed any of it). But she isn't as self-helpless as she believes (and you believe) she is.

[Mladen]

Also, I disagree with the claim that Sansa is in a powerless situation and she has no other option. Up behaviour causes down behaviour, down behaviouir causes up behaviour. People dominate her, because for a big part they know they can, because she'll let them. This is the image she actively seeks to project: "i'm a good girl, I won't do anything to upset you, I'll do whatever you ask me to do." That behaviour just reinforces the belief she can be trampled all over. It's tiwsted, but it's interrelation 101. I know she doesn't realize it, that her own meek fawning is what makes others think they have a license to abuse her, and I can't even fault her that (the Septa instilled that belief in her, and the responses by others whenever she did dare to show more dominant behaviour curbed any of it). But she isn't as self-helpless as she believes (and you believe) she is.

LOL, this is basically victim blaming 1.01. Needless to say, I find rather repulsive blaming or putting responsibility on the abused person for the abuse happening.

[sweetsunray]

LOL, this is basically victim blaming 1.01. Needless to say, I find rather repulsive blaming or putting responsibility on the abused person for the abuse happening.

No, actually I'm not victim blaming Sansa. She is not responsible for the actions of others. That is on her abusers as well as her helpers. Sansa acting almost constantly from a down position does not actually give others license to abuse her, even though those who dominate her think she does. After all, she is asking for help and pleasing them and doing as told. They have no excuse whatsoever to abuse her. But she has way more agency than she believes she does. She is the sole Stark hostage and leverage the Lannisters have against Robb. She is valuable. Sansa does not ever seem to realize this. Nor do you. Do not confuse Sansa's belief as being helpless in her position as fact. Her value gives her way more freedom to move around Leeary's circle than she actually believes.

On top of that, I don't even blame Sansa for this belief of helplesness. Joff and Cersei certainly wish to make her keep that belief and act to preserve that belief. And Septa Mordane instilled it in her in the first place. Sansa has had no one to teach her any other survival tactic other than fawning and freezing. At least Arya had Syrio to broaden her survival tactic spectrum. Sansa had no Syrio equivalent. Her survival wings were mentally clipped from the start. She's been trained into fawn behaviour from the start (often judged as co-dependent, which is a word I hate, because that does tend to make people think the fawn type is equally responsible as the abuser). It's this training that made her an easy victim for Joffrey and Cersei. And the trauma of that abuse, sadly enough, would reinforce the fawn survival tactic, and make it even harder on her to acquire assertivity. Instead it is very likely that she remains highly dependent for the rest of her life. And none of that is her fault.

It's quite possible that GRRM thinks that Arya is on a more unsalvageable path than Sansa, but the maladaptive tactics and the powerlesness that Sansa believes in and slips into almost automatically, makes her psychologically the perpetual victim. Sansa would need years of modern therapy to recover from that. Arya much less so.

[Colonel Green]

But she has way more agency than she believes she does. She is the sole Stark hostage and leverage the Lannisters have against Robb. She is valuable. Sansa does not ever seem to realize this. Nor do you. Do not confuse Sansa's belief as being helpless in her position as fact. Her value gives her way more freedom to move around Leeary's circle than she actually believes.

Um, no. Being a hostage does not give her "agency". The Lannisters merely need to have physical possession of her to get all the "leverage" they need, which they have. She has no cards whatsoever there.

I know she doesn't realize it, that her own meek fawning is what makes others think they have a license to abuse her,

This is the definition of victim-blaming, and it's complete nonsense besides. Joffrey and Cersei know they have a license to abuse her because they have complete physical control over her and there's nothing she can do to stop them.

[sweetsunray]

Um, no. Being a hostage does not give her "agency". The Lannisters merely need to have physical possession of her to get all the "leverage" they need, which they have. She has no cards whatsoever there.

This is the definition of victim-blaming, and it's complete nonsense besides. Joffrey and Cersei know they have a license to abuse her because they have complete physical control over her and there's nothing she can do to stop them.

Not with Jaime being a hostage of Robb and a whole bunch of other Lannisters. The Lannisters have precious little leverage in comparison. They have one hostage, and a girl at that. Abusing her is actually very risky. Robb is in a position to almost cut down the whole male line of Lannister heirs of almost every keep of the Westerlands.

Making an observation about psychological interactions is not the same as identifying causation.

[FireAndBlood.]

No, actually I'm not victim blaming Sansa.

How is this not victim-blaming?

People dominate her, because for a big part they know they can, because she'll let them.

Her abusers abuse her because they know she'll "let them"? That is victim-blaming. She is in no position to not "let them" do anything to her and, given that, pointing out they only do it because she lets her is putting the onus on her.

[sweetsunray]

How is this not victim-blaming?

Her abusers abuse her because they know she'll "let them"? That is victim-blaming. She is in no position to not "let them" do anything to her and, given that, pointing out they only do it because she lets her is putting the onus on her.

I said "dominate"... and psychologically dominate is not necessarily a negative term; domination means taking initiative. This can be aggressive, competitive, leading and helping behaviour. Also, it works the other way around. Dominant behaviour makes the other behave non-dominant. That can be as a sceptic, recluse, follower or cooperative. We also know that antagonistic behaviour calls forth antagonistic behaviour, while we behaviour calls forth we behaviour... at least with normal people.

So, yes, when Joffrey and Cersei display dominant behaviour it's perfectly psychologically normal for Sansa to behave subservient. Meanwhile her subservient behaviour will reinforce Joffrey and Cersei's dominance. But it should be also noted that Sansa's fawning behaviour is following and cooperative. That is we behaviour and it should make those who dominate her want to help her. And yet Joffrey continues to behave aggressively antagonistic to her. Psychologically, Sansa's approach does not help herself at all.

Why is that? Well if you want to influence someone to come to the WE side, you should not just show WE behaviour, but also show equal initiative. For example. Let's say someone is being obnoxiously competitive. The best way to remedy that is by delegating tasks to them and tell them that at least one idea sounds very helpful and give them the responsibility to accomplish it. With that "leading" behaviour you just turned the competition into a helper. If someone is sceptic, thank them for their critique and ask them for help. If someone is a recluse, accompany them often without badgering them with questions, but in silence. Eventually this will empower them enough to say something and reveal what's really on their mind, and you end up discovering the landmine issue before it blows up in yourface. Now, If someone is aggressive (liek Joffrey), you don't ask them to help you, but you ask them how you can help them. You behave like a "helper", not as someone who asks for help. Guess what Margaery does? That is why she is far more succesful in manipulating Joffrey than Sansa is... More, we see Sansa doing this once, and with succes. When Sansa saved Dontos, Sansa acts not just as a helper for Dontos, but she takes initiative and gives a helping suggestion for Joffrey. That is "helping" behaviour. And it's a great pity we don't see her do that more often, because she directly experienced it worked miracles. And at least towards the end we see Sansa using the "helper" position more often with LF at the Vale, which is to the benefit of her physical safety and mental health.

I understand how writing about Sansa's rather ineffectual tactics at KL may be construed as victim blaming. I have clarified enough how I don't hold Sansa responsible. She entered the hostage position already mentally cornered in a limited position of initiative because of her upbringing. That she has little or no experience in using other tactics and taking other positions with regards to initiative is not her fault. But that does not nullify the fact that Sansa's treatment as a hostage in KL perfectly fits psychological interrelation laws. If you can't accept my statement that I do not hold Sansa accountable for it, then so be it.

[Colonel Green]

Not with Jaime being a hostage of Robb and a whole bunch of other Lannisters. The Lannisters have precious little leverage in comparison. They have one hostage, and a girl at that. Abusing her is actually very risky. Robb is in a position to almost cut down the whole male line of Lannister heirs of almost every keep of the Westerlands.

Which, again, does not give her agency, because Joffrey and Cersei are stupid and evil, and don't care.

[sweetsunray]

Which, again, does not give her agency, because Joffrey and Cersei are stupid and evil, and don't care.

She had enough agency to save Dontos. There's no reason to suppose she has less agency. The sole agency she does not have is to be antagonistic. But she has agency for taking initiative with them.

[Varysfirstofhisname]

I don't know that you can give a fair comparison between the two over the entire series; Arya and Sansa encounter distinctly different circumstances which they happen to be well-suited for. If their situations were reversed both girls would likely have died somewhere along the way.