Co-dependence
I have heard a lot lately about the need for independence, or rather, the evils of co-dependence. It's like a catch-all phrase that implies that a true relationship is one where no one is hurt if one partner decides to end it. It seems that the current pop psychology viewpoint is that a relationship is not a good relationship unless both people are entirely independent. This strikes me as saying that a good relationship is one where two people just happen to live in the same house together.
I believe that co-dependence is not the evil beast that some would portray it as. It used to be the case the families were very co-dependent - they were dependent on each other (parents, children, spouses) and they were dependent on the community. But there were particular roles here that meant that women, especially, were unable to leave a bad relationship. Here's where independence is necessary. Women (and men) should have the means to leave a bad relationship. Thus, I understand the push for independence. I also understand why, in some circumstances, co-dependence is bad - because it means that one person is unable to leave the relationship, even when it is in their best interest to do so.
What I don't understand is the idea that, therefore, any form of co-dependence is bad. I believe that a truly loving relationship is co-dependent by its very nature. Two loving people rely on each other - for support, for someone to talk to, for someone to turn to for help, for love, for simple companionship. This is not a bad thing. In fact, I think that it is a necessary thing. If you cannot depend on someone you love for these things, then is it truly love? And this does not apply just to a relationship between partners, but also with parents and true friends. Why is it not co-dependence to rely on your parents for these things, but it is if you expect the same from your partner?
No, co-dependence is not evil. But labeling someone in a loving relationship as co-dependent, like it is a fatal flaw, is.
I believe that co-dependence is not the evil beast that some would portray it as. It used to be the case the families were very co-dependent - they were dependent on each other (parents, children, spouses) and they were dependent on the community. But there were particular roles here that meant that women, especially, were unable to leave a bad relationship. Here's where independence is necessary. Women (and men) should have the means to leave a bad relationship. Thus, I understand the push for independence. I also understand why, in some circumstances, co-dependence is bad - because it means that one person is unable to leave the relationship, even when it is in their best interest to do so.
What I don't understand is the idea that, therefore, any form of co-dependence is bad. I believe that a truly loving relationship is co-dependent by its very nature. Two loving people rely on each other - for support, for someone to talk to, for someone to turn to for help, for love, for simple companionship. This is not a bad thing. In fact, I think that it is a necessary thing. If you cannot depend on someone you love for these things, then is it truly love? And this does not apply just to a relationship between partners, but also with parents and true friends. Why is it not co-dependence to rely on your parents for these things, but it is if you expect the same from your partner?
No, co-dependence is not evil. But labeling someone in a loving relationship as co-dependent, like it is a fatal flaw, is.
posted by Carrie Gates at 12:27 AM
4 Comments:
I think you're confusing several issues. For instance, you are not using the operational definition of co-dependence as it is used in most fields of psychology. You seem to be treating it as the opposite of independence (and what is that?) in one instance and as "relying on each other," in another. It may be that you don't really disagree with psychologists, pop, rock or otherwise, just that they're talking apples and you're busy dissecting oranges. You need clarity in your own synapses. Yes, I'm this bored. Oh, and if you happen to be crying in your soup about some failed relationship I apologize for picking on your operational lacunes and wish you good luck.
You are entirely correct - I do not have a psychology background (unless a couple of courses 10+ years ago counts! :) ), and so am using a layman's definition, and may be entirely screwing it up! It may be that I would agree with the formal, professional, definitions. I'm not disagreeing necessarily with the psychologist who writes about co-dependence - they may be entirely correct - but they have written a "pop" book, which has dumbed down the psychology content for mass consumption, which in turn is read by people without a psychology background at all. I find that people (non-psychologists) use the term co-dependence as an insult, without recognizing the nature of love as being... interdependent. My beef is with them, not psychologists. (Note: I have not read any books on co-dependence. I have, however, read a book that I quite enjoyed that discussed the physiology behind love and emotional pain. It's "A General Theory of Love" by Lewis, Amini and Lannon - all MDs - if you are interested.)
No, I'm not crying in my soup (but thanks for apologising just in case!), but rather reflecting on past relationship problems and the responses both that I've encountered, and that I've seen others encounter. I've seen the response to people who are upset at a break-up be "You're just co-dependent!" rather than acknowledging that maybe there was some genuine love there, and now some genuine pain. One such response was from someone who works as a counselor, which I found particularly distressing. (My friend responded to this by explaining that it's not possible to be in a relationship without being dependent on each other, otherwise it's not really a relationship! The counselor agreed in the end that this is true.)
I think that overall such a response is insulting, as it implies that the person in pain is somehow at fault - if they didn't have this flaw of co-dependence, then they wouldn't be hurt. It diminishes and belittles what the other person is feeling, it diminishes and belittles the love the other person has for their partner (or whoever hurt them), and it in turn diminishes and belittles the other person as a person. In short, it serves only to be hurtful to someone who is already hurt.
Well, in the face of the little information I have, yes, of course, it's asinine to suggest that the break up of a once-close relationship should involve no pain. I don't know a single ge-nu-i-ne mental health professional who would even remotely suggest anything approaching that nonsense. In fact, I think that most would freely and most happily bandy about terms ranging from "detached" to "sociopath" to describe such pain-free oddities.
Of course there is a point at which the pain should recede and the depression start to lift. If not, then there is a problem, and ppl could be stuck in non-adaptive, even destructive patterns of behaviour -- e.g., alternating episodes of stalking your ex begging for love and puncturing her tires with an ice-pick are totally acceptable in the first year or so; if you're doing this after 3 or 4, tut-tut cheri, get thee to a nuttery.
I suppose my original point (how easily we digress) is that co-dependency is a well-defined term in "the biz" and it describes a specific dysfunctional relationship with others and the self. As I judiciously suspected, you are using your personal definition of the word to describe what is really another phenomenon. Which is ok, just don't write a book about it. Congrats on keeping a clear gaze on the vichyssoise. Ah yes your friend should definitely shop around for another mental health specialist. A family doctor is usually a good source to help distinguish the competent from the crackpot. Then again, a good shoulder to cry on is often the best medicine (excepting unusually long periods of hopeless a-weeping and a-creeping, ibid nuttery).
I should clarify that my usage of nuttery is merely a harmless endearing way of suggesting that the dear afflicted (and in no way seriously disabled) sufferer should seek competent professional help.
<< Home