Interesting Article on Co-Dependency
 

Was searching online for something marriage related, and stumbled upon this article. The title intrigued me, and made me think of all of the discussion about CD here, so I read it. Thought it might inspire an interesting discussion on here. Enjoy.

HOW THE CO-DEPENDENCY MOVEMENT IS RUINING MARRIAGES
Willard F. Harley, Jr.

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/grap...i8110_cod.html

Excerpt:

" Those of us in the business of trying to save marriages struggle daily with cultural beliefs and practices that make our job difficult. The sudden surge of divorces in the 1970's,that has made America the country with the highest divorce rate,has a great deal to do with changes in our basic beliefs. More to the point,it has to do with a major shift toward self-centeredness. Beliefs that encourage self-centeredness destroy marriage.

One of these is the belief that co-dependent behavior is self-defeating and that we should rid ourselves of it. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing and a marriage wrecker. I'll try to explain why I feel so strongly about this issue...."

Co-dependency is really one of those terms that is used so often and has so many different meanings to people - that it has become "psychobabble".

I know what it means to me, but whenever I hear someone calling themselves "codie", I'm not really sure what they are referring to.

In general I think to have a healthy relationship, you have to have dependency. There needs to be nurturing, caring, mutual giving, boundaries and affection. If one partner only focuses on the self, and refuses to get involved in anything the other is doing, I'm not sure how practically this setup could work out. But on the other hand, there needs to be a degree of detachment and individuality - so that neither partner feels smothered or lost and both retain the ability to care for themselves.

Good for him. And his wife. (If she would agree with his statement.)

I think he's wrong. I think codependency is always detrimental to a person. The thing is, being unselfish and nice and courteous and caring doesn't turn into codependency in a healthy relationship. Those aren't bad qualities -- until you run across a user... As some of us know, a person doesn't have to be an addict for an unhealthy relationship to be created.

But then again, I probably shouldn't comment on an article written by a person who is "in the business of trying to save marriages" because I don't see that as a worthy cause in itself. I simply disagree with his fundamental belief.

Some marriages shouldn't be saved. Some marriages should be dissolved, and quickly. But that's because I believe more in the right of an individual to lead a healthy life than I believe in "saving marriages" as some worthy overarching principle.

It's interesting, and people define "codependent" differently, it seems. This definition talks about being negatively affected:

Codependency - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

A lot of people seem to define it, generally speaking, as basically doing things for others. Other people seem to take it further, adding something to the effect of doing something for another, but from an unhealthy place, and/or for someone who is using/abusing you.

I thought this would be really interesting to post, because I have noticed in postong here that the way individuals define codependency varies a lot, and for some people it means within.an.unhealthy relationship, for others, any relationship. Some people are fine calling themselves codependent, others are not.

I'm very interested to see how different people interpret this article, how it matches/goes against their definition/beliefs, etc.

*******


Lillamy - I've not read a whole lot of the author's material, and I don't know their views on saving marriages (as far as trying to save it regardless of severity of abusiveness etc). So I can't comment from that perspective. I will say I too feel like some marriages are just better off dissolving!

I need to sit and figure out why this article has pushed buttons and got me generally a bit uncomfortable and a bit PO'd. I suspect this:

has a great deal to do with my desire to chuck his article. Because one of the things I discussed with a T and Pdoc was the 'generalized anxiety' I was suffering from dealing with AXH's abusive behavior. Pity AXH for my anxiety? That he helped generate? I think not. Additionally NONE of those were things that I was told to do, or did, to work through my anxiety. It feels like he, or maybe the Dr. Bourne he's quoting, has twisted information to suit his needs. However, we're not provided with the link to Dr. Bourne's article because it's 'no longer available.' A convenient site for Harley to base his article on and provide 'support' for his side of the argument.

I think there is a world of difference between co-dependency when used in books and sites along the lines of the "Co-Dependent No More" book and a healthier "inter-dependent" relationship - where both parties depend each on the other to support and nurture the relationship. Perhaps, the distinction I hear is only to my thinking, and it really is a matter of semantics. But I don't think so.

I also find it worrisome that Mr. Harley lightly classifies his and his wife, "Joyce's", behavior when expressing anger as abusive.

I hope I didn't kill the conversation. I'm interested in hearing how others see it and compare my initial reaction to other's (probably more) objective readings.

I define codependency as doing for others what they can do for themselves in a need to control those people and all parts of the relationship. Being a kind, caring person is great. It's when you start telling people how to live or do things because you think that's best for them regardless of the circumstances, that you cross into codie land. There is a healthy level of dependence in good relationships, but I would more call that mutual respect and individual dignity for the partners rather than "dependence". Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass while waiting for my sleepy meds to kick in. The author just seems like a bit of a jerk, and I can't stand to hear that "business of saving marriages" bull. I see so many people here who are more focused on saving their marriage than anything else. They'll overlook physical and emotional abuse, trauma caused to their children, and everything else that is ruining them down to their very core just to save a stupid piece of paper. And this idiot is one of those people pushing that incredibly unhealthy agenda.

I agree with most of what you said. I don't believe in saving a marriage for the sake of the children or just because - there needs to be some love that is keeping the relationship together.

However, I think dependence is the right word. In Western culture we are fiercely independent and value our individuality. Because of that the word "dependence" has a stigma attached to it and is almost always used in a negative context. But I think we are missing the bigger picture when we under value dependence. Dependence to me is about trust and partnership. It's about loving and trusting someone so much that your life becomes intertwined with theirs.

I have been emotionally independent ever since I was a child out of necessity, so it is VERY difficult for me to form attachments to others and to depend on them. To be frank, I have an attachment disorder. More than anyone I understand how important dependence is, and how disabling it can be to a relationship when you can't allow it into your life. It is my goal to overcome this, and to eventually get to a place where dependence feels warm and comforting to me instead of threatening.

So yes, dependence can be a GOOD thing.

Prior to the 70s, women didn't have the kind of career options that would have allowed them to leave bad marriages. Neither do a lot of women in the rest of the world. I don't think our divorce rate has anything to do with the "codependency movement," unless that's code for believing women should have options other than relying on an unreliable or abusive guy for the means to live.

Reading through the article, this guy doesn't understand or choose to understand the definition of co-dependency as it's commonly used. He's rejecting its use to describe anything outside of an alcoholic marriage.

For me, the hinge is clear, in the quote he used defining codependency:

You are managing other people's problems at the expense of your own, and it causes the despair and anxiety that he mocked so easily in the article. It's not about being unpleasant or unselfish -- co-dependency is about taking care of your immediate care and safety regardless of what your partner is doing.

My parents didn't have an alcoholic marriage, they had a mentally ill marriage. They just "celebrated" their 52nd wedding anniversary, although everyone around them, including them, think they should have divorced sometime in the last three decades.

Mother Theresa wasn't co-dependent, she was a nun. Martyrdom is something we're aspiring to be less like, and for good reason for most of us.

I think his opening line really sets the tone:

Those of us in the business of trying to save marriages struggle daily with cultural beliefs and practices that make our job difficult

What an a-hole this guy is. I don't even want to read the article based on what everyone else is saying.

Its a balancing act. Healthy relationships constantly jockey back and forth. I consider that to be healthy inter-dependence. Years ago, when I first ran into someone talking about their co-dependence and how "sick" it was, I was in shock frankly and came away thinking their views on what was "right" or "healthy" were "sick." I know that sounds harsh but that's, truly, what I thought. Because of this, I researched the subject and considered what I read a muddled mess. I agree with NWGRITS.

I think its often lost in today's psychobabble that co-dependence originally was only operative concerning an addiction. Where it veered off into spinning simple caring or nurturing into an unhealthy act, I don't know. My husband has a medical condition. There's no addiction involved. You better believe I monitor and help him.. and, yes, even control his behavior if it could harm him. In fact, family members are counseled and educated to monitor even with a diabetic whose sugar may be out of control and they get brain fog and that's only ONE of his conditions. We BOTH need watch each other and we BOTH need that. Does he, sometimes, snap at me because he remembered it himself. Of course he does. No one likes to feel the issues of aging, memory problems, illness, etc but the issues aren't addiction and co-dependence (to a substance.) I think of it this way... what if I said to him... honey, you're on your own... not my problem? What on earth is the point of marriage if your spouse isn't going to be there for you? I have no doubt that, initially, my fear levels with the possibility of him dying may have been somewhat, as defined by psychobabble, co-dependent. That's what its about... fear. If I'm staying in serenity and I mean by the prayer, then my internal state and consequent actions are not co-dependent... fear based... they're loving and consistent with the reason I married the guy in the first place... "for better or worse".. that's the vow I took. And the "worse" can be made "better" when we each support and help the other when needed.

Sorry if I offended anyone with what I've said but I really, really, get annoyed when healthy, loving, inter-dependence gets twisted into something "unhealthy." I'm sure I got pretty incoherent as I'm not one to handle emotions very well... lol my MB type. I read the OP about the link contents but haven't actually gone to the article. Off to do that now.

Past the editing time so:

No surprise, after reading, I agree with this summation it took me way longer to say less eloquently: (MY bold and underlines)

"The care and consideration of our spouse does not leave us emotionally disabled -- unless our spouse turns out to be an addict. When it comes to addiction in marriage, my advice is to run for cover! But in marriages that do not suffer from addiction, care and consideration is not the problem, but rather the solution to problems. "

Applying "co-dependency" to a relationship where no addiction is present can be a just plain old copout and excuse for not being willing to do the work and lovingly sacrifice, without resentments, in ways a healthy relationship requires... and, I might add... lovingly accept the help and support of a spouse as some fear feeling or appearing weak. Its all about motivation... if its fear-based its going to do harm to both parties. If its coming from love well, no way I'm going to see that as "sick" or "unhealthy" and I've, personally, never seen a relationship fail that way.

I think you said it best Turtle ;)

In marriages that don't suffer from addiction, abuse, mental illness, or other dysfunction, that would be true.

But by limiting it to addiction, he basically says "anything else, you're a selfish bastard if you leave your marriage over."

Started to read the article, then scanned the titles of the other articles on the site, saw "How to Deal with a Quarrelsome and Nagging Wife", and decided I'd rather not finish.

I love this Lillamy. Working through my own Codi issues has brought about my awareness of my own self doubt. Being reminded that kindness and caring are not inherently dysfunctional qualities and it is really about the choices that we make- regarding who to be with and what we will "accept" in our caring for others

I used to think of myself as oh-so-kind and caring.

In fact these qualities were drowned in my codependent, enmeshed way of relating to others, and they did not really shine through because I was not happy.

I was always codependent, though my marriage to an addict finally made me realize it. (Where I come from, the word codependent does not exist.)

Nowadays I am a happier person, and all my good qualities, such as they are, can be fully expressed.

:c029:

Actually it wasn't a bad article. It's not as male-centric as it sounds, and presents both sides of what happens to communications in some relationships. I know, I lived it for 15 years and it pretty much followed the script.

I know that I am codependent in unhealthy ways, but I also know that I am kind, loving, and giving in positive and productive ways. It's difficult to find a balance sometimes. I do think the codependency "movement" can be a bit out of hand and unrealistic. Codependent No More and Alanon are not the approach that works for me, but if it helps other people more power to them.

I didn't find it a bad article. It had some good points.

Things can get really out of whack when we are unhealthily enmeshed with Active Alcoholics.

There are actually ways to be healthy.

I don't think a codependent attitude requires addiction within a relationship. For me it means I have to gut check whether I am being a martyr or acting in a way, or setting things up in a way, such that everything would fall apart if not for me. It's believing that I have to hold everything together, am uniquely qualified to do so, and it is nobler to do so than to ask or allow others to help.

Certainly my relationship with an addict allowed these sorts of thoughts and actions to run free. But even now that he's out of my life, I still have to think about my motivations for helping people sometimes.

Exactly! When I realized the way I "took over" in a lot of situations I stood back and reevaluated a lot of things in my life. Left my toxic job. Recovery is an amazing thing.

This is from Deb Caletti's "The Secret Life of Prince Charming" -- I have referred to it here before; it's really a YA novel, but it's got some serious hard truths in it. I like this section:

lillamy -

I think the heart of what you wrote about love is true, but I also think there is truth in a love that is eternal and unconditional. I know that passage from the Bible well and I believe in it.

I have been in love three times in my life. Although I am single now and those relationships are over, my love is not. I still love those people deeply and I want nothing but good things for them. One relationship in particular had a lot of turmoil, but I can honestly say that I've never loved another person more.

Unconditional love is not a weakness. You can love someone and chose not to be with them. And just because a relationship is dysfunctional and ends, does not make the love you have for that person bad or unhealthy.

Just my opinion.

^ +1 very well said Chantal88... VERY well.

I believe that if I were healthy at the time, I would not have entered into and stayed in a toxic relationship. That's co-dependency. It has little to do with love.

I believe the "Love is patient, love is kind" is talking about what love ought to be. What only God's love is.

I don't for a second believe in human eternal unconditional love. Matter of fact, I think that belief, just like the belief in soul mates, keeps people trapped in unhealthy relationships.

But that is of course just my opinion.

I respect your opinion lillamy.