AB: It’s a common occurrence in my office practice for individuals or couples in therapy to refer to themselves as “co-dependent”. I often smile, amused at the way language shapes our ideas about ourselves, and each other. I usually reply, “We’re all co-dependent”. I’m quite sure I mean something different than the usual construction of that phrase. I know that the idea of “co-dependence” originated from the addiction world, referring to people who need each other for the wrong reasons. I have the utmost respect for AA and all its derivative groups, which I consider to be a work of genius. But I don’t think the AA folks meant for that phrase to morph in the way that it has. Another phrase like this is “Pro-life”, a phrase which has been squeezed into the confines of the anti-abortion movement . I ask you, who is not “pro-life”?

images-6In fact, “co-dependence” is an important, vital concept related to how we understand ourselves in relation to each other. I’d like to reclaim that phrase, to distinguish between healthy co-dependence and the toxic kind. “Co-dependence”, referring to the couple’s emotional connection, suggests what we already intuitively know. That our well-being, our ill-being, our growth, and our life experience are determined at least in part by our relationship to our intimate partners. Much of this co-dependence is largely unconscious: We DO depend on our partners to help create a habitable climate in which we can thrive. We DO depend on our partners not to promote an emotional climate that brings us chronic misery. We all need to feel loved and respected. Without it, we wither.

Human beings respond to each other instinctually; we’re often more primal than rational. We react in our bodies. And our language reflects this: We often say, “He gave me such a headache!”, or “She was a real pain in the neck”, or “You warmed my heart.” These phrases reflect our interconnectedness, the way we have the power to create pain/upset/happiness in each other. And this co-connection, or co-dependence is magnified many times in an intimate relationship. So perhaps we can re-think co-dependence as a natural and necessary state, which can become corrupted or distorted in the context of a relationship.

My many years of family therapy practice has taught me a lot about the difference between healthy and un-healthy co-dependence.

UnknownHealthy co-dependence: Of course, most couples come for therapy because they’re suffering. The distress runs the gamut , from relentless conflict, to the betrayal of an affair, to quiet disengagement and depression in one or both partners. But the healthily co-dependent folks are available to hear how they both participate in creating the mess they’re in. These folks are willing—with some work—to look at how they inadvertently contribute to their partner’s misery. They accept the idea of interconnectedness. While it’s common for people to feel “wronged” or victimized by their partner, the healthy co-dependents don’t stay there. They exhibit an ability to stretch beyond their usual comfort zone. And, perhaps equally important, this couple demonstrates a deep level of commitment to the relationship. There is an implicit—or sometimes explicit—acknowledgment of “need” for the other person. “Need” is not a source of shame, but rather an expression of whole personhood.

When co-dependence is a problem: Occasionally I see couples where the balance is really off. Often this shows up where one person promotes and clings to the role of “healthy” partner, while the other one is the designated “problem”. It’s easy for this to develop in relationships, but sometimes hard to dislodge.
A clue that unhealthy co-dependence may be at work, is when the “good” partner seems to have a stake in maintaining control of this superior status. Sometimes the unconscious emotional contract for this couple is “Doctor/Patient”, but this is a brittle contract that will require transformation as time goes on. This arrangement may be attractive at the early stages of the relationship: The “doctor” partner may define him/herself narrowly by how helpful/expert/smart/caring he or she is in the relationship.Sometimes this serves to perpetuate a role from that person’s childhood. Heroism may have been a source of esteem or anxiety-reduction for that person. And the “patient” member of the partnership may have grown up lacking ownership over his or her voice, or may have deferred their desire for personal empowerment as an act of (unconscious) care-taking for a troubled parent. There are many variations on this scenario. One or both partners may end up hiding behind this contract in order to prevent the uncomfortable experience of growth.

Unknown-1Not too long ago I saw a couple with just this kind of pattern. Their duet had been organized around the competent/incompetent theme, where both the husband and wife (covertly) agreed that the wife was in charge—of finances, kids, and general overall wisdom. The only problem is that the husband was, in fact, smart, capable, and under-employed in this marriage. He became depressed, and ended up searching the internet for online hookups. His wife found out, and this confirmed what she felt she already knew—this guy was not to be trusted. In fact, both he and his wife shared the idea that he was rather useless. In the therapy, he began to recover his voice, including addressing the issue of the online betrayal. He became more alive in the relationship, more authentic, but the wife didn’t respond. She, in fact, couldn’t let go of his many shortcomings, and refused to explore her own brand of craziness. She was the upright citizen, trying to contend with a scoundrel.

This kind of co-dependence is destined for trouble. In this case, the husband expanded his role to include “competence” as part of his job description, but the wife couldn’t give up any control over her terrain. She bolted from the therapy when her own operating system came into question.   I could be the doctor for her husband, but not for her.

I’ve worked with many couples, however,  that DID  rework this contract: With some committed exploration—including the courage to look at oneself—a truer, livelier relationship can emerge. When we honor our mutual (voluntary) dependence based on alive, individual voices, with authentic expression of needs and desires, we give “co-dependence” the good name it deserves.

1 Comment »

  1. Thanks for this insightful post. I am a committed member of CoDA, and I too believe that we are all codependent to some extent and that can be good and bad. I also see how codependency interplays within most of my relationships beyond my marriage though, it is absolutely not only about couples. I have attempted to work with several addictions programmes, and have found that CoDA is the only 12 step approach that is truly welcoming to all, non-shaming, and relevant to everyone who comes along. It has been incredibly powerful for me, so I just wanted to put in a good word!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s