Is co-dependency a bad thing in a relationship?

A large body of current personal/relationship counsellors and psychologists hold the opinion that co-dependence is a Bad Thing.

To try to explain why, I'll dream up a definition and try to show up what ‘the problem’ is. Being co-dependent is where a person is physiologically (especially psychologically) reliant on other people. (There are other, harsher, definitions involving maladaption and compulsive behaviour but we'll keep it to its more mild form, which is where it is normally linked to relationship dynamics.)

The co-dependent person looks inwardly to the relationship to provide all emotional and mental needs yet concentrates on the needs of their partner. They therefore set themselves up for failure and disappointment by not seeking their own fulfilment. They often are very clingy to their partner, which makes relationships difficult to establish and healthy ones hard to maintain. It sets unrealistic burdens on partners to provide for their needs.

So say those who earn money by relationships breaking down: co-dependency is bad. Its antonym, independence and self-fulfilment, is the way to go.

Hmmm. Maybe my disbelief is showing through. OK, I'll let you read up on it if you want at this counselling site or at The Mental Health Association. (If you're a believer in the co-dependency movement you've already labelled me ‘in denial’.)

No, really, I do think that some forms of co-dependency, even some extremes of relationship co-dependency, are dangerous and worth avoiding.

But...

In a rush to avoid extremes of co-dependency, it is easy to go the way of far too many cold and distant relationships. A path of independence and attitude of only looking after number one is hardly what most of us dream about for a relationship. I think a healthy attitude both for ourselves and our relationships is to have a mixture of concern over our own needs and wants but also care about our partner's. How much and in what mix has to be unique to each relationship.

Personally, I don't see why I want to be in a relationship if I don't care deeply for my woman's needs or she's not passionate about what I want. Complete independence and self-fulfilment is a relationship I am happy to have with the next door neighbour but not with my woman. By its nature a Taken In Hand relationship is at least a little co-dependent. Many of us here would be classified as ‘pathologically’ co-dependent.

I'm sure that on this site, I don't need to emphasise the dangers of anti-co-dependency. We want close-knit relationships. We realise that if things do go wrong, it might hurt more but the rewards of an entwined, passionate, deeply intimate relationship are what we seek.

If you're not convinced and think co-dependency may be a bad thing, I'll leave you with a link to a site that doesn't have the slant that this one does. It's a non-commercial site that has helped many in conventional relationships through various issues: How the Co-dependency Movement Is Ruining Marriages.

Douglas (Interesdom)

Take the Taken In Hand tour

Have you seen the following articles?
Can you be Taken In Hand if you're not submissive?
Is she afraid of losing control? Topping from the bottom?
Full circle
He's in charge. . . but I do it my way
Is it true that a man shouldn't need to get physical?
Violence in the garden
In my room
Equality isn't all it's cracked up to be
BDSM . . . kink with some psychological payoff
Do you need more attention in your relationship?

2005 Aug 5 - 23:08 | add new comment | latest article | previous article | next article |

Is it bad? Depends what you mean

I agree, Douglas. The co-dependence idea seems to get out of hand at times, with some being so fearful of being in a co-dependent relationship that they go to enormous lengths to assert their independence and end up never actually having a deep relationship. It seems to me more interesting to risk a little of what some might exaggeratedly call co-dependence, or at least, to be in a fully engaged relationship rather than maintaining all your barriers and defences and ensuring that you remain rigidly separate.

To me, it seems as though those who feel such a need to retain this sort of so-called independence are actually the individuals whose psychological autonomy is fragile. Some of those who can risk a bit of what is pejoratively called co-dependence can be paradoxically more deeply independent and autonomous.

However, this is not always the case. There are plenty of unhealthily co-dependent individuals living miserable lives with no self respect and highly dysfunctional psychologies and behaviours. This is definitely not what a Taken In Hand relationship should be. These individuals are not happy by any stretch of the imagination, and I can quite understand why some Taken In Hand folk make a point of avoiding any hint of co-dependence.

by the boss on 2005 Aug 5 - 23:27 | reply to this comment

Semantics?

Maybe this is just a semantic difference. To me co-dependency means the unhealthy side of it, and not just being deeply involved with each other. It has to do with enabling behaviors, in my mind. I once heard that in a relationship it's neither good to be dependent nor independent but instead the couple should be interdependent. I liked that idea best.

"Pat"

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2005 Aug 6 - 00:23 | reply to this comment

What is it?

Like so many labels, I think instead of suggesting what we do is 'co-dependent' because we have a close knit relationship in which the partners love and respect each other, value each other and can be rather passionate about ensuring the other is happy, genuinely happy, perhaps we should look at we we do and what we want. Mostly, I think, what most of us want is a healthy, happy marriage. There is nothing 'co-dependent' about that.

The example of real co-dependence I know about personally is part of my own recovery from alcohol addiction. In this case, the co-dependence of my wife was not really about looking to the relationship to meet her needs. It was about controlling the use of alcohol. If only she were a good enough wife, I wouldn't drink as much. If only she could set the right mood, I wouldn't need to drink. In short, co-dependence in the classical sense seems to be a control dynamic in which someone feels they *should* control a situation over which they ultimately have no control.

I really do not see any resemblance to a Taken In Hand relationship. I just don't think the label fits a healthy, loving human connection.

Frank Nelson

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2005 Aug 6 - 01:38 | reply to this comment

Interdependence

We think of the healthy situation you describe as "interdependence". We both have significant strengths, but depend upon each other in ways that make us both stronger.

Both my fiance and I come from unhealthy co-dependent marriages where we were the "enablers". When there was an unhealthy trait or behavior that became significant in the relationship, we both would adapt to and compensate for that negative trait because it was the easiest way to try to maintain peace and harmony. Unfortunately, for the co-dependent spouses, we were exacerbating unhealthy behavior by providing unwavering compensation and support. In the end, both of us in our former marriages were bone dry from giving and "enabling".

Depending upon someone in a way that exacerbates an unhealthy weakness is a problem. It actually can make the weakness grow, rather than subside. But depending upon each other in a way that makes each person stronger is a wonderful, wonderful thing that we must never lose sight of. It is a beautiful outcome of a healthy relationship.

by InMyDreams on 2005 Aug 6 - 02:08 | reply to this comment

It's a spectrum thing

Most of what is peddled in the self-help pop psychology movement is crap. Most of the "co-dependent" junk falls into that category. It's just a lot of blah blah blah bullkrap.

It's a matter of falling in the right place on the "co-dependent/totally independent" spectrum. At one end you have total soul sucking co-dependency, and on the other hand total soul sucking independence.

At one end you have one person looking to the other person to fulfill *all* their emotional needs--and suffocating the other person in the process (it's like trying to save a drowning person--most of the time they half drown you by the time it's over with) and at the other end of the spectrum you have those who are so independent (read: afraid to be hurt) that they are incapable of true intimacy.

Each person must bring to the table a degree of emotional health, a certain amount of willingness to be vulnerable, and the ability to trust. If that is "co-dependent", well...okay. I am looking for a "co-dependent" relationship, then. A healthy, mutually co-dependent relationship. :)

Man! How could anyone forget that falling in love feeling? That crazy can't-breathe-until-*he*-calls ultimate co-dependent head rush? Sure, it doesn't last forever (good thing, I guess) but I pity the poor "well-adjusted" folks who never experience it at all, for fear of being "co-dependent"...

Kim

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2005 Aug 6 - 02:11 | reply to this comment

Co-dependency

If you look to your partner to provide all your rmental and emotional needs, then certainly that is unhealthy. Everybody needs to have their own resources that are not dependent on another person, otherwise what do you do when the relationship ends, as all relationships must, sooner or later, even if it's till death do you part, still, one of you must depart and leave the other, unless you die together in a car crash or something.

My brother was telling me yesterday that his friends include a growing number of widows who have never lived on their own and who are entirely unused to doing things without their husbands "If they like opera it's all right, otherwise I'm at a bit of a loss" he said to me. Having lived all his adult life on his own and being used to keeping himself amused he is quite baffled by this. A lot of men (judging by the rate at which my brother's friends are dying off) seem to keel over in their fifties, so if you are a woman it is particularly important that you are not totally reliant on your husband for your happiness.

by Louise C on 2005 Aug 6 - 06:19 | reply to this comment

Thinking defensively may not be best for a good relationship

I always wonder about these stories. What did the individuals do before they were in a relationship? Would they have been able to attract a partner if they were as incompetent and useless as all that? So presumably, they have merely lost some competence in the course of being married for a long time. And in that case, they should be able to gain it again.

Secondly, the idea of preparing for the end of a relationship is all very well, but perhaps it is because so many now have one eye on the end of the relationship that some relationships end prematurely. This kind of defensive thinking does not sound conducive to a good relationship. Perhaps it is because I do not doubt my competence, but in a relationship I would not feel the need to act as though I were single in order to reassure myself of my competence: I would just know that I have it in me should it ever be needed.

I met a woman who had never gone anywhere without her husband the other day. She was 76 years old, and she was a little nervous because she was flying for the first time alone. We sat together as we waited for our respective flights. I found her completely charming. She was nervous, yes, but she was doing it anyway. As she talked about her late husband, her eyes shone. They had been married 58 years. She had been exceptionally happy with her husband and it showed in her face. Who would give up a gloriously happy marriage in the name of acting as though it will one day end? Not I.

I gently told the woman some anecdotes to build her confidence about her flight, assuring her that it gets easier when you have done it a few times, and that if in doubt, there are lots of people around to ask for help, and I pointed out that there are lots of signs, and what to look for, etc., and she smiled warmly at me and gave me a big kiss before she disappeared onto her flight, no longer looking nervous.

You don't need to prepared for the end of a relationship for a lifetime; you can deal with it when it happens.

by the boss on 2005 Aug 6 - 10:13 | reply to this comment

Ending a relationship

I didn't actually mean that you should live as if you weren't married or anything, just that it seems to me unwise to be reliant on another person for ALL your emotional needs. You need to have inner resources of your own. And I think it is good for everyone to have interests that they can pursue on their own without being reliant on another person to entertain them all the time.

It might be very nice to be totally inseperable from your partner at all times, but I don't personally know any couples who don't have at least some seperate interests. I am quite happy for my husband to spend at least some of his time in pursuits that don't involve me, I'm quite happy for him to spend hours out doing things in his workshop for instance, and he doesn't mind me spending hours reading or watching creaky old films on TV. We also both occasionally go out doing things on our own. I think people who have their own interest are more interesting.

by Louise C on 2005 Aug 6 - 14:32 | reply to this comment

Agreed

I didn't actually mean that you should live as if you weren't married or anything, just that it seems to me unwise to be reliant on another person for ALL your emotional needs. You need to have inner resources of your own.

I agree.

And when you have inner resources, you have less need to keep yourself rigidly separate from the other person for fear of being overwhelmed and subsumed into unhealthy co-dependence. All I was saying is that fierce independence is not always a sgn of healthy psychology and a good relationship: sometimes it can indicate precisely the opposite.

by the boss on 2005 Aug 6 - 14:49 | reply to this comment

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.