Codependence
Katie E. Nolin
University of Phoenix

Codependence Addiction and other compulsive disorders are progressive, debilitating, and they often have long-ranging effects; not just on the individual involved in the disorder, but it also has a profound effect on the individuals in his or her life. Friends and family members involved in relationships with these compulsive individuals often suffer collateral damage in the form of developing dysfunctional patterns for “making a painful truce with the dependent individual whom they cannot live with nor without” (Harkness, 2003, p. 261). These patterns are often an attempt to “control the compulsive individuals’ behavior” (Beattie, 1992, p. 34) and can be defined as codependency. This document will review codependence symptoms, differences between caring, loving, and codependency with an attempt to review and critique the codependency model. According to Treadway (1990), codependency is a pattern of painful dependence on compulsive behaviors and on approval from others in an attempt to find safety, self-worth, and identity. Codependency is often characterized by caretaking, low self-worth, repression, obsession, controlling behavior, denial, dependency, weak boundaries, poor communication, anger, sex problems, and lack of trust (Beattie, 1992, p. 34). It is thought that these patterns of dysfunction are established at an early age and are most likely developed in the individuals’ family of origin. These destructive patterns are a mechanism to protect and meet unmet needs previously unmet by the other individual in the relationship. Codependents are hyper-focused on taking care of others that they neglect themselves. Often this is because they cannot differentiate the difference between caring, loving, and codependency. In a codependent relationship love, respect, and trust are compromised. A healthy, loving relationship allows each individual to grow (Beattie, 1992, p. 131) and each individual wants the other to grow in the relationship. A codependent relationship is the exact opposite and does not promote growth, but instead represses it. To compare components of a healthy relationship, love refers to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes; however, unlike codependence it does not include denial. Codependence like an addiction is based on denial and supports low self-worth (Beattie, 1992, p. 42). Love in a healthy relationship increases self-worth, but when this emotion becomes unbalanced or compulsive, codependency develops (Beattie, 1992, p. 59). Love can lead to codependency if not tempered with self-awareness and self-guidedness. Perhaps this is the most critical component of a healthy relationship, self-awareness. The inability to identify personal needs occurs in codependent relationship and equates to caretaking in the relationship, rather than caregiving. Caretaking occurs when an individual takes care of another individual because he or she harbors a belief that if he or she does not take care of that person he or she is not a good person (Beattie, 1992, p. 41). The enmeshment between the caretaker, and the addict is based on feelings of guilt; the codependent has been raised or trained to believe that their needs do not matter. The codependent believes that the needs of the addict or compulsive individual are more important than his or her own needs. This total lack of self-awareness is in stark contrast to a healthy relationship in which the individual engages in care giving. A health relationship that includes true caring will fulfill both individuals. Caregiving helps support love and peace of mind with the knowledge of servicing others, but still maintaining love of self. An example of caregiving is a parent raising his or her children, but still taking care of him or herself and allowing the children to grow in his or her roles. Caregiving will help an individual feel uplifted, whereas caretaking that is associated with codependent behavior is a drain. Caretaking will leave an individual feeling unfulfilled, unappreciated, and exhausted. An example of caretaking would be when an individuals concern for another individual has developed into a myopathy, which equates to an inability to care for oneself. Although the identification of codependency within a relationship is important, there are some drawbacks to identifying the codependency present in a relationship. “The codependency label tends to oversimplify complex relationships, stereotypes clients, and denies their uniqueness” (Anderson, 1994, p. 680). The label does not take into account the dynamic nature of individuals and the non-static nature of relationships. Codependency like addiction is complicated, and the labeling of certain behaviors may do more harm than good. I find that many codependent individuals already align with a victim stance. In my experience the codependency label helps individuals to displace ownership for his or her actions and behaviors. It is easier for the codependent individual to state that they are reacting to the addict rather than taking an introspective look at himself. Additionally, when an individual comes into treatment “they assume that the helping professional knows all there is to know about the individual, all that is wrong with them, and that the professional will know how to treat them” (Anderson, 1994, p. 680), however with the label of codependency the individual may not see the issues as his or her own, but a family issue. “In essence, the label tends to cement the self, precluding growth and change by discouraging client from understanding the individuals in their life and seeing them as whole people” (Anderson, p. 680). Another issue one must consider is that the “codependency model blurs the power differential between the doer and the audience, confuses cause and effect, and blames the victim for their behaviors” (Anderson, 1994, p. 683). This is not always helpful for individuals in treatment because they see it as a negative, and this can contribute to his or her low self-worth. This writer believes that it would be more beneficial to “focus on their behaviors as an implementation of over-responsibility” (Anderson, 1994, p. 682), instead of framing the behaviors as negative, it would be more helpful to “redefine the behavior as a positive impulse gone awry” (Anderson, p. 682). The ability to reframe behaviors is important to build rapport and help clients to work on therapeutic goals. Codependency is present if not imbedded throughout society and helping clients “regain perspective and balance” is a step to developing normal habits. Unfortunately, individuals who adopt this model, all too often overly pathologize relationships that may appear to be codependent, frequently to the determent of the client and leading to poor clinical outcomes. As new clinicians, we should remain vigilant in our use of this model and remain cognizant of the potential pitfall of ascribing labels to behaviors without a clear understanding of the client.

Reference
Anderson, S.C. (1994). A critical analysis of the concept of codependency. Social Work, 39(6), 677-685.
Beattie, M. (1992). Codependent no more: how to stop controlling others and start caring for yourself (2nd ed.). Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Harkness, D. (2003). To have and to hold: codependency as a mediator or moderator of the relationship between substance abuse in the family of origin and adult-offspring medical problems. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 35(2), 261-270.
Treadway, D. (1990). Codependency: disease, metaphor, or fad? Family Therapy Networker, 14(1), 39-42.