Comments | dragonsoracle: Codependency

dragonsoracle

Codependency

Jul 26, 2009 15:22

I recently got into an active debate with one of my recent LJ Friends about the definition and application of the term Codependency, and how it applies to interpersonal relationships.

This discussion largely fell to the back burner and almost was left on the wayside until I was reading a posting going into some depth on the Heart Chakra (Sanskrit ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

vicki_sine July 27 2009, 03:32:56 UTC

I think you have pretty much described the June and Mr. Cleaver relationship ideal of the 50's ( ... )

the_mind_bender July 27 2009, 04:37:06 UTC

The term "Codependency" refers to a specific type of stable but dysfunctional relationship, but what you are talking about in depending on the other person when you need it is called "interdependency". The difference comes down to manipulation, although it is usually something that neither partner intentionally decides to do (it isn't like they sit down one day and decide to do it, it just happens). In a codependent relationship both parties use their power (either being on top or at the bottom) to manipulate the other person and rob the other person of the ability to continue independently.

Love, care, respect, and the strength built into a long term relationship should be what makes you need to be there for the other person; not manipulation, fear of hurt, fear of hurting, blind duty, or the like.

vicki_sine July 27 2009, 06:04:13 UTC

Actually, not necessarily ( ... )

anon vicki_sine July 27 2009, 06:06:21 UTC

Sorry thought I was logged in.

Re: anon dragonsoracle July 27 2009, 09:09:38 UTC

vicky_sine, may I introduce the_mind_bender, the LJ friend of whom I mentioned above.

I'm going to have to side with the_mind_bender on this one.

Everywhere I look, codependency is recognized and defined by the phychiatric community as a destructive dysfunctional condition where the co-dependent person has a stronger self-identification based on the people around them either through seeking their acceptance or through trying to control or dominate them then they have for their own self identity.

This, by definition, creates a cycle of manipulation that causes a downward spiral of self identity and self worth.

Your example of June and Ward Cleaver is not an adequate example because by the clinical definition of codependency, these two were not codependent nor did they participate in a codependent relationship which can be identified by a pattern of manipulations and controlling behavior.

My disagreement with the_mind_bender, does not stem from a core understanding of codependency in general, but largely as to whether a codependency relationship can exist if it is largely only one ( ... )

co-dependency vicki_sine July 27 2009, 16:33:42 UTC

I have to agree with his point that at the core of co-dependency is mutual participation ( ... )

Re: co-dependency dragonsoracle July 27 2009, 18:53:56 UTC

Allow me to rephrase, I assert that if one person is largely non-codependent in most circumstances is in a relationship with a co-dependent person, but chooses to stay in a relationship that is fraught with manipulation and controlling behavior. Then that person is enabling the unhealthy codependent behavior of the codependent person and through this, they are technically making themselves willing participants because they refuse to remove themselves of this unhealthy situation, even if they get frustrated or complain about it. Their personal feelings, wants and desires are irrelevant if their actions continue to serve to propagate this behavior ( ... )

Re: co-dependency dragonsoracle July 27 2009, 18:54:25 UTC

The problem of the transition from the "June Cleaver syndrome", was in part spurned by the equal rights movement. the problem was not the movement itself, but rather that women were all of a sudden trying to take on more and more responsibilities instead of changing the responsibilities that they were responsible for. Many women first entering the work force were stuck in the June Cleaver mentality that they needed to be the proper housewife, take care of the kids and all the things that went with home management (which was a full time job by itself), but they also wanted to be in the workforce and prove that they were just as competent there as the men they were competing against ( ... )

Re: co-dependency vicki_sine July 28 2009, 00:37:09 UTC

Ahh I see why this conversation got confusing.

I mistyped earlier. I intended to say it appeared to some that in the early years of my children's life I appeared to some of our friends to be in a June Cleaver role, which could not have been further from the truth.

"The role change from June Cleaver entering the work force and Ward Cleaver moving to stay home to be Mr. Mom is a transition of an equal division of labors in a healthy interdependent relationship, and not an illustration of a codependent relationship."

Sorry I mixed my metaphors.

Mr. Cleaver would never have been able to turn into Mr. Mom.

That would be the whole point. And my children's father was an avid feminist or as he called it an equalist.

It always mystified him how anyone could witness the act of birth and then call women the weaker sex.

Re: co-dependency vicki_sine July 28 2009, 00:41:39 UTC

"But I digress, this is topic is more about the concept of codependency in general, and although I highly respect and support the women's rights movement, that is a whole other topic in and of itself which would involve at least as lengthy of a posting as this one. However, this problematic transition did result in some enabling codependent behavior as more independence and responsibilities were taken on by women and men in these situations largely found themselves with not having to put as much effort in and began to develop needy, controlling, and manipulative behaviors to keep this new division of labor unbalanced, or to resist the movement altogether."

Ahhh but see it is at the heart of this problem.

The American culture breeds co-dependency and calls it normal and healthy.

Though granted our culture has nothing on many other cultures which take it to levels of borderline slavery and enshrine it in religion.

Re: co-dependency the_mind_bender July 28 2009, 04:59:33 UTC

I really don't think that it is fair to blame feminism for the rise in the rate of codependent relationships for a number of reasons ( ... )

Re: co-dependency vicki_sine July 28 2009, 05:15:34 UTC

Serious disconnect here.

I am not blaming Feminism for the rise in co-dependency.

Right the opposite in fact.

Re: co-dependency dragonsoracle July 28 2009, 08:20:37 UTC

I don't think either of us were blaming the equal rights movement, however social and political uphevals (although often healthy in the long run) tend to shake things up and make dysfunctional patterns more redially apparent.

This particular movement was directly related to the move from the Ward and June Cleaver mentality to present day more equality based mentality. During this transition, there were some very obvious growing pains.

"Furthermore, how many feminists do you know who would be happy with doing all the work while their husband sat around doing nothing? How many would yell something about slavery and then kick his useless butt to the curb instead?"

Frankly, many femenists at that time were man-haters and it wouldn't matter if they brought the moon and the sun on a silver platter, there would still be fault found in anything they did. But again, like I said, a lot of growing pains to transition from then to now.

Re: co-dependency the_mind_bender July 28 2009, 12:31:56 UTC

"I am not blaming Feminism for the rise in co-dependency.
Right the opposite in fact."

"I don't think either of us were blaming the equal rights movement, however social and political uphevals (although often healthy in the long run) tend to shake things up and make dysfunctional patterns more redially apparent."

You both seem to be operating under the assumption that the dysfunctional patterns were always around (if slightly repressed) and only became more apparent (or were only dealt with, or were only expressed) after feminism. If you look at, say, the World War II era and see what happened when most of the men went off to war, it becomes obvious this isn't the case. If it were the case then the dependent women would have fallen apart when the men left or the dependent men would have been kicked out of the army for dereliction of duty (or else whipped into shape). Neither of these, on the whole, were very common so we know that the thing that would have unavoidably led to these was not around either.

Re: co-dependency dragonsoracle July 28 2009, 19:45:58 UTC

War is the great social leveler, it makes people much more concerned with life and death than it does with seeing approval or manipulating each other in social situations.

But lets step back and take a look at this. A lot of women stepped into the workforce at this time because their significant others were no longer around and the hardships of the time forced some very hard choices and lifestyles.

Codependency tends to fall apart during a war because the codependent parties separate from each other and are no longer able to coerce/control/manipulate and/or placate/serve each other ( ... )

Re: co-dependency dragonsoracle July 28 2009, 19:46:26 UTC

(pt. 2)

"You both seem to be operating under the assumption that the dysfunctional patterns were always around (if slightly repressed) and only became more apparent (or were only dealt with, or were only expressed) after feminism."Dysfunctional patterns HAVE always been around, shall we cite the Inquisition? The Crusades? How about nailing a man to a cross and jabbing him in the sides for preaching about love and kindness some 2000 years ago? Should we look at slavery? Or perhaps how Muhammad had wrote in the Koran that women were less than cattle and were the property of men to be bartered and sold ( ... )

Back to all threads