Definition
Crispin Cowan
I hadn't previously paid much attention to this group, because I was
under the impression that codependency had to do with getting hooked on
solving someone else's problems, e.g. repeatedly getting involved with
alcoholic partners so as to be able to save them. I don't do that, so I
didn't look here.
What I do do is to become obsessed with my SO, defining my whole life in
terms of them. This has a large nunmber of unpleasant side effects,
many of which seem unrelated and so it's difficult (for me, anyways) to
spot. When I dropped in to this news group, I saw people describing
very similar situations to mine, and calling it codependency.
I'm confused. This sounds more like plain old, ordinary dependency,
with no co- aspect to it. Could someone explain the technical meaning
of codependency?
Thanks,
Crispin
-----
Crispin Cowan, CS grad student, University of Western Ontario
Phyz-mail: Middlesex College, MC28-C, London, Ontario, N6A 5B7
E-mail: cri...@csd.uwo.ca Voice: 519-661-3342
"If you see a skier, turn. Trees too." Burton rendition of the
Skier's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Snowboarder's Responsibility Code
Leon Jackson
>Could someone explain the technical meaning
>of codependency?
Although I am no expert in this field, I think that there are two dominant
definitions of codependency. The first is most closely associated with
Mellody Beattie and centers on the behavior patterns of those who grew up
with or are related to various addictive persons such as alcoholics,
junkies and so on. Beattie argues that those who were parented by addicts
tend to fall into a patterns of caretaking in order to cope. They feel
that they are in some way needed by the addict and will center their lives
around caring for them and others whom they encounter. They fail to
generate any internal sense of identity and their esteem is constructed on
the precarious foundation of dealing with another's sickness. Codependents
of this sort tend to become quickly addicted to the addict. They are drawn
over and over into abusive relationships and will tolerate any degree of
pain in order to maintain their caretaker image. The second definition of
codependency has been worked out by Pia Melody and focusses more on those
who have grown up in homes where there was a severe deficit of parental
love and unconditional esteem for children, or where there was any degree
of abuse; emotional, sexual or physical. She seems to argue that those who
failed to receive any foundational love from their parents will become
utterly and destructively needy individuals in later life, although their
pain will manifest itself in one of two fairly contradictory ways: either
they will be avoidance addicts being ostensibly needless and wantless,
shunning all intimacy and fearing any connection that threatens loss, or
they will become love addicts, clinging, vulnerable, and insecure
individuals who seek to be passively taken care of by a caring parent
figure. Often love addicts and avoidance addicts are drawn to one another,
and occasionally aspects of both can be found in the same person. It seems
that while both Beattie's and Melody's defintions of codependency share a
common theme, namely that skewed mechanisms for coping with poor parenting
and lack of parental love lead to vicarious and destructive lifestyles in
which the individual fails to have a life of his/her own, there seems to
be remarkably little dialogue between the two definers or their adherents.
Both, though, follow twelve-step agendas and see the exorcism of childhood
traumas as a necessary step to recovery. Those who are interested in a
somewhat different slant on addictive relationships should take a look
into M. Scott Peck's _The Road Less Travelled_, or the gruesome tale of
Sarah and Hartley, in his _People of the Lie_. In both books he describes
people who are clearly "codependent" but he uses wholly different
terminologies to describe them and counsels very different therapies from
the twelve-step people. I hope that some of ths helps to illuminate or
generate discussion. I am no computer genius, but it seems like it might
be a nice idea to have a FAQ posted here from time to time. Anyone
interested in taking up on this or cooperating in compiling one ? All the
best and warmth to everyone !
Leon
The Leather Menace
In article <1993Apr28.2...@julian.uwo.ca>, cri...@csd.uwo.ca (Crispin Cowan) writes...
>What I do do is to become obsessed with my SO, defining my whole life in
>I'm confused. This sounds more like plain old, ordinary dependency,
>with no co- aspect to it. Could someone explain the technical meaning
>of codependency?
Maybe "love addiction" is a more comfortable term for you?
Co-dependency is a pretty general term. these days I'm finding it
less and less necessary to *label* what is "wrong" with me, and just
look for solutions. I listen for things I can identify with, then
I listen to what other people have done, and how it worked for them.
Some people I related to call themselves co-dependents, others ACoA's,
others love/sex addicts, etc. I don't care *what* I am, I just want
to recover from it.
If you relate to what people in this newsgroup say, then keep reading
and keep coming. You belong if you say you do.
Peace,
D!
------
---------------------------------------------------------------------\ OO /
car...@zko.dec.com "Thank you God, may I have another?" \++/
\/
Crispin Cowan
>Maybe "love addiction" is a more comfortable term for you?
>
>Co-dependency is a pretty general term. these days I'm finding it
>less and less necessary to *label* what is "wrong" with me, and just
>look for solutions. I listen for things I can identify with, then
There are two obvious motivations for labelling. The constructive one
is that if there are a whole lot of other people out there with the same
problem as I have, then if I can identify the appropriate group, I can
apply their known solutions. The non-constructive motive is that it
makes me feel better to be part of a known group, giving me something
else to obsess about :-).