It occured to me last night, as I started reading "Codependent No More" by Melody Beattie, that one of the first things I read on the MB site was the article<p>How the Co-dependency Movement Is Ruining Marriages<p>and it seemed to me that it might be a worthwhile exercise to have adiscussion about this here on the boards.<p>The reason I first went to that article when I found MB was that my SIL was "advising" my WW about our R, and I felt that as a single, very independent woman, with a divorce in her past and no meaningful relationships in over 20 years, she might not be exactly the best source of advice about a M or a R. Don't get me wrong; I love her, have a good, close R with her, and I respect her for raising her 2 Ds alone and very successfully. I just felt that she'd be more likely to follow the "what feels good for you is what you should do" track, rather than a track leading to compromise, discussion, and agreement, which was what I thought my WW and I needed.<p>Now here I am, 5-6-7 months later, in the midst of Plan A, struggling with so many things, learning, trying to rebuild my M, and some of the advice coming through loud and clear is to read and learn about codependency, letting go of my controlling behavior, etc.<p>So I ask; does this go contrary to MB principles and beliefs? Is it just part of "reducing codependency" that I need to apply? Is there really a conflict here?<p>I understand the concept of detachment as it relates to a BS, the need for it, and its benefits. But I also see Dr. Harley's points about the damage the codependency movement could do to M....what does everyone think about this?

I too was given Beatty's books by a "Christian" counselor. I could see myself in her examples but it's like a horoscope-you can always see yourself. I have come to believe that they're both about as dangerous and useless.<p>After I left that counselor, I went to another counselor who is highly respected and well published. It was a miracle that I was able to get to see this man, Dr. Charles Solomon who wrote many books..The Key to Happiness for one. I took Beatty's books with me and talked with him for over two hours. He said for me to not throw those books away but burn them. He said they were dangerous and he wouldn't want anyone to find them in the garbage.<p>I agree that the co-dependency movement is starting to die a slow death. People and counselors are starting to see it has little merit. I once expressed that idea on a post here and a person replied that she knew I was co-dependent by my post! I think that's how ingrained that philosophy is. <p>From the beginning of time we've looked to blame bad behavior on others. Adam did it in the Garden of Eden when he blamed Eve for giving him the forbidden fruit. Then Eve wanted to blame the serpent. I think the co-dependency movement is the same thing in a different package. It's the old "It's not my fault, it's your fault. You made me do it because of your behavior." <p>In marriage we're told that "two become one" then we're told that's not healthy. I agree with Dr Harley and am thankful the truth is coming to light.

Wow! Thanks Spacey! <p>I'm looking forward to this discussion. That scared me to read that article again. Thanks for posting it. Got me thinking!!!<p>I guess... there should be a balance. right?<p>I came here thinking, but ISN'T it our job to make our spouses happy? "I am my brother's keeper" sorta thing. Shouldn't we GIVE more than we RECEIVE? But WHY DOESN'T that work? Is it because one person decides they aren't getting what they want in return? Is that selfishness? <p>The Prayer of St. Francis... <p>Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
...where there is injury, thy pardon, Lord;
...where there is doubt, let there be faith;
...where there is despair, let me bring hope;
...where there is darkness, let there be light;
...where there is sadness, let there be joy;<p>O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
...to be consoled as to console;
...to be understood as to understand;
...to be loved as to love.<p>For it is in giving that we receive;
...it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
...and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
<p>
IMO... what many of us REALLY need to learn and remember, is that we can't control other people. And we can't expect our spouses to remain in love, just cuz of vows or promises, or just cuz we meet some of their needs. Perhaps we are too quick to label "co-dependency". <p>Many of us come on this board relying on our spouse as our sole source of fulfillment and happiness. I guess stretching to learn about co-dependency helps us find our own strength, and lift the burden off our spouse to "make us happy".<p>My first (or second) phone call to Steve H., he asked me if I thought love was conditional or not. I said it should be unconditional. <bzzzz> He corrected me and explained why. We don't fall in love with JUST ANYONE. We fall in love with someone who meets our needs. Attractiveness, recreation, conversation, etc. That's conditional. THEN, he asked me, "WHo's responsibility is it for your H to stay in love with you?" ummmm... him? no.... wow... ME. It's my responsibility to meet his needs. How could he stay in love with me if I stop meeting his needs? It is selfish of me to insist he remain in love if I stop meeting his needs. And vice-versa. It's our job to protect the love in each other. <p>I got off track [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] ... but I guess my point was that Steve often says things that go against what we've all assumed to be the truth. <p>Sooooo, how does this sound? We should seek a balance between feeling responsible for the other person (either being a martr OR being controlling), and feeling responsible ONLY for self. <p>Thus, simple personal responsibility to the marriage. <p>We ARE responsible to PROTECT our spouse from our failings. We ARE responsible to provide Protection, Care, Honesty, and Time. We are NOT responsible for their happiness and fulfillment in life. We are NOT responsible for their behavior.<p> [img]images/icons/confused.gif" border="0[/img] Looking forward to other responses.<p>[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Faith1 ]</p>

Being the ex fiance of an alcoholic, I read the co-dependent books. They have a very limited place in relationships. The mistake most folks make when involved with someone who is chemically dependent is they try to protect the person from their own actions. That is the only sense the books make when they tell you to stop doing it. And to improve yourself. As far as living independent lives from you mate, I feel that is contributing to problems. My M-I-L divorce and alcoholic, she never remarried. The example she set to my H, is that you lead independent lives, so my H, has not clue as to how M, really work. When I make comments on how he does this, my M-I-L, says that married couples need time apart. Since we work opposite shifts, we have plenty of time apart. Her ideas does not help our M. She is one who bought the whole co-dependent thing hook line and sinker.

I agree that one should not buy all this codependnent stuff HOOK LINE AND SINKER... I agree with BALANCE... I am tired of being told how codependent I am because I love my h and give in our relationship... people say I give too much... well how much is really too much, if you are taking care of yourself... friends say I dont take care of me enough by even being with him... YA KNOW THE WELL MEANING FRIENDS WHO SAY DROP THE BUM.? Well maybe I should... but things used to be good...<p>and VERY TRUTHFULLY... some things in my Marriage got very bad by me being UNWILLING to meet my H's needs.. due to his alcoholic behavior.. and it drove us apart... I got to be very much an enforcer of TOUGH LOVE with my H and that with an illness of mine, job stress, no fun in our lives, and an office flousy... etc.. lead to the A... my H will tellyou it was ALL ME... well I had a lot to do with NOT MEETING HIS NEEDS>.. in return to what I was gettting... esp. and also some fuzzy advise I was given to DO NOTHING FOR HIM and LET HIM FALL by alanon... well.. that was helping me be secure alone but ruining my marriage... I ALSO let go and let God with Anger and even punishment for my h's alcoholic behavior etc. I locked him out of the house , etc. when he treated me badly in drinking bouts... maybe not bad enough to be out on the street.. but boy was I tough. A lot it did for our love relationship, right?<p>I was trying to force him to grow up and be respon. by TOUGH, TOUGH behaviro//... it can drive someone away! be careful... a bit off the subject.. but the key is balance.. LOve without losing yourself... !<p>GIve, but be sure you are given too! <p>Thanks for the topic, wonderful thinking SPacecase.<p>HONEY

This is interesting...I imagined there'd be some controversy, but not this much!!!<p>I guess the main reason codependency is recommended so much here at MB is that it is supposed to be helpful in limiting "controlling" behavior, which is what most of us BSs want to do with our WS...somehow "control" their behavior in ending the A, understanding MB principles, "getting it", going to MC, writing a No Contact letter, or any other form of trying to change their behavior as it relates to their A and us.<p>Maybe there's some value to codependency thinking for that? Like everything else, I guess what we should not do is make it a "religion", and perhaps some of what it teaches is helpful?<p>It looks like we'll probably get a lot more input. I'd sure like to hear what some of the folks who recommend codependency reading think...

Wow Spacecase! I just read that article. And I was beginning to think of buying that book prior to reading that article. I agree with Dr. Harley about the situations of co-dependent people and if my H was indeed a drug addict or an alcoholic. I'm not going to buy that book. Thanks for this thread.<p>Llama

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by llama:
<strong>Wow Spacecase! I just read that article. And I was beginning to think of buying that book prior to reading that article. I agree with Dr. Harley about the situations of co-dependent people and if my H was indeed a drug addict or an alcoholic. I'm not going to buy that book. Thanks for this thread.<p>Llama</strong><hr></blockquote><p>Llama, I am in no way recommending against codependency reading...just thought I'd bring it up and we could have a discussion abouT it...stick around as we'll see what others have to say...<p>[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Spacecase ]</p>

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SueofMinnesota:
<strong>Being the ex fiance of an alcoholic, I read the co-dependent books. They have a very limited place in relationships. The mistake most folks make when involved with someone who is chemically dependent is they try to protect the person from their own actions. That is the only sense the books make when they tell you to stop doing it. And to improve yourself. As far as living independent lives from you mate, I feel that is contributing to problems. My M-I-L divorce and alcoholic, she never remarried. The example she set to my H, is that you lead independent lives, so my H, has not clue as to how M, really work. When I make comments on how he does this, my M-I-L, says that married couples need time apart. Since we work opposite shifts, we have plenty of time apart. Her ideas does not help our M. She is one who bought the whole co-dependent thing hook line and sinker.</strong><hr></blockquote><p>SofM,
I had this thought when reading your post: what is said around MB boards is that As have "addictive" elements to them, and as such, our WSs have a certain degree of "addiction" to the OP.<p>Consequently, we BSs, in our attempts to have our WSs end the A, end contact, join us in fixing our Ms, etc. are being controlling and are, in effect, codependents. Much the same way the wife of an alcoholic might be.<p>And since codependency was born of the need to help people married to addicts/alcoholics, it has been used here to help the BSs improve their lives by following the same principles with our "addicted" WSs...so that seems to make perfect sense.<p>However, the point made by Dr. Harley in his article is that there is very little in common between the relationship and needs of an addict/addict's wife, and the relationship and needs of a BS/WS. And since there is little in common between these two scenarios, the "medicine" (codependency) that might work for the first (addict/addict wife) does not work for the second (WS/BS)...therein lies the dilemma....so who's right? Or is there a middle ground? Are part of the codependency teachings valuable, good, for the BS, or are they not applicable at all?

I think too many are conveniently labeled co dependent. Here's an interesting article by Greg Dear.Codependency Model: An Overview<p>The Codependency Model: An Overview<p>The early literature on women with alcoholic husbands outlined a predominantly
negative view of these women. Such women were seen as neurotic, poor copers
who were obsessed with controlling their husbands drinking. They were seen to
have partnered alcoholic men in order to satisfy their own pathological needs
(Kalashian 1959; Whalen 1953). It was further asserted that some women would
sabotage the drinker&#8217;s attempts to abstain in order to continue meeting these
needs (Futterman 1953). Edwards, Harvey & Whitehead (1973) termed such
notions the disturbed personality theory. They criticised the lack of empirical
support for such notions and cite a number of research findings which support
the alternative view: that it is the stress created by the drinking which affects the
partner&#8217;s psychological functioning. Subsequent reviews cite further research
supporting the stress model and refuting the disturbed personality model (Finney,
Moos, Cronkite & Gamble 1983; Gomberg 1989; Watts, Bush & Wilson 1994;
O&#8217;Farrell, Harrison & Cutter 1981).286
The central theme of the vast literature on codependency is that all members
of any family in which one member has a drinking problem are psychologically
disturbed and in need of treatment. There is no doubt expressed by any of the
proponents of the codependency model that there exists a distinct syndrome of
maladjustive coping behaviours and that this can be observed within every
family in which a drinking problem exists. Some writers are explicit in
describing codependency as a personality disorder (for example, Cermak 1986)
and others go so far as to describe it as a disease (for example, Schaef 1986;
Young 1987).
The term has been further generalised to also refer to the partners of anyone
with any form of major behaviour problem (excessive gamblers, violent and
abusive men, workaholics, psychiatrically disturbed individuals, etc.) and to
anyone who had grown up in a family affected by any major disturbance
(Bradshaw 1988; Schaef 1986; Subby & Friel 1984).
Treatment programs for codependents have been developed and hundreds of
self-help books on codependency have been published. Typically these books
comprise discussions of the characteristics of the codependent person,
disclosures of personal experience, case histories of codependents, explanations
of why long-term therapy is seen to be required, and advice on self-change
strategies. Such books sell extremely well and an entire industry has developed
around them. Leading writers tour the world conducting workshops and
seminars, therapists advertise that they provide treatment for codependency, and
numerous support groups and family counselling services have developed
programs based on the codependency model.
Such developments have all taken place in the absence of any research
support for the model and the lack of an accepted formal definition for the
proposed syndrome. A number of other criticisms of the model have also been
raised:
· that the model is incorrect in asserting that there is a distinct coping
pattern found among the partners of problem drinkers (Gierymski &
Williams 1986; Gomberg 1989; Haaken 1990; Hands & Dear 1994).
· that the model is at odds with the research on family coping in that it
promotes the notion that most family members adopt ineffective and
pathological coping responses (Gomberg 1989; Haaken 1990; Hands &
Dear 1994; Raven 1994; Watts et al. 1994).
· that the model is demeaning to women in that it describes socially
sanctioned feminine role behaviours as evidence of personal inadequacy
and dysfunction (Appel 1991; Haaken 1990; Hagan 1989; Hands & Dear
1994; Krestan & Bepko 1990).287
One area where the codependency model has recently gained some degree of
acceptance is in the development of counselling services for women who have
been physically abused by a partner or other family member. Domestic violence
is specifically listed by a number of the leading writers on codependency as a
relevant clinical area for applying the concept (for example, Bradshaw 1988;
Cermak 1986). Cermak (1986, p.33) states that &#8216;One of the most reliable
symptoms of codependence is the inability to leave a chronically abusive
relationship behind&#8217;.
This use of the codependency model in the area of domestic violence is of
considerable concern. The notion that all women who have difficulty leaving
violent and abusive men have some form of personality disturbance is dangerous
because it blames the victim for not being able to prevent, avoid or cope with the
violence (McIntyre 1984; Queensland Domestic Violence Task Force 1988;
Roxburgh 1991). Moreover, blaming the victim further undermines her ability to
take action against the violence (Dobash & Dobash 1987; Roxburgh 1991). As
Roxburgh (1991, p.143) explains, blaming the victim:
reinforces the abused woman&#8217; s low self-esteem . . . ; can contradict her
interpretation of the violent situation and distort her version of what is happening
. . . ; can weaken her resolve to act because she feels responsible for and
therefore deserving of the violence; makes her feel undeserving of other
assistance; diminishes the capacity of the service provider to offer assistance
which will be of real benefit to the woman; and is untrue.
Orr (1991, p. 120) concludes her review of the various theories put forward
to explain family violence by stating that an &#8216;understanding of the differences in
the gendered identity of men and women is crucial to elucidating why family
violence occurs, and to replacing the common myths about the causes of family
violence with a stronger knowledge of who benefits from its continual
perpetration&#8217;. The Queensland Domestic Violence Task Force (1988) also
emphasised the importance of such an approach to understanding family
violence. The codependency literature, however, comprehensively fails to
examine sociocultural processes and gender related power issues and hence leads
to an incomplete understanding of the dynamics of family violence.
Norwood (1985), for example, writes of the women &#8216;who love too much&#8217;.
She avoids examining the cultural processes which obstruct domestic violence
victims from obtaining a position of safety and empowerment. Rather she
analyses intrapersonal processes in order to explain their lack of power. Hagan
(1989) has strongly criticised this approach. She argues that the concept involves
&#8216;a classic reversal: women are at fault again, this time for loving&#8212;what we&#8217;ve
been reared to do&#8212;too much&#8217; (p. 9). She is highly critical of the lack of socialanalysis which only serves to maintain the processes that enable domestic
violence to thrive.
As Roxburgh (1991, p. 130) explains, family violence &#8216;isolates the victim
from assistance, a consequence the perpetrator frequently seeks to maintain&#8217;.
Self-help books which promote concepts of personal inadequacy and disorder
could be expected to instil a sense of personal responsibility for preventing the
violence and hence further isolate the victim from those services which may
provide a more realistic solution.
Victims of domestic violence need to have their feelings of fear and trauma
legitimised (Queensland Domestic Violence Task Force 1988). They need clear
messages which counter the myth that they are in any way responsible for being
abused. They need to be able to explore their fears and anxieties and discuss the
difficulty they experience in removing or protecting themselves without feeling
that this indicates there is anything wrong with them. It is questionable whether a
model which employs notions of personal inadequacy can be made consistent
with such aims.
The codependency model does not provide any meaningful contribution to
the understanding of domestic violence. Given this, and the extensive problems
inherent in the model, there is no justification for using it in family violence
programs. To do so is in fact unnecessary, given that there are more established
models of stress and coping which can be used as the basis for developing
positive counselling programs for families (for example, Lazarus & Folkman
1984, Orford 1987, Roth & Newman 1991). Such counselling programs need to
be coordinated with other supportive and refuge services, and they need to be
philosophically consistent with these other services (Dobash & Dobash 1987;
Roxburgh 1991).
Counselling programs for survivors of family violence need to help
participants understand that they are coping as best they can under difficult
circumstances and that with appropriate support, and an opportunity to learn
more effective coping strategies, they can minimise the trauma they experience
and improve the quality of their future life. It is also important for these
programs to provide participants with an opportunity to examine how gender-based
power issues have impacted and continue to impact on their lives. The aim
is to empower participants to develop more self-protective and self-fulfilling
social roles. While this aim is also the declared aim of the codependency
movement, the manner in which this objective is addressed within the
codependency model is likely to be counter-productive.
Apart from the conceptual arguments against applying the codependency
model within the domestic violence field, the lack of research support for the
model dictates against such a move.<p>[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: roseyhue37 ]</p>

This gets interestinger and interestinger...<p>Considering we have a lot of elements of the codependency theories and practices, as well as many of the 12 steps (and derivatives) being used, apparently by great numbers, here at MB as they relate to infidelity...<p>I don't really know what to think...

Spacey,
Check this out. A post appearing on the D/D board today. [img]images/icons/shocked.gif" border="0[/img] <p>http://www.marriagebuilders.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=34&t=006434<p>I thought it fit in with our discussion here. I suppose it's good to look at it that way if faced with an unwelcome situation like divorce. But a "live and let live" theory for life just doesn't seem like "living" - to me.<p>[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Faith1 ]</p>

Here's something else from Robert Westermeyer, Ph.D. re: co dependency labeling (complete article on web page ) web page<p>Alternatives to the Enabling idea are: <p>1. No one can cause another person's addictive behavior. Addictive behaviors are learned habits fueled by expectancies that following through with the behavior will bring about ease, comfort, or the reduction of something negative. <p>2. Caregiving is not enabling. Caregiving is fueled by the capacity to experience empathy and the desire to make the lives of our intimates more happy. One of the most robust indicators for a positive outcome from most psychiatric maladies is social support. <p>3. What works in one relationship will not necessarily work in others, and what used to work in one relationship may be ineffective given new circumstances. This does not mean that the previous behaviors need to be abandoned, or viewed as pathogenic. It means that those in a relationship with an addicted person need to evaluate whether modification of one or several behaviors would aid in the motivation to change on behalf of the addicted person. <p>The Idea That "Less than Nurturing" Experiences are Necessarily Traumatic<p>We expect relief--quick relief. We are fortunate to live in a time when quick relief for many of the discomforts of life is available, often at a very low price. We not only have remedies for such nuisances as a headache, we can choose between ibuprofen, acetaminophen or aspirin, depending on your preferred means of pain relief. We live in an age in which people believe that life should be fair and comfortable. You don't have to go back very many decades to be assured that things are pretty fair and comfortable these days relative to the lifestyles of our ancestors. I imagine if one of these codependency books was published a century ago there would be very few who would have taken it seriously. Imagine a family migrating west in the 1800s, just barely surviving. Imagine an exhausted wife and mother bouncing along in a horse led wagon, face chapped from the sweltering midday heat. She opens up Pia Mellody's book as she breast feeds her infant while leaning on a loaded shot gun and nursing her husband's wounded arm. Her eyes open wide. She says to herself? "What? a disease of caring?" "I need to relive the "shame" of my childhood and hold all the "bad" people accountable, detach and learn to live for myself because I don't have to take care of anyone but myself?" You can bet Beattie's book would be fire bait that cold dessert night. <p>The codependency idea offers an easy route to relief in this age of quick cure. In fact, Melody Beattie says "It is not only fun, it is simple (54). At last people who are angry, frustrated, bored, unhappy, clingy, irrational, or guilt ridden can have a diagnosis. What's even more fun is we get to reexamine our childhoods, our families, Everyone's favorite soap opera, as Wendy Kamminer writes in I'm Dysfunctional You're Dysfunctional. Codependency mandates a poignant story. We get to ask, "How did I become codependent? Mellody will respond, "Carried Feelings." She will offer an electrical circuit analogy. You, the child, because of your ill developed boundaries were literally a conduit for the intense feelings of shame which were discharged by your parents. As a child you incorporated these into a "shame core" which is manifested in your "shame attacks" today. You will pass on shame cores to your children unless you unleash the bottled up pain today. <p>It is recommended that codependents do an inventory of all "less than nurturing" experiences of childhood. Pia Mellody asks that you look at your life from birth to age 17 and identify all the people responsible for "abusing you." No attempt should be made to make excuses for the offenders in our lives or to tell ourselves that they didn't mean it, even if they didn't mean it. These perpetrators include, first and foremost, our mothers and fathers, but also siblings, extended family and members of the community, such as neighbors and teachers and angry garbage men. <p>Mellody Beattie recommends that we grieve. The purpose of "grief work" is to "separate the abuse from the precious child (118)." This is an actual mandate for recovery, "We must purge from our bodies the childhood feeling reality we have about being abused. The only way we can connect the feeling reality to what happened is to know what happened (122)." <p>I think few, if any, events rival physical and sexual abuse in terms of the horrible effects that can plague the victim in later life. Talking about these events, identifying the offender and disputing the victim's ideas that she is responsible are integral to adult psychological health. However, these authors are talking about more than physical and sexual abuse. In fact, they pay lip service to the horrors of child abuse by deeming any event in which our parents were harsh, impatient or unfair as abuse. All of the events mentioned in the books having to do with humiliating a child, name calling, yelling at a child and threatening a child are all instances of poor parenting, they may even be associated with ongoing suffering and marred interpersonal relationships. But they don't necessarily make a person a victim of child abuse. <p>These authors suggest that negative events necessarily lead to pathology, as though the caregivers of our past now hold puppet strings on our continued existence. If you are unhappy, you must examine what happened to you and identify the perpetrators and assign all the unhappiness you experience now to these ghosts. As Wendy Kaminer proclaims in her witty and erudite "I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional, "The trouble is that for codependency consumers, someone else is always writing the script. They are encouraged to see themselves as victims of family life rather than self-determining participants. They are encouraged to believe in the impossibility of individual autonomy (13)." <p>The mandate that we assume the role of damaged victim in order to get better is contrary to not only a century of Existential philosophy and fiction--in which tragedy is discussed as opportunity for transcendence, clarity and strength--but also to a fair number of empirical studies which have suggested that they way people construe past events, not the events themselves, will determine later functioning. These findings are completely opposite the non-scientific recommendations of codependency authors. <p>For example, in a recent study by McMillen, Zurvin and Rideout (1995) a large sample of adults sexually abused as children were interviewed and asked if they felt that they had benefited in any way from the experience. 47% said that they had. Responses ranged from "growing stronger as a person," "feeling more adept at protecting their children from abuse," "increased knowledge of sexual abuse" and the belief in one's ability to self-protect. In turn, regardless of quality or duration of the abuse, those who saw some benefit scored higher on a number of adjustment. <p>Not just sexual abuse has been evaluated in this regard, those who experiences natural disasters, serious health problems and personal tragedies have been found to have common perceptions of benefit such as positive personality changes, changes in priorities and enhanced family relationships (e.g. Affleck, Tennen, and Rowe (1991). <p>The whole basis of cognitive therapy is to help individuals learn to recognize and dispute exaggerated, biased and overly negative automatic thoughts, beliefs, values and standards. The attitude of the codependent authors is Jr. Psychoanalyst. Somehow "events" in their pure form are stored in the labyrinth of ones unconscious and need to be purged and experienced in all their horror in order for the person to get beyond them. As said, people's ongoing unhappiness is not a direct result of the negative events which befell us, but rather they way the negative events are appraised, or the meaning assigned the events by the recipient. People vary tremendously in terms of their appreciation of the same event. The mandate that we catastrophize then detach appears to me more a prescription for a phobia than recovery. As opposed to taking a victimization inventory, the most healthy thing to do would be to conduct a coping inventory, in which negative events of the past are re-evaluated in a manner that makes you stronger, more resilient. There are opportunities to learn and grow from the tragedies and mishaps in our pasts...or their is a quagmire of despair, deception, bad, bad mommies and daddies and precious little lambs with throats extended. You pick.<p>The Idea that 12-Step Groups are Necessary for Those Involved with an Addicted Person<p>Whether they commit themselves to the idea that codependency is a disease or not, the three authors are adamant about codependency being a lifelong illness which doesn't go away; rather goes into remission (if you're lucky), like diabetes or schizophrenia. Like neuroleptics and psychosis, codependency and AA-like support groups are intimately linked by these authors. Psychotherapy is deemed insufficient by these authors. Mellody Beattie, by way of an "invisible boat (194-195)" story, implies that therapy is fine for starters, but that the journey will end, and given the fact that codependency is progressive, one will need the 12-steps to continue on course. It is stated in all three books that one has to be a codependent to understand what is gong on with the codependent. That kind of reasoning is as absurd as me firing my rheumatologist, who is chief of staff at a respected hospital in San Diego, because he doesn't have any swollen joints. Some painful knees would be a better qualification than board certification. I should ask a patient in the waiting room if they wouldn't mind taking over my case because of his or her capacity to feel the same throbbing joint pain as me. <p>The 12-step philosophy endorses the relinquishing of control to a higher power. Though claiming that it's spiritual emphasis is not religious, and that virtually anything can be ones higher power, this is really a clever bait and switch. 12-step groups are more like going to a prayer group than anything else. For many, this forum is commensurate to existing needs and values. For others, it is the antithesis of stable world views. As is the case with alcoholics and drug dependent individuals, you are hard pressed to find alternatives to the 12-step approach. Those desiring help who find the mentality of AA irrelevant or offensive are deemed "in denial" or "into their disease." <p>Most disturbing is the fact that codependency authors are unaware of the volumes of empirical data backing up non-12-step methods of change for the symptoms delineated in codependency books (anger control problems, depression, anxiety, communication problems, to name but a few of those symptoms listed in Beatties's book). Also behaviorally oriented family therapists have developed methods for helping families in which addiction occurs without the use of 12-step mentality (e.g. O'Farrell, et. al.). <p>One Step at a Time<p>It's probably "codependent" of me to believe that I alone can strike the term codependency from the English language. It's entrenched in the addiction vernacular, and though defined in many, many ways depending on which symptoms a person selects from the vast lists, has been implemented into the self concepts of many. I'm sure the codependency books critiqued in this essay, like all self help books, were written with good intentions, the hope that people's lives would be improved. If your life feels better for having read and followed through with the recommendations of these authors, who am I to try to take that away. My article was written primarily as a caveat, a warning that what appears right and good on the surface, may have unhealthy ramifications in the long run if taken on to aggressively, a warning that just because a self-help author mandates one path to happiness, doesn't make it accurate. <p>As opposed to swallowing the codependency idea whole, I encourage those struggling with problematic relationships or a family member's addictive behavior to use the basic advice of AA, "one step at a time." The codependency idea is so broad that it is possible to extract useful principles and guidance from it. Given the lack of scientific drive behind this concept it behooves you to examine all aspects of your life which are being addressed by this concept. Just because one component of the codependency mind set hits home, doesn't mean you have to engulf the entire world view. <p>web page<p>[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: roseyhue37 ]</p>

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Faith1:
<strong>Spacey,
Check this out. A post appearing on the D/D board today. [img]images/icons/shocked.gif" border="0[/img] <p>http://www.marriagebuilders.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=34&t=006434<p>I thought it fit in with our discussion here. I suppose it's good to look at it that way if faced with an unwelcome situation like divorce. But a "live and let live" theory for life just doesn't seem like "living" - to me.<p>[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Faith1 ]</strong><hr></blockquote><p>I think this is all well and good, if you believe in fairies...it sounds like some of the stuff I read back in the 60s-70s about peace, love and no war...wonderful in theory, impossible in reality.<p>If we were to follow that kind of thinking, I'd be right now finding a way to be "at peace" with the fact that my W is having an A, and trying to find a way to accomodate that behavior into my life and be OK with it....or simply saying, OK, that's how she is, I can't live with it, there's nothing I can do, and file for divorce...

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Spacey,
Check this out. A post appearing on the D/D board today.
http://www.marriagebuilders.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=34&t=006434
<hr></blockquote>
Spacecase, thanks for posting on that thread. I feel the same way but didn't have the jam to say so.

Nice job Spacey! [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] I agree! <p>I notice she changed the title of her thread to "agree or disagree". It wasn't like that earlier.

Ok, I want to post a longer response here but I don't know if I have time tonight. The post on D/D was excellent and I did try to respond briefly to you Space.<p>You guys know me as a no-nonsense, tough love type of gal. There is alot of misunderstanding about co-dependency out there floating around, but let me assure you, as a former co-dependent, it exists, it affects families and children, and it destroys marriages.<p>The problem, I believe, is in the MISAPPLICATION of the 12-steps. I can't tell you how many co-dependents that I have come into contact, who are struggling to learn the difference btwn control vs boundaries, and actually become even more difficult to be around until they learn the difference.<p>Anyway, I'm going to read back over this thread and respond later in detail.<p>Personally, I believe every single person dealing with a WS should be reading Melody Beattie.<p>Her books LITERALLY saved my life. I am alive, recovering my marriage, finding myself, and happy as a result of her books which single handedly started the recovery of my entire family - myself first.

BR,
I look forward to your post. I believe there's an issue here that is causing considerable disagreement, and there probably is a good explanation for it.

I was hoping BR would come along here too. [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Ok Space, now, to address your original questions:<p>Does the Melody Beattie book, and other co-dependency stuff run contrary to the MB principles?<p>Yes and no. It depends on the context - which is exactly what Dr. Harley points out.<p>I'm a co-dependent. A recovering one, or a former one, whatever. I don't know what my label is, I just know that co-dependency nearly destroyed my life, and that I will have to work my entire life to not fall back into beliefs and behaviors that nearly caused me to committ suicide.<p>Why am I co-dependent? I come from a long well-established family line of raging alcoholics. While I didn't grow up in a family with active drinking, the serious emotional and spiritual dysfunction was/is still there. I was the first one in my immediate family to crash and burn. Because I am from a big family, I still have many siblings that still haven't hit rock bottom with their dysfunctional way of living that they learned in our childhood home. Slowly but surely however, one by one, we are seeking help and guidance. I have 2 siblings in AA and another who isnt alcoholic but simply co-dependent like me, and married to an alcoholic but in Al-Anon. There's 5 more siblings who haven't gotten recovery yet, and they are all very unhappy people.<p>To a normal person, co-dependency sounds like a healthy, loving, giving attitude. <p>However, being one myself, I can tell you that it is not.<p>Co-dependents do not know how to set boundaries with others. Co-dependents live with massive fears that drive them to believe on one hand that they don't deserve to be treated with dignity and respect like other people, and yet on the other hand, believe that they know all the 'right' answers for everyone around them. As a result, not knowing how to focus on self, and with boundaries, they focus on controlling others - with their main motive being mind-numbing fear of disaster if they do not contstantly keep watch.<p>Resentments build: If only he/she had done what I (in all my wisdom) told them (tried to force them) to do, then nothing bad would have happened!<p>Co-dependents do not know how to let other people live their lives and to focus on themselves. I'm not talking about selfishness here, but about self-care, self-respect, and self-responsibility.<p>I spent my entire life with no boundaries, allowing sick people to treat me disrespectfully, because I didn't believe that I deserved any better. I protected and cared for those sick people, believing that protecting those people from the feared "bad" stuff made me a good person. All I did was allow the sick people in my life to continue to live sickly, and I drained myself emotionally to the point where I no longer had the energy to live.<p>I did not take care of myself. Sounds selfish to a normal person. However, what I mean by not taking care of myself means that I had no "TAKER" protecting my self interests. It means that I gave and gave and gave with no one ever giving in return. It meant that I was afraid to spend money on myself - which meant that my clothes were all ugly, stretched out rags that made me unattractive. Setting aside the point that I am a child of God, made in His image, and therefore dressing well is a sign of RESPECT for God - my husband had a need for an attractive spouse. <p>Well I didn't consider myself important enough to do the basics - hair cuts, clothing, the occaisional manicure or pedicure. I looked in the mirror and saw an ugly person and told myself that I was bad and selfish to want to be better than that.<p>And in the meantime, my appearance lovebusted my husband - right into the arms of another woman who took very good care of herself.<p>That's just one tiny aspect of what co-dependency did to me.<p>It also nearly ruined my marriage because of my fears and need to control everything and everyone around me. I spent my entire life trying to force my husband into being the man I thought he shoudl be. Selfish demands and disrespectful judgements are the weapons of a co-dependent. And I wielded mine with incredible skill.<p>Now....that all being said.<p>The lessons that co-dependents learn in recovery are NOT at odds with the Harleys.<p>In fact, because infidelity is an addiction, most of what you read in recovery literature that is geared towards family and friends of alcoholics is also very appropriate to those dealing with the stress, pain and anguish of a spouse's addiction to another person.<p>BUT, in a healthy marriage - boundaries have to be dropped. In a addiction situation, dropping boundaries will destroy the non-addicted person.<p>In a healthy marriage (which requires 2 emotionally healthy people), operating under the MB principles, the co-dependent lessons about boundaries and independence need to be dropped with the SPOUSE ONLY.<p>One can not have boundaries in a marriage that is operating under the POJA with the rules of protection, honesty and care in place. In fact, the POJA replaces the need for boundaries.<p>But this is NOT something one can do with everyone. This is for the MARITAL relationship only. It means that the 2 have become one, in a team where mutual care and protection are always excercised, and no action is ever taken without the enthusiastic agreement of both.<p>Complete compatibility is the goal - and boundaries interfere with that goal.<p>That's why the Harleys say that a marriage can NOT be fixed while active addiction is involved. This means both alcohol, drugs and infidelity.<p>If one person can not be trusted to uphold the POJA, then boundaries MUST be drawn to protect the spouses. A co-dependent often will allow harm (including physical) to him/herself and the children, rather than draw a boundary. Co-dependents seem to trust untrustworthy people.<p>Does this help at all?