Validity Of The Concept Of Codependency Sociology Essay

Validity Of The Concept Of Codependency Sociology EssayEarly discourse regarding chemical dependency gave rise to the enigmatic purpose of codependency. Codependency quickly became diagnosed in the form of a somebodyality disorder, a infirmity and a family addiction. However, there is a deficiency of empirical evidence supporting the judgment of codependency as an official diagnosis. womens rightist criticism has further contri onlyed to the reduction in popularity of the disease model.The following literature retrospect on the wholeow for provide an overview of the ideal of codependency. It will outline various renderings of codependency found within the literature. These will then be comp atomic number 18d with libber alternatives to the concept of codependency such as connectedness and overresponsibility. Traditional codependency treatment is heavily influenced by prop unitarynts of the concept that potomania is a disease and this literature recapitulation aims to investigate those treatments.Central to the codependency debate is the neediness of empirical evidence to support all one definition for the condition. This allows sceptics to question the validity of the concept of codependency. This review of codependency literature thoroughly explores the studies conducted in combination with every scholarly critiques of those studies. As the majority of studies were conducted during the 1990s, the inclusion criteria for this review are not constrained to contemporary literature.There is a remarkable lack of inquiry into the tie in between same-sex relationships and codependency. For the purposes of this literature review, and in keeping with the studies conducted on straightaway married relationships, the codependent will be referred to as she and the addicted accessory will be referred to as he.Definitions of CodependencyThe codependency model construes characteristics associated most commonly with women, e.g. caring, nurturing, sustaini ng relationships, in an entirely pathological way and urges women to self-define on this basis. The search for an agreed definition of codependency is the subject of much disagreement, despite some definitions being proposed within the literature.According to a study by Dear, no one definition has been empirically derived (2002 47). The definition of codependency depends on what situation is being describe and on the motivation of the person using the term. In treatment equipment casualty, codependency is considered one of the most frequently diagnosed concepts despite inadequate research into the model.In 1991, a review of codependency literature for a core meaning of codependency found six different definitions (in Harkness and Cotrell, 1997 473-474).An emotional, psychological, and behavioural conditionAn obsession with social controlLearned self-defeating behaviours slimy connected with at executeing to other(a)sAn addictive diseaseA preoccupation with others characterised b y extreme dependency.According to Lyon and Greenberg, 96% of the general population in the United States has met the discharge conditions for codependency at one time or another (1991 436). It could be argued that everyone who is around an addicted person is considered a codependent.Below are a few definitions and symptoms derived from codependency literature.Codependency as a Relational and Behavioural ConceptThis is an example of dependence on addictive behaviours and a need for approval from others to find safety, self-worth, and identity (Anderson, 1994 678). The term represents any individual involved in a dysfunctional or abusive relationship (Lyon and Greenberg, 1991 436). This definition applies when a person displays an excessive dependence on other people for approval and identity.Dear outlined other comparative or behavioural codependent traits (2002 47). These included the impulse to accommodate the take of others ahead of ones individual needs participation in self- destructive interpersonal behaviours such as care-taking (taking responsibility for controlling another persons conduct) and rescuing (taking responsibility for the consequences of another persons irresponsible actions).Codependency as a symptomatic EntityThis perspective diagnoses codependency as a primary disease which manifests itself in every member of an addictive family. Codependency has been defined by scholars as pathological behaviour, and it is considered to be worsened than the addicted persons disease of addiction (George et al 1999 39 Schaef, 1986). Within this perspective, codependency is a curable diagnostic entity comprised of a predictable beginning, course, and outcome.Proponents of the diagnostic entity concept shoot that a learned predis impersonate to enter into addictive relationships develops in childhood. Cermak in Anderson (1994 677) contends that codependency is eligible for addition as a personality disorder to the Axis II diagnostic and Statistical Manu al of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R). He further states that a dependent personality disorder illustrates many features of codependency.Codependency from a Family Systems PerspectiveThis is a pattern of header which advances because of prolonged exposure to a dysfunctional family. Dysfunctional family rules cause difficulties in expressing thoughts and feelings openly (Lyon and Greenberg, 1991 436). This perspective contends that enhanced family functioning needs the resolution of the addicts problem as well as treatment for the family members codependency (Dear, 2002 47).The family systems approach reflects a pattern of chronic and pathological behaviour allegedly caused by having a parent or mate who suffers from addiction (George et al, 1999 39). The term codependent originated in the intoxicantics Anonymous (AA) program. It was then extended to groups such as Al-Anon, CoDA and Al-Ateen.The word codependent interchanged with the terms co- alcohol-dependent and co-addict to pron ounce a family member or anyone who is negatively entangled with an addicted person (Lyon and Greenberg, 1991 435). The Adult Children of Alcoholics movement adopted the concept of codependency in the 1980s. They extended the application of codependency to anyone who grew up in an alcoholic or dysfunctional family.Codependency from a Psychodynamic PerspectiveFrom a psychodynamic perspective, codependency is construed to be a maladaptive way of relating to others. It is characterised by an intense certain(prenominal)ty in individual powerlessness and the command of others, and a shortage of open expression of feelings. Other indications are extreme efforts to obtain a sense of purpose, identity and appreciation of self.Cullen and Carr expand this further by including a desire for fulfilment through engaging in personally destructive care-taking relationships (1999 506) which involve high trains of denial, inflexibility, and numerous attempts to control the relationship (Zelvin, 19 99 14).Codependency from a Feminist PerspectiveWhen the codependency concept first put outd, it described psychological, emotional, and behavioural problems displayed by the supplys, and consequently the children, of alcoholics who unintentionally enabled continuance of the drinking problem rather than facilitating recovery. It replaced the less comprehensive terms co-alcoholic and enabler (Cullen and Carr 1999 505).On a socio-political level, feminist scholars regard codependency as yet another instrument in the oppression of women which fosters a denial of male responsibility (Anderson, 1994 679).This position asserts that when men are noticeably impaired, their female partners must also be labelled sick or pathological to retain the balance of power in the relationship.Lyon and Greenberg highlight some of the symptoms located in codependency literature (1991 436) which includeextreme and unbalanced interpersonal relationshipsinability to endure being alone, combined with frant ic efforts to distract thisconstant and chronic feelings of boredom and worthlessnesstreating ones individual needs as subordinate to the needs of anotheroverpowering desire for approval and affection outdoor(a) referencingdishonesty and deniallow self-worth.Irrespective of whether one truly possesses the qualities of alleged codependency, self-labelling promotes that one take on the characteristics of the label. It encourages examination of ones own behaviour and experiences as indicative of these traits, and to require in conduct which is consistent with the label. George et al. proposed that legitimate psychological trauma or pathology may progress because of well-disposed stigmatisation and the negative stereotypes connected with the label of codependency (1999 40-46).The codependency label tends to oversimplify multifaceted scenarios it prevents change and growth and it denies the uniqueness of a person. As individuals identify themselves with a label, they can assume that treatment centres know everything slightly their family, know about everything that is wrong with them, and know how to bring effective treatment. The codependent label is demoralising for the individual because it implants a fixed and negative understanding of the self and treatment.Krestan and Bepko claim that codependency should be renamed overresponsibility and recognised as a positive impulse gone awry (quoted in Anderson, 1994 682). Overresponsibility for others combined with underresponsibility for the self characterises codependent behaviour. Zelvin contends that codependency must be reassessed as a sequence of convoluted efforts to connect instead of a failure to dissipate (1999 9).The feminist perspective thus offers alternatives to the traditional concept of codependency, and this literature review will discuss overresponsibility and connectedness with reference to the definitions of codependency outlined above.Extension of the Disease Concept of Alcoholism to Codepend encyThe disease model concept has been intensely and cyclically debated for several hundred years. In the 1940s, the disease concept staged a comeback suggesting that alcohol itself was not responsible for any problematic drinking issues. The concept was rapidly adopted by the medical profession, popularised and then spread from America around the world. (Edwards, 2000 96-98). Codependency was popularised in the same way with no scientific validation.Edwards summarised the effects of the alcoholic disease concept (2000 101-102). If crapulence is considered to be a disease, alcohol itself is not the problem. Instead, the unfortunate few were predisposed to contracting the disease. This concept initiated the two population theory which viewed alcoholism as an isolate disease which divided drinkers into two categories alcoholics and social drinkers (Butler 2002 37).The disease concept legitimised medical and clinical treatment. Insurance companies would now pay claims if alcoholism w as diagnosed as a disease. formerly a funding system was put in place which ensured a constant flow of alcoholic patients, it can hardly be coincidence that hospitals became advocates of the disease concept.AA had mother a common treatment method since its inception in the 1930s. This style of treatment then extended to codependency with groups such as Al-Anon being form in the wake of the disease concept. The founder of AA, Bill Wilson, stated we did not wish to get in wrong with the medical profession by pronouncing alcoholism a disease entity. Therefore we always called it an illness or a malady (quoted in Kurtz, unpublished). The Oxford English Dictionary describes the term malady as a disease. Whether Wilsons comment aimed to intentionally mislead or not, it shows that AAs stance on the disease concept is as contentious as the disease concept itself.The disease concept ensured that alcoholics now became the good guys and could be welcomed back into society. Alcoholism was no longer considered a moral problem and alcoholics were no longer considered weak or deviant it was not their fault an uncontrollable disease had engulfed them.In other words, the disease model excuses men from their alcoholism and their corresponding underresponsibility in a relationship. The disease concept of codependency reinforces this belief by claiming that women are sicker than men inflicted with the disease of alcoholism.Women are deemed pathological for reacting with the culturally conditioned feminine response of becoming the over-functioning person in a relationship with an under-functioning person.All of Jellineks data (the main proponent of the disease concept of alcoholism) was based on information obtained from a small group of AA members, of which he eliminated all questionnaires filled out by women because their responses differed immensely from the mens (Fingarette 1988 18-19). From a critical stand focus, Jellineks research was inadequate in proving the disease con cept of alcoholism.In the 1970s, Edwards and Gross proposed the concept of an Alcohol Dependence Syndrome which resulted in a new worldwide Public Health Approach (1976 1058). This has dismantled the disease concept of alcoholism. It is not a disease rather, it is a development of severe dependence.Once the concept was dismantled, treatment for alcoholism changed from a predominantly clinical response to a social, community-based response. By disproving the disease concept of alcoholism, this casts mistrust on the context in which the disease concept of codependency developed.Application of the Disease Concept to obsessive Compulsive DisorderThe codependency model is frequently used with families having one or more chemically dependent or otherwise addicted individuals ( make, 1995 272). Cooper broadened the population and applied this model to families having one or more members with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and accent marked how families conk enablers through no fau lt of their own. Cooper observed the detrimental impact codependency has on their lives, calling relational codependency a dysfunctional behaviour (1995 272).Cooper notes that OCD, like chemical addictions, is all encompassing. Family members become inextricably bound to the suffering individuals illness this manifests in divorce, separation, chemical abuse, and academic problems for young family members.Family members license codependency of those with OCD in a myriad of ways, most often succumbing to the affected individuals requests for rituals. The rituals are often lengthy and time-consuming and significantly disrupt family life (Cooper, 1995 272). For the purposes of her study, Cooper get it ond that codependency was multidimensional, pathological, stress-induced, and, most significantly, a disease. The family dynamics of codependency are the neglect of personal needs, being out of touch with ones own experience, and having a high tolerance for extremely inappropriate beha viour (Cooper, 1995 272). Additional elements of Coopers disease model are feelings of helplessness, shame, depression, and anger.Disease Model Versus Feminist Perspective of OverresponsibilityAsserting that codependency is a disease removes the likelihood that the codependent muliebrity will pursue other, potentially more empowering methods of remedying her situation (Peled and Sacks, 2008 390). According to Anderson, the casual diagnosis of codependency as a disease is harmful to those with other, valid disorders, as they are likely to place all or most of their issues under the umbrella of codependency (1994 678). The disease model articulated by Schaef asserts that codependency has a predictable onset, course, and outcome (1986 7), but she offers insignificant empirical evidence to support this contention.The evidence that supports the disease model focuses on wives or partners of chemically dependent men. The social mechanisms of medicalisation, however, are inordinately harmf ul, effectively controlling women by framing the forms of female resilience as illness (Peled and Sacks, 2008 391). More importantly, the disease model of codependency ignores the so-called codependent person as an individual, failing to acknowledge his or her personal and subjective experiences.There is a complex web of experiences, interpersonal processes, and psychological dynamics that inform womens self-perceptions as being partners of addicted men. In their qualitative study of women living with alcoholic partners, Peled and Sacks discovered certain dominant themes from the results.These were the stance shown by the women the acknowledgement that their husbands issues were deviant and problematic and their reluctance to display a victim mentality, even when they are consistently abused by their husbands (2008 391).This suggests that women who are widely perceived as codependent have much more pressing issues than their codependency. They do not admit being victims of domesti c violence. A common theme in the womens experiences was a prescriptive upbringing, courtship, and marriage that evolved into a relationship with a problematic partner.Though the study did outwardly confirm the tendency for codependent women to feel overly responsible for others whilst taking comparatively less responsibility for their own health and wellness, the feminist critique of the overresponsible and underresponsible paradigm is largely confirmed by this study (Peled and Sacks, 2008 392).The women were clearly socialised to value the needs of others over their own needs, feeling excessive iniquity when investing time or energy in self-care.Given these social norms, women who are in a relationship with an ill or needy partner will inevitably fall into a codependent diagnosis. The disease model of codependency frames ignorance of self-care as automatic and unrecognised yet the results of this study were glaringly inconsistent with that assertion. The participants universally demonstrate awareness of their neglect of personal needs.The researchers recommended that the codependent diagnosis be dismantled. Noting that the participants excessively often believed they were merely an instrument in their husbands addiction, a belief facilitated by codependency theories, Peled and Sacks called for greater focus on personal experience and empowerment when counselling women living with alcoholic partners (2008 395). The goal of treatment, the authors assert, should be geared toward helping women find other paths toward self-fulfilment, beyond the prep of service to others.Sharpe and Taylor conducted a study of how identity variables such as self-esteem and peer relations relate to intimacy issues such as love and codependency in college women who are or have been victims of domestic violence (1999 165). The researchers acknowledge how socially constructed ideas of romance (and the feminine role within that romance) promote selfless devotion to the partner tha t can be considered codependent.The conditions fostered by a disparity between ones self-identity and the achievement of intimacy are also labelled codependent. Aligning virtually with the Peled and Sacks study, these results demonstrate that strength and personal identity are dominant themes in socially embedded female personalities that could easily receive a codependent diagnosis. This counters the disease model of codependency that highlights the affected person as being unable to define themselves in the absence of their partner.Relational Concept of Codependency and the Feminist Application of ConnectednessGender roles are significantly important in the relational model of codependency, though they are only modestly recognised in the empirical literature supporting the relational theories.Aside from feminist criticism of the relational model, studies have asserted that the relational model largely ignores the clement need for connections (Townsend and McWhirter, 2005 191). In short, when individuals do not meet their needs for lasting, functional, social connections, there is a negative impact on the health and wellness of these people, with their entire worldviews being shaped by an absence of interpersonal connection. The resulting separation results in a partial or total lack of social supports. This lack of social support produces numerous negative consequences for the disconnected individual.The relational model construes interpersonal connections as facilitators of codependency (Anderson, 1994 677). Townsend and McWhirter conducted a thorough review of over five hundred studies dating after 1984 containing the word connections in an effort to discredit the notion that human beings aim ultimately to be independent, self-sufficient, and, by extension, socially disconnected (2005 191). Thus, interdependence and communality are positive notions within human developmental literature but become less so during the young adult and later life stages.Town send and McWhirter identified that crucial components of psychological health are the sense of well-being and safety that stems from interpersonal connections, motivation to operate within the boundaries of a relationship, an increased awareness of self-worth stemming from connections, and the desire for additional connections (2005 192). From a cultural perspective, Western discourse places considerably more emphasis on individual autonomy, countering the notion that connectedness is integral to development after childhood.Townsend and McWhirter contend that by definition, codependency has been characterised as a risk factor for individuals and their network of relationships because it suggests that too much connection, or association, with others is psychologically damaging (2005 192). The disease model and Cermaks attempt to include codependency in the DSM-III-R essentially links interpersonal connections to addictions (quoted in Anderson, 1994 677). Codependency literature close ly links connectedness with dysfunction.The loss of connectedness, however, is detrimental to psychological health, rendering relational constructs of codependency not only potentially invalid but also harmful. Significant research by Townsend and McWhirter (2005) indicates that those experiencing bereavement benefit from relational networks. Ironically, the codependent interpersonal connections facilitate healing.Connectedness is defined by a number of interlinked variables, including embeddedness, engagement, companionship, and attachment, all of which emerge to varying degrees in codependency literature. The most empirically valid definition of connectedness reflects active involvement with another person, group, or environment (Ibid 195). This involvement, used positively, should promote comfort, well-being, and the reduction of anxiety. While codependency is rarely framed as positive, it remains that the active connection is the same in connectedness and codependency discourse .Gender Roles and the Feminist Application of ConnectednessThe manner in which the relational literature highlights codependent behaviours as addictions and disease is particularly problematic as these are the same behaviours that are assets in developing interpersonal connections (Townsend and McWhirter 2005 193). Codependent behaviours are just that they are behaviours more indicative of gender-related subordination roles in relationships than they are indicative of a disease. The ignorance of gender roles as a significant informant of codependent behaviours is one of the deepest flaws in the relational codependent literature, as most of the empirical evidence relates to male-female relationships, with the man being chemically dependent and the woman enabling his behaviour through codependent behaviours.The role played by power differentials in the relational literature is a significant one, with far too little credence afforded to the lack of power had by women in heterosexual re lationships.Discussion of gender equality, patriarchy, and a long history of oppression are notably absent from the literature supporting codependency as relational and disease-related (Anderson, 1994 681). The notion of the separate self is dominated by a Western male perspective, challenging the validity of connection-cultivating behaviours.There are fundamental differences in the way women and men engage in their interpersonal relationships. Townsend and McWhirter assert that the central principle in female socialisation is relational connections (2005 195).This principle is comparatively minimal in influencing male socialisation. Conceivably, women tend to both be more connected to others and value that connection more so than men.Overresponsibility and Too Many Definitions of CodependencyThe overresponsibility and underresponsibility paradigm is significant with respect to connectedness as it frames flawed attempts at connection as the prime culprit in birthing codependency thi s is in contrast to the literature that condemns over-connectedness as the foremost catalyst for codependency (Zelvin, 1999 9). utilize a sample of seventy-six male and female undergraduates, Cretser and Lombardo investigated the level of codependency between students having an alcoholic parent and those who did not (1999 629). They hypothesised that children of alcoholics would have a notably higher level of codependency. This hypothesis was glaringly unconfirmed by the study.The participants who had alcoholic parents received lower codependency scores than those with non-alcoholic parents (Cretser and Lombardo 1999 629). These findings are significant in that much of the codependency literature centres on the dysfunction of the relationships marked by the condition.Cretser and Lombardo acknowledged that codependency is thought to originate in dysfunctional families in which children overcompensate for parental inadequacies. They become overresponsible for others and underresponsib le for themselves, and consequently develop an excessive esthesia toward the needs of others (1999 629). Their research findings parallel the previously reviewed literature that cites how a large percentage of the population meets the criteria for codependency (Cretser and Lombardo 1999 629 Lyon and Greenberg, 1991 436).In contrast to the feminist debate regarding codependency, the researchers found that there was no significant variation in codependency according to gender and age. While they use their findings to accuse college counsellors of recognising symptoms of codependency in all students, their findings could also warn of the over-diagnosis of codependency.Anderson, in her 1994 member entitled A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Codependency, contends that the sheer number of diagnoses of codependency precludes the integrity of the codependency diagnosis. The entire Irish nation could be accused of exhibiting codependent traits for being overresponsible in bailing out t he underresponsible banks and thus eligible for codependency treatment. It is alarming that an entire nation should qualify for treatment on the basis of such contentious and over-inclusive symptoms.The Cretser and Lombardo study supports Andersons assertion that codependency is over-diagnosed to the point of invalidity, as even the children of alcoholics the population who comes only a close second to women in abusive relationships in terms of meeting codependency criteria do not demonstrate a significantly higher incidence of the condition.An alternative study focusing on the children of alcoholics highlighted how the codependency model, specifically the disease model, emphasises how children are developmentally impeded from achieving appropriate and normative social functioning due to their parents addiction (Sher, 1997 247). Theoretically, the need to take care of parents during childhood fosters codependency later in life, manifesting most frequently as denial, depression, hy per vigilance, and other patently fragmented characteristics. Sher questions the validity of the concept of codependency and states that studiestend to have serious methodological limitations, examine only a narrow aspect of purported codependent characteristics, and fail to demonstrate whether the concept of codependency has additional explanatory value (1997 247).Shers conclusions align closely with Andersons assertion that women who are deemed codependent are merely applying normative coping behaviours to their situation (1994 680).Fischer and Wampler stress that children of alcoholics consistently emerge as strong individuals who are labelled resilient (1994 469). This is merely a reflection of the limited knowledge regarding the range of forces influencing a childs socialisation and informing his or her experience. For instance, Ferrari and Olivette (1993 963) studied the hypothesis of a link between authoritarian parenting styles and the onset of codependency during adulthood . They concluded that no such link existed.Asher and Brissett wrote the first research-based article on codependency in 1988. The researchers claimed to have spread outn a link between two common dimensions of codependency from the responses of women in their study namely notions of care-taking and pleasing others, and affliction by association with a chemically dependent person.Arguably, the behaviours of care-taking and pleasing others should be attributed to external causes, such as the patriarchal hierarchy that places women in the position of subordination. From this feminist perspective, their study does not prove conclusively that care-taking and pleasing others are symptoms of the codependency concept. The second common feature of codependency, namely the affliction by association with a chemically dependent person is simply a reflection of the sample used in the study. Contrary to how the researchers interpreted these results, this does not prove a link between codependenc y and partners of alcoholics. The women had to be married to an alcoholic for inclusion in this study, and meeting that criterion does not conclusively link the two.Undoubtedly, family systems are comprised of intertwined individuals through which one persons behaviour affects all other family members to a certain degree. The literature suggests, however, that countless factors influence the system.Simple predictions of codependency are insufficient in addressing all issues in families dealing with disorders, addictions, or any other source of obstacles to which the codependency definition is so quickly applied. By extension, the recovery process for codependent families presents a range of problems.Feminist Critique of Codependency as a Psychodynamic ConceptThe feminist perspective of codependency has become the most popular framework for highlighting the flaws in the codependency movement. Behaviours that are widely perceived as codependent are indicative of a subordinate role in a relationship (Herndon, 2001 13).Women play the subordinate role most often in patriarchal cultures. Socially encouraged female conduct is then deemed codependent. Passivity, compliance, lack of initiative, and a fear of asserting oneself are all integral to the codependent disease model and characterise the individual playing the subordinate role in a relationship.The traditional, psy