Cooperative Dependence

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Codependence is a topic that came up in another thread, and I decided to just give it its own thread.

Codependence is a concept from Alcoholics Anonymous.

However, I'd like to explore it more in depth. Codependence means cooperative dependence. Cooperative dependence mean things/people rely on each other and are dependent on each other; they cooperate for mutual gain. I suppose they could also cooperate for mutual destruction, which is likely where the modern understanding of codependece resides (with the negative connotation).

Dependent personality disorder is another disorder in the DSM and it basically is a laundry list of submissive personality attributes.

The common denominator here is that human relating necessitates that we bleed into each other in a myriad of ways, if we choose to live amongst others. The ways we interact with each other will be as healthy as we are, or as sick as we are. Because most of us depend on others, we are all cooperatively dependent in some way, and I believe that is a good thing. Otherwise we are all living in our own little bubble.


Thoughtful thoughts?

 

[GIjade]

I'd rather live in my own little bubble.

 

[Poki]

I think leaning on others when needed is a good thing. I don't believe we should ever be dependent on another person. I know it causes issues in relationships both ways. My GF is slightly bothered that I don't need her in my life, I can handle myself and be happy without her. But it's also something she loves because I am fully capable and compentent. She makes my life better and it's more of an i want her around, not that I need her around. All my needs can be easily met without her, but I am happier with her. She would prefer the latter, because of who she is to much dependency on her causes lack of freedom issues.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I think leaning on others when needed is a good thing. I don't believe we should ever be dependent on another person. I know it causes issues in relationships both ways. My GF is slightly bothered that I don't need her in my life, I can handle myself and be happy without her. But it's also something she loves because I am fully capable and compentent. She makes my life better and it's more of an i want her around, not that I need her around. All my needs can be easily met without her, but I am happier with her. She would prefer the latter, because of who she is to much dependency on her causes lack of freedom issues.

Perhaps you will find as time goes by, you will need her more and more, even if it is just because you will need her to need you...

And maybe she does not need as much 'freedom' as you think. Maybe she would rather have you than freedom, you just are not giving her all of you yet.


Just ideas.....take with a grain of salt.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd rather live in my own little bubble.

No you wouldn't.

Because you are here.

 

[Poki]

Perhaps you will find as time goes by, you will need her more and more, even if it is just because you will need her to need you...

And maybe she does not need as much 'freedom' as you think. Maybe she would rather have you than freedom, you just are not giving her all of you yet.


Just ideas.....take with a grain of salt.

- - - Updated - - -



No you wouldn't.

Because you are here.

Yeah, that's possible. I won't try and predict what the future holds.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Co-dependency isn't derived from AA. It comes from drug treatment, the partners of those with chemical dependency. The doctors noticed that most patients had enablers, people who had similar traits, who accommodated the addicts, who excused bad behavior.

In the typical codependent relationship, there is the codependent and the narcissist (or mentally ill or addict). Both parties are unhealthy. Both suffer from a lack of true self love (yes, though narcissists are full of themselves, they don't have much love for themselves). Most likely both parties had poor childhoods, and didn't experience parental love. The solution is self-love and self-compassion.

Cooperative dependency is far different. That is a healthy relationship, most likely.

 

[GIjade]

Perhaps you will find as time goes by, you will need her more and more, even if it is just because you will need her to need you...

And maybe she does not need as much 'freedom' as you think. Maybe she would rather have you than freedom, you just are not giving her all of you yet.


Just ideas.....take with a grain of salt.

- - - Updated - - -



No you wouldn't.

Because you are here.

Ooops.

 

[citizen cane]

The problem here is that you seem to be conflating codependence with interdependence or cooperation. They are nothing alike. The very definition of a codependent relationship is a relationship where one party relies on the other for their own sense identity, purpose, and self worth. That said, I don't really understand what you are asking here.

 

[Kullervo]

That said, I don't really understand what you are asking here.

If I read it aright what she's asking is whether giving up some autonomy is such a bad thing, if it allows you to get closer to another person. Extrapolated further, you could ask whether anyone is completely independent, not just emotionally but physiologically.

These questions are very relevant because today people put a very heavy weight on personal freedom and independence, we can see already in this thread a few posters are treating them as a sine qua non of life (FTR, they're not). At no point in human history has the average person had so much choice, yet at the same time, we've never been more lonely and isolated. I believe there's a connection between the two, and that my generation, the Millennials, are overwhelmed so have become very phobic. This is one of the main causes of rising unhappiness, depression and so on.

 

[Ivy]

As [MENTION=9913]captain curmudgeon[/MENTION] has already said, codependence isn't the same thing as interdependence. Healthy families are interdependent. Codependence is sick.

 

[á´…eparted]

The problem here is that you seem to be conflating codependence with interdependence or cooperation. They are nothing alike. The very definition of a codependent relationship is a relationship where one party relies on the other for their own sense identity, purpose, and self worth. That said, I don't really understand what you are asking here.

Basically this. It sounds like the OP wants these things to be mutually exclusive (god knows why), and that's what's trying to be explained. Unfortunately for the OP, that's not how it is.

 

[Kullervo]

Dependency has become a very loaded word because we live in a "don't tie me down" society where nobody trusts each other. Women have horror images of being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and men have horror images of a fat, angry wife shouting at them and filing for divorce. Urbanisation is partly responsible for this as well; communities are broken up by it and it's a lot harder to network, make and maintain friendships than in a small town. Nobody knows each other, because we are all so different. I spend my weeks in a city of 200,000, and weekends in a village of 500. The social differences are vast.

I could get into other things but basically the environment is not conducive for mutual dependency in the way OP is hoping for. We are becoming more fragmented and divided, not less.

And as a final thought: sometimes a little "mutual destruction" can be fun, too. Why so serious?

 

[Ivy]

I've been married for nigh on 20 years and I've raised two children- a little dependence doesn't scare me. Codependence, on the other hand, is a scary fucking thing. When sick people feed each other's sicknesses, they tend to get worse.

 

[Coriolis]

If I read it aright what she's asking is whether giving up some autonomy is such a bad thing, if it allows you to get closer to another person. Extrapolated further, you could ask whether anyone is completely independent, not just emotionally but physiologically..

It comes down to whether your dependence on another person is equivalent to using them as a crutch or as a bicycle. If a crutch, you are depending on them to do things that you should be able to do on your own. They are enabling you to stay below the threshold of adult self-sufficiency, equated here with walking on your own two feet. If you depend on them to be your "bicycle", you are using them to extend what you can do beyond what you could do alone. Yes, without them you might have to stop doing some of those things, but your fundamental ability "to walk" remains intact.

 

[Kullervo]

[MENTION=2]Ivy[/MENTION] [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]

Nobody disputes that a full blown codependant relationship (between two people with personality disorders) is going to end in tears. But the question I would ask is more whether as a society, we've gone too far in the other direction and are more relationship avoidant than is healthy. If young men and women fear losing their freedom and autonomy through making a commitment to someone else, that negative perception will deter them from seeking intimacy and the fulfillment it can bring. I feel that is the point of the OP.

Personally, I yearn for the days where you could sweep a girl off her feet, flirt using figurative language, people still wrote decent poetry and nobody was afraid of getting married and having children. But that's just me and I acknowledge I'll always have a minority view on here.

 

[Ivy]

It comes down to whether your dependence on another person is equivalent to using them as a crutch or as a bicycle. If a crutch, you are depending on them to do things that you should be able to do on your own. They are enabling you to stay below the threshold of adult self-sufficiency, equated here with walking on your own two feet. If you depend on them to be your "bicycle", you are using them to extend what you can do beyond what you could do alone. Yes, without them you might have to stop doing some of those things, but your fundamental ability "to walk" remains intact.

I really like that! I enjoy being part of a partnership. I wouldn't want to go it alone. And actually I started out in my marriage with more conventional expectations of my husband doing husbandy things, changing tires and whatnot. But he has been adamant that each of us needs to be autonomous/self-sufficient (one of his signature INTP traits), so we can rely on each other by choice, not necessity. So he's steadfastly refused to participate in me crippling myself by letting him do all the "man stuff." At one point I did get a flat tire and asked for his help, and he gave it- by teaching me how to change it, not by doing it for me. I had never learned because I grew up in a conventional family with a dad who did all that stuff, and taught my brothers how to do it but not me or my sisters. (Not badmouthing my dad- I adore him and he's a great dad.)

 

[Ivy]

[MENTION=2]Ivy[/MENTION] [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]

Nobody disputes that a full blown codependant relationship (between two people with personality disorders) is going to end in tears. But the question I would ask is more whether as a society, we've gone too far in the other direction and are more relationship avoidant than is healthy. If young men and women fear losing their freedom and autonomy through making a commitment to someone else, that negative perception will deter them from seeking intimacy. I feel that is the point of the OP.

I kind of feel nostalgic for the days where you could sweep a girl off her feet, flirt using figurative language, people still wrote decent poetry and nobody was afraid of getting married and having children. But that's just me and I acknowledge I'll always have a minority view on here.

I think the OP disputes that a "full blown codependent relationship" is going to end in tears or is something to avoid, considering she conflates it with "cooperative dependence."

Also, pretty sure I've posted some of the love poetry I was given when I was dating my husband- he was flat broke for a lot of it so a lot of gift-giving occasions, what I did get was a poem or piece of art he made. I think you're overstating the degree to which people avoid commitments. I don't think it's changed THAT much since the 1990s when we were courting. Kids in my daughter's circle are dating and making commitments, perhaps more than is wise at their ages.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Much of what I am doing is simply pointing out that the term 'codependent' means something more than we have been taught in our culture.

I assumed it came from the concept of 'cooperative dependence' but I see it actually had a different root origin:

Since drug addictions and alcoholism shared more similarities than differences, beginning in the early 1980s, various drug treatment programs adopted the term “chemical dependency,” as it better reflected the similarities between alcoholism (alcohol addiction) and other drug addictions. With a unifying diagnostic term, treatment for all chemical/drug addictions coalesced into a unified treatment paradigm, “chemical dependency.” To fit in with the changes, “co-alcoholism” was updated to “co-chemically dependent.” Being too much of a mouthful to say, it was shortened to “co-dependent.”

~The History of the Term, “Codependency” - The Human Magnet Syndrome

So, these are two different outcomes of a type of dependence, if you will.

A healthy dependence is called 'cooperative dependence'. And an unhealthy dependence is called 'co-dependent'.


This is a new definition of codependency taken from that previous source:

Codependency is a problematic relationship orientation that involves the relinquishing of power and control to individuals who are either addicted or who are pathologically narcissistic. Codependents are habitually attracted to people who neither seem interested nor motivated to participate in mutual or reciprocal relationships. Hence, the partners of codependents are often egotistical, self-centered and/or selfish. Typically, codependents feel unfulfilled, disrespected and undervalued by their relationship partner. As much as they resent and complain about the inequity in their relationships, codependents feel powerless to change them.

Interesting in abuse, isn't it, how the victims continue to replay the abuse cycle, seeking it out even, in an incessant trauma bond. In some ways, it is economical in that the partners equal each other out. After all, if a narcissist or abuser had no victim, and a victim had no abuser, the world would be filled with a lot of people living alone and raising children alone, which might be even harder?

It's like the old adage, there is someone for everyone. Right?

 

[Ivy]

It would be better to be alone than to be with a codependent/addict. I think I can say this is objectively true.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Yes, that is what we all generally say.

But when you look at how imperfect people are...how many are addicted and how many have been abused, it would mean that many marriages or relationships would break up and many people would live alone, which might be something unhealthy people are not very capable of. Is it better to be tied in to one other human being in this life, than for these sad souls to attempt life alone?