We are a Codependent culture
From the bottom up--and the top down
Hello friends and readers. I hope that you enjoyed a fruitful and grateful Thanksgiving with friends and family.
Per usual, today’s essay touches on recovery. Stoicism, and observations of the human condition. The target of my observations today is the concept of codependency.
Before we begin, a brief word on paid subscriptions. I do not require it to read my content. Many dozens of you have chosen to support my work with your generous dollars. I’d like to share with you that 100% of the dollars pledged to me here on Of a Sober Mind will be donated at year-end as part of my annual giving to support the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation’s Children and Family Program.
This is an industry-leading program created by the former First Lady herself and is free to any family member or child who wants to break the cycle and learn more about their sibling, spouse, or parent who is going through addiction treatment. Addiction is a generational family disease, and this immersive program has demonstrated remarkable outcomes in educating and healing codependency among family members for nearly 30 years. There is no program like it anywhere. I appreciate your support as a reader regardless of whether or not you choose to help me support this worthy program. If you do choose a paid subscription, then please know that you’re helping others in need.
Thank you.
Why do we tolerate intolerable behavior from our loved ones and friends?
Why do we as a country spend so much money worldwide, while neglecting hard problems at home?
Why do we expect warring humans to suddenly act peacefully in good faith, despite so much evidence to the contrary?
Why do we coddle and overprotect our children rather than allowing them to learn about winning and losing, and that life is seldom fair?
Why do we invent new mental health diagnoses every month rather than addressing the underlying issues in our culture?
When did the Do no harm of the Hippocratic Oath turn our entire medical system into a soul-crushing matrix—needlessly sustaining, harvesting, and profiting from the sick organism?
Why do we care so much about likes, followers, subscribers, and the opinions of others we don’t even know on social media?
Why do we expect our side’s politicians to save us from ourselves, when we know deep down that it’s up to us?
Why do we misinterpret the words of Jesus to love others as we love ourselves, as somehow instead of ourselves?
The human condition: life is hard. We live life alternating as a perpetrator or a victim. I blame you. You blame me. My survival requires that I not blame myself. The blame and the rage and the desperate need to be loved by others—because we cannot adequately love ourselves.
We have become codependent.
Could it really be that simple? Maybe.
Let’s examine codependency—anyone who has been around addiction in their families or their lives—meaning everyone—has a loose understanding of it. Some of us may have gone deeper and actually read Melody Beattie’s book Codependent No More. Beattie has successfully addressed the idea of codependency in several books. In her book, Codependent No More, she writes:
The longer this lifetime goes, the more convinced I am that our primary responsibility in life is to find a way to make peace with ourselves, our past, and our present—no matter what we face and no matter how often we need to do that.
It’s also our job to mindfully practice self-love. Every day. For all our lives. It’s not a narcissistic or obnoxiously selfish attitude toward life and our relationships. Self-love is a humbler, quieter thing. You’ll get used to it. I like it; you may too.
Most of us—absent the close experience with an addict in our own family—hear the term from friends or a significant other or a therapist. And we sort of understand it. It’s a catch-all term, much like the term narcissist has become. What happened to good ole-fashioned selfish? That’s what the vast majority of us are in varying degrees. Selfish and self-centered—a defect of character to be sure—but it ain’t narcissism. True narcissists are actually quite rare—around 1 in 100 individuals are true pathological narcissists. But boy oh boy do we sling the term around in the culture. Same with codependency. The popularity of self-help books like Beattie’s and others have cemented psychological terms like these into our lexicon accompanied by a shallow and cursory understanding of their meaning.
Don’t be so codependent. You are such a barnacle—stop clinging!
As if—dude you’re such a narcissist—I’m so not even clinging!
The standard definition of codependency according to Merriam-Websters, is:
co·de·pen·den·cy
: a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person manifesting low self-esteem and a strong desire for approval has an unhealthy attachment to another often controlling or manipulative person.
broadly: dependence on the needs of—or on control by—another.
Dictionary aside, let’s simple this bad boy down to some language and behavior we can all recognize.
Common Behaviors of Codependent people (according to Healthline Media’s PsychCentral website and newsletter:
a deep-seated need for approval from others
self-worth that depends on what others think about you
a habit of taking on more work than you can realistically handle, both to earn praise or lighten a loved one’s burden
a tendency to apologize or take on blame in order to keep the peace
a pattern of avoiding conflict
a tendency to minimize or ignore your own desires
excessive concern about a loved one’s habits or behaviors
a habit of making decisions for others or trying to “manage” loved ones
a mood that reflects how others feel, rather than your own emotions
guilt or anxiety when doing something for yourself
doing things you don’t really want to do, simply to make others happy
idealizing partners or other loved ones, often to the point of maintaining relationships that leave you unfulfilled
overwhelming fears of rejection or abandonment
Relationships that are codependent are described as those containing intimacy problems, dependency, control issues (including caretaking), denial, dysfunctional communication, lack of boundaries, and high reactivity. There is likely imbalance within the relationship, where one person is abusive or in control or supports or enables another person's addiction, poor mental health, immaturity, and irresponsible behavior.
Under this definition of codependency, the codependent person's sense of purpose within any relationship is based on making extreme sacrifices to satisfy their partner's needs.
It’s in our relationships where this behavior plays out most vividly—as this is where our need for love is most exposed. For those not in an intimate relationship—they will assign that need elsewhere—to tribes or causes they align with. It is here that they expect to receive the love that they cannot give themselves.
Extend this to society in general and you’ll have an idea of where I’m going with today’s essay.
One prompt I received in considering this topic—and the context of codependency—was a November 22 essay by playwright David Mamet in the Wall Street Journal that challenged recent political thinking. While his essay is mainly targeted at the recent behavior of the political Left in this country, I was prompted to widen the net a bit to the entire culture. Those of you that read my essays know that I take some big swings. Bear with me.
Mamet—as most know—is a celebrated creative soul in our culture. Whether you agree with him on things is irrelevant to him. In classic Mamet-speak, as his writing has oft-been described, he’d likely say something to the effect of I couldn’t give a fuck. His impressive resume is worth a quick look. David Mamet celebrates his 77th birthday next week on November 30th. He is an acclaimed playwright, filmmaker, and author. He’s been nominated for dozens of awards, including the Academy of Motion Pictures, the Golden Globes, the Emmys, and the Tony. We won a Pulitzer Prize for the theatrical presentation of Glengarry Glen Ross. His many successful film credits as a writer, director, or both includes The Postman Always Rings Twice, Heist, The Spanish Prisoner, The Untouchables, Hoffa, Wag the Dog, Ronin, and Hannibal.
From his piece in WSJ; An existential secret is one whose revelation would destroy the group. If dad is a drug addict or a sex criminal, acknowledging it would shatter the family. The protection of the secret becomes the family’s unifying endeavor. If anyone says anything, it might reveal that everyone is in on the secret. The sick family devotes all necessary energies to collusion—to mutual and self-censorship.
Mamet has borrowed a classic definition of codependency—where the sick family is actually enabling and contributing to the perpetuation of the problems of their suffering family member by protecting them. This is mostly driven by misguided compassion, and a lack of understanding about how to treat the individual and solve the problem.
I ask you to look deeply at where this codependence is coming from. It is coming from within us. Inside each of us there are choices being made every second of every day, based on feelings or thoughts, that turn into actions. These actions either help us, hurt us, or are neutral maintenance actions.
Codependence begins at home. In our own body. Our survival depends upon it. Our closest personal relationships trigger it.
My personal experience as a recovered alcoholic and drug addict is relevant to this discussion, so please don’t cast out this essay as a political commentary alone. It is that, but only in the reality that human beings are at the center of politics. Politics is at the center of our current culture. Our current culture is in dis-ease.
The entire Covid experience was a gigantic, in-our-faces example of codependency. A few sick individuals protecting an existential secret at the expense of an entire society. Many of us—devoted all necessary energy to protecting the lie. Why? Out of fear—then out of a misguided empathy for others—that ultimately made us feel better about our own conflicted choices. Total codependency.
The Human Need for Survival
This is the foundational aspect of codependent behavior. I must survive, and in order to do so it’s important that no one dislike me—that no one shame me as differing from the collective—even as that act of collusion makes me doubt and question myself quietly. Together we are one—and I am the one.
The family must survive. The unit. The non-profit. The budget. The party. We must protect this house!! All of those ideas are what protects the shameful lie—the intolerable truth that must not get out—that THIS IS NOT WORKING.
Codependency masked as Doing Good
Codependence manifests more broadly in the culture as misdirected empathy. The burning desire of a bleeding heart turns everyday humans into codependents that perpetuate—rather than treat or cure—the many diseases our culture suffers from collectively.
Instead of holding individuals and groups accountable for their actions we give them another chance. And another. Why? It makes us feel better. It distracts us from the helplessness we feel within ourselves—the fear and lack of control of our environment. I must do something to make myself feel better and make me look better in the eyes of my tribe.
Mental Illness
The list of disorders and mental illnesses continues to swell the DSM—which edition are we on now BTW?
The codependent among us might say—in judgment masked in empathy—that poor person—It’s understandable that they’d behave that way—they’ve suffered a lot of childhood trauma and they’re on the spectrum and are clearly marginalized and they have Non-24 and ADHD and are borderline borderline—what else would you expect? They can’t help it. We must understand. We must help.
Let’s be clear—I’m not talking about how we treat those in our culture who suffer from real mental illness or addiction or homelessness or poverty or gender dysphoria or any other real or imagined malady.
I’m talking today about how we ourselves think about ourselves in relation to those fellow humans—individually and collectively.
Our codependent little hearts must try to help them. It makes us feel better. It makes us feel compassionate. It is not helping them. It is only helping us. Or is it?
Victimhood
Victimhood mentality plays a huge role in this as well. But I’d like to reflect on both sides of victimhood—from the victim’s perspective—and then from the perspective of the codependents that are labeling that person a victim. A true victim needs our compassion and our help and we’d all rush to their side. Where we all fall down is in the assignment of victimhood.
A person in the grips of uncontrollable addictive behavior is not a victim. Sure, they might have been a victim of some form of trauma in their life—that is a real and reliable predictor of future addicts. Sure, they might need our help. But when we label them as a victim, we stop helping them. When our version of help is to protect them, lie for them, shield them, and fund them, we are failing them. A mother or father or business partner who looks the other way and allows them to continue the behavior is simply enabling. I’d rather see my son die in his own bed—under my roof—than out on the street.
A career criminal is not a victim. Sure, they might have been a victim of childhood trauma or neglect—that is a real and reliable predictor of future criminals. Sure, they might need our help to find their way back to being a responsible citizen. But when our version of help is to minimize their crimes and release them back into the same neighborhood under the same circumstances, we are failing them. An activist seeking bail reform. A judge trying to clear their docket and protect their political future. A DA trying to win re-election, further his or her own progressive agenda, and protect their prosecutorial closing percentage. Aren’t those policies rather codependent?
You might ask, But Dee isn’t this just caring about others? Isn’t compassion and kindness a good thing? Of course it is. Where it crosses over into codependence is when that caring hurts you personally in some way. When the short-term feeling you get from expressing your empathy actually causes more harm than good—to yourself or to the person or cause you’re supporting. You give more money, more time, more emotional investment—more of yourself—than you can actually afford to give. Think of how many volunteer martyrs you personally know.
Can’t you see how much I’m doing? No one does as much as me. I’m helping myself feel better here. Don’t you feel better about me? Don’t worry about the other consequences.
I’ve been down this particular path of examination several times before but viewing it in different frames and with different borders. I’ve never bored in on the idea of codependency with this much clarity.
I wrote a relevant essay recently about whether we join communities, or they enjoin us? I Like that you like what I like.
Volunteering was a target of my observations a few months ago.
One of my most engaged essays is about how good-hearted compassionate people can get it so completely wrong about addiction. “It’s About Want—not Need.”
In an essay that pays homage to a great Adele song title, “Can I Get it Right Now?” I wrote about how we as individuals need to make healthy choices for ourselves and loved ones without playing into the current collective.
In a recent essay entitled “You Need to Lose,” I’ve wrote about losing and the power of Failure as a learning tool.
In my recent essay “Love and Rockets,” I opined on whether or not it’s possible to discuss politics in a healthy manner.
Charity is often tied up in feelings of codependency. Giving money mindlessly to help without truly thinking about the ramifications of how that money is actually spent or applied. The government does it all the time—throwing good money after bad at a problem without ever fixing it—while maintaining the image of doing something worthy. A small constituency might benefit. A Congressperson might get accolades and ensure their own re-election—while they add billions and trillions to the national debt. Do we solve the problem? In my humble opinion no we don’t. We often make it worse.
Student loan relief, allowing tens of millions of migrants to pour across our open borders—but they’re merely seeking a better way of life!!—handouts and protection by sanctuary cities to said illegal immigrants, throwing money at non-profits and NGOs to fix the homeless problem, municipalities buying up hotels and motels—or repurposing schools or community spaces to create housing—all the while lining the pockets of those organizations with little oversight of how the money is spent actually solving the problem—or not.
But we must help those poor people. This feeling—this sentiment—this worthy empathy—is the emotional state that drives the kind of codependent decisions that we’re examining today. The fear of shattering all of this good will—and all the warm fuzzy feelings we get from helping—prevents anyone from uncovering the truth—the ineffectiveness of it all—the facts of financial mismanagement. This fear keeps the donors and activists properly engaged in the scheme and keeps the organization in the chips. It also allows the underlying problems to grow.
Codependency is rampant in parenting, social justice, education, addiction treatment, health care, media, politics—everything. Lowering the merit standards across the board to theoretically help more people, simultaneously and falsely elevating small percentages of our population in the name of diversity and equity.
My Substack friend,
wrote just the other day about the ways in which we cope with our emotions in her typically intelligent and relevant essay Pain is Not the Problem.My Substack friend
writes about Stoic Philosophy quite often, as well as other powerful learned life lessons. Sam recently wrote about the idea of Safetyism which fits in nicely to this theme of codependence.I hope I’ve offered sufficient evidence today of our codependent culture. It’s not a criticism—it’s an observation. I would be remiss if I didn’t also offer some observed solutions. I am drawn to Stoic Philosophy as many of you know. The idea of detachment is quite common among the Stoics.
To the Stoics, detachment did not mean suppressing one’s emotions. It meant emotional freedom—by feeling and understanding our emotions while not allowing them to dictate our actions. It is an emotional freedom.
Acceptance is a key component to this detachment practice. I accept that many—if not most—outcomes in this world are beyond my control. The key to acceptance is determining—or having the wisdom—to discern what we can control and what we cannot? Serenity Prayer anyone?
Perspective is another key component of detachment. The Stoics believed that we don’t react to events in our lives. Rather we react to our perception of those events in our lives. By looking at an unfavorable outcome—or perceived failure—in our lives not as a shortcoming but as an opportunity for growth, we change our perspective of the world and thus our lives.
There are several other Stoic pillars that make up detachment, but I’ll share only one more as a relevant solution to today’s discussion on Codependence. The Stoics believed in Embracing Impermanence. Everything in life is transient—our emotions, experiences, relationships—even life itself. By recognizing this, we can better accept the present moment and let go more quickly of negative feelings, emotions, and outcomes that we might otherwise attach ourselves to. Nothing lasts forever. That recent slight by someone, breakup with a partner, disappointment at work, election result, negative health diagnosis? We must feel the emotions associated with each. We must then recognize that we have little control of much of it. Then we can focus on the next powerful moments in our fleeting and impermanent lives and be at peace.
Sounds simple I know. It is not. It was a daily practice that the Stoics wrote about thousands of years ago. The resurgence of Stoic philosophy in today’s world only shows that more and more people are looking for ways to deal with an increasingly volatile and emotionally charged culture.
To conclude today’s riff, I draw on a couple of Melody Beattie quotes from Codependent No More. I could quote the entire book here—it’s so powerful and honest. But I’d like to leave you with a few:
Codependents are reactionaries. They overreact. They under-react. But rarely do they act. They react to the problems, pains, lives, and behaviors of others. They react to their own problems, pains, and behaviors.
Ever since people first existed, they have been doing all the things we label "codependent." They have worried themselves sick about other people. They have tried to help in ways that didn't help. They have said yes when they meant no. They have tried to make other people see things their way. They have bent over backwards avoiding hurting people's feelings and, in so doing, have hurt themselves. They have been afraid to trust their feelings. They have believed lies and then felt betrayed. They have wanted to get even and punish others. They have felt so angry they wanted to kill. They have struggled for their rights while other people said they didn't have any. They have worn sackcloth because they didn't believe they deserved silk.
The formula is simple: In any given situation, detach and ask, “What do I need to do to take care of myself?” Detaching does not mean we don’t care. It means we learn to love, care, and be involved without going crazy.
In other words, be a little more selfish about loving yourself. The natural extension of that is that you’ll be better equipped to help others when that time comes.
And let that other shit go.
Thanks for reading.
Imagine a world where individuals took 100% responsibility for their own lives (sovereign beings), and willingly chose to co-create a world where all of us want to live. smiles.
A lot of interesting points here, coming from an extremely co-dependent family system.
I came here from Paolo's recommendation. Looking forward to reading more!