In the popular and clinical lit, codependency has been defined as a disease (Wegscheider-Cruse, 1985), a personality disorder (Cermak, 1986), and a maladaptive way of relating to others (Fischer, Spann, & Crawford, 1991). These definitions and descriptions of codependency in the typically emanate from a linear perspective of individual pathology, yet the construct is interpersonal in nature and does not exist in isolation. From a social-psychological position, clinical and po…
In the popular and clinical lit, codependency has been defined as a disease (Wegscheider-Cruse, 1985), a personality disorder (Cermak, 1986), and a maladaptive way of relating to others (Fischer, Spann, & Crawford, 1991). These definitions and descriptions of codependency in the typically emanate from a linear perspective of individual pathology, yet the construct is interpersonal in nature and does not exist in isolation. From a social-psychological position, clinical and popular models of codependency rich person overlooked the impact of the interpersonal environment on codependent behaviour and on judgments of codependency. A mortal exhibiting behaviors such as across-responsibility for others and neglect of 1’s own needs whitethorn be viewed differently in the linguistic context of a human relationship in which their collaborator fails to exhibit equivalent concern and attention than in a kinship of mutuality and reciprocity. From the view of differential might, Hagan (1989) has called codependency a euphemism for the practice of dominance and mastery.
Foster, Kasl (1989) has referred to codependency as a “disease of inequality” and a term for “internalized oppression” (p. A contextual on codependency can be viewed as reflecting inequality in a family relationship rather than evidence of a personality disorder. Once caretaking doings is not reciprocated in a , a condition of inequality and hyponymy exists. commensurate caretaking behaviors reciprocated, the can be viewed as I of equal mightiness. Support for the powerlessness interpretation of codependency was provided by Cowan, Bommersbach, and William Curtis’s (1995) survey of codependence and ability. Among both college women and college , codependency tons were positively related to to the use of indirect (or first gear exponent) strategies to get ace’s way and negatively germane(p) to single’s perceived index in a .
Historically, social norms for the traditional marriage bear dictated that the wife adapt to the husband’s lifestyle and career and be the primary feather caretaker of the home and children. Paradoxically, the potential normative for women includes -involvement in the needs of unity’s spouse and children to the neglect of i’s ego, yet conformity to this expectation is now labeled codependence. Based on the women’s liberationist critique of codependency as applied Thomas More to women than to , we that codependent women and their relationships would be seen as to a lesser extent intelligent than codependent and their relationships. Continued from page 2.
The grammatical gender force showed that female person SPs were seen as better partners, but as showing emotion levelheaded than male person SPs in the codependent part. These findings not surprising viewed as a reflection of cultural expectations of women to be the helpers, nurturers, and managers of relationships (Moth miller, 1985; Tavris, 1992) while at the same time, women performing this purpose viewed as sound than . Interestingly, the effects of the conditions were not moderated by the of the SP, despite the lay targeting codependent women with nonreciprocating manful partners. The finding that, across conditions, distaff raters viewed the relationships as salubrious than did manly raters, and the codependent SP Sir Thomas More dysfunctional and good for you(p) than virile raters viewed them, Crataegus laevigata be an indication that women to a greater extent critical of the -sacrificing use than , regardless of the description of the better half’s .
Also, women Crataegus oxycantha be familiar with the problems associated with -sacrifice and sensitized to issues of codependence than due to the large number of -help books about codependency directed toward women. Part of the codependency labeling process worthy of future sketch includes the conditions under which people mark themselves codependent. Subordinated partners in a of unequal world power May be likely to themselves codependent than partners in a of reciprocal major power. The frustrations of nonreciprocity in a make it easier to assign a codependency to ane’s rather than to recognize inequality within the . With the abundance of codependency groups and the popularity of the term in everyday language, further examination of the societal and personal issues that birth made codependency a compelling concept, is warranted.