Some of his points are valid,but not to a dysfunctional dependant.What's bad is there will be people who read that,who need help,who will be confused and led astray.He speaks a lot about his wife who obviously is not co-dependant.That guy sounds like he is in a crisis with himself.If he did not think himself co-dependant,then why even write the article....gheesh.

I see the article attacking the entire concept of codependency, as if the entire concept of codependency is evil and destructive in any person claiming to be codependent.

I see it as dead wrong, and it is basing that claim on false and misleading deffinitions of codependency.

Codependency is NEVER about breaking up a healthy marriage, while codependency is always about doing some thing about abusive marriages or effectively dealing with an addict in the family.

The site even has a discussion Forum that has an anti codependency thread, so I guess I am going over there to tell them right.

See if Booky gets booted off of that one???

The reason why he is anti-co-dependent was stated in the first two paragraphs:

"Those of us in the business of trying to save marriages struggle daily with cultural beliefs and practices that make our job difficult. The sudden surge of divorces in the 1970's, that has made America the country with the highest divorce rate, has a great deal to do with changes in our basic beliefs. More to the point, it has to do with a major shift toward self-centeredness. Beliefs that encourage self-centeredness destroy marriage.

One of these is the belief that co-dependent behavior is self-defeating and that we should rid ourselves of it. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing and a marriage wrecker. I'll try to explain why I feel so strongly about this issue."

He is the business of saving marriage, and seems to be confusing co-dependency with inter-dependency.

I haven't researched the site, but it seems to be aimed at saving marriage despite the personal consequences - something that is sponsered in Germany at the expense of Roman Catholic taxpayers, called "ProFamilia".

He does go on to discern what co-dependency applies when one marriage partner is substance dependent. Suddenly the statements "make sense", whereas in a "normal relationship" they are harmful, and even narcissistic inducing.

I think he should have pointed out the difference between inter-dependence and co-dependence. The only thing I find upsetting, is that he didn't do this right up front, and accuses awareness of co-dependency as a "love buster" which "ruins" marriages.

Did it ever occur to Mr. Harley that by the time a person becomes aware of co-dependency, that the relationship is already ruined? The problem was already there, and suddenly the person involved with it, finally learns that it has a name?

Stranger yet, is that when you take a look of all things on his "love buster" list - those are exactly the sins of co-dependency, except maybe the one about independent behaviour - I didn't like that. Dependent behaviour offers no room for individual growth.

He stresses his first 3 "love busters" as the gravest sins:

-->Selfish demands
-->Disrepectful judgements
-->Angry outbursts

Yet these are exactly the things which are present in dysfunctional relationships. So why is strengthening yourself to escape this situation also considered a "love buster".

It almost makes one believe that if I tell my spouse "I want and need this to feel happy" that this is a selfish demand.

I wonder if he knows how he is actually fostering co-dependency only for the sake of saving a dead marriage?

plain and simple I agree with Booky ..!

Co-dependency can be defined as the tendency to put others needs before your own. You accommodate to others to such a degree that you tend to discount or ignore your own feelings, desires and basic needs. Your self-esteem depends largely on how well you please, take care of and/or solve problems for someone else (or many others)."


I think this is the only thing on that site he got even remotely right.. Weissdorn got it right when they said he got codependancy confused with interdependancy. The rhetoric about mother Theresa is just rhetoric. The lady was driven by something far more than codependancy..she was driven by faith. think Booky nailed this..

Booky, I agree with you...you have a good handle on what it is and what it's not. Well done.

Well I went to that "Marriage Builder" forum with its anti codependency Board, and now I only have six (6) post total and I got my first warning from a moderator.

Link here;
http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=13&page=1

So they are determined to be anti codependency BUT I not booted off YET, so I will continue to challenge them there.

I love the Internet.

And there are a lot of people that have wrong information about codependency.

Booky, you are now officially my hero. Way to stand up. Seems like lately when you state or share your opinion, whether it be political, religious or just in the opposition to whatever the status quo, "they" are attempting to silence "us".

Especially, in my opinion, when we codependents typically go along with the status quo, just to keep "them" happy. I feel that way and continuously challenge myself to first, find out what my opinion is, and then have the courage to share it, chancing that "someone" won't like us.

I admire you tremendously for standing up, no matter. It def builds character, because it's difficult for us, which helps build our self esteem...you go boy!

IamJen, my thoughts to a "T". You would only know this if you are working on your codependency because you are clear as a bell. Thank you....

P.S.: It is frustrating to try and "influence" people but as I write this I am reminded that we are all about attraction, rather than promotion...last night I searched for codependent site and it so amazing how many varying opinions are out there! You guys must have known this long before...I had no idea. Well, with debate and opinion, hopefully we will form a consensus...at the end of the day it's not that hard...I can just describe myself and that is the meaning for me....overly helpful, at my expense. Knowing how to help others without really knowing what I want let alone what help I need and having an adversion to ask for help...what does it mean to you guys, based on your experiences?

Hi Everyone! Great heads up on this! I just wrote him as one professional to another, as fellows in the same field. I wanted to be generously fair, because the best outcome would be for him to re-think his presentation. I thought you might like to read my post to his site.

Dr. Harley,

I am concerned about your representation of Co-Dependency in your article "How the Co-Dep Movement is ruining marriages." I am a graduate student studying family therapy and Art Therapy Relational Neurobiology. Before you dismiss me as a mere newbie, let me make my best case encouraging you to re-think part of your approach.
First of all, there is a thread in your use of co-dependency which I do agree with. This is something I have thought of a lot because I, too, have felt mis-labeled as co-dependent. I am a classic helper, always have been, and I expect I always will be. Perhaps what I have that you have not had, though, is personal experience with a WIDE VARIETY of the co-dependent type behaviors of which you speak, ranging from: being a collector of stray animals and people in my youth; to clinical practice as an MFT/Art Therapist trainee; to caring for the love of my life through his final battle with alcohol, into (now 5 years of) sobriety; to the excellent, loving, healthy relationship we have today.
However, my experience also ranges into an area I did not see mentioned in your article depicting the concept of co-dependency as a destroyer of marriages. NOWHERE IN YOUR ARTICLE DID I SEE ANY MENTION OF THE TRAUMA-RESPONSE. I am also a survivor of 2 years of very intense intimate partner violence, and while the violence itself was not every day, or every week, it was intense enough for me to fear for my life most days. Furthermore, my experience of the emotional abuse was more destructive, and impacted me much deeper, and for much longer than the violence.
If you eliminate from your definition situations in which a person is experiencing trauma or even prolonged, high-stress, or re-experiencing trauma or high-stress, I would be more inclined to agree with your assumptions. As I stated in my subject line, it is a fine line you dance here.
YES, there are great strengths to be found in most of us who are called co-dependent. It seems you take a very strength-based and responsibility approach with your clients/couples, and I think there is much in that which contributes greatly to our field. I had many people try to tell me I should not stay with or tolerate my love through his alcoholism, accusing me of engaging in old behavior. I stuck with the relationship, however, BECAUSE MY PAST TRAUMA OF BEING BATTERED ALLOWED ME TO FEEL THE DIFFERENCE, and being a 13-year veteran of Alanon gave me the tools to cope. In other words, it was my personal experience with the dangerous internal trauma-response that allowed me to trust my instincts when I did feel safe and supported, and strong enough to draw clear boundaries with my love during the years he was an angry alcoholic.
I have no doubt you have helped many people in your work, and believe your approach is viable with a low- or no-trauma population, and with people who are well-healed from past trauma. The danger, and the part I hope you will reconsider, is that severely (either chronically or acutely) wounded survivors of trauma feel completely unsupported, even re-traumatized by an article such as yours. I was alerted to your work by a survivors group I am part of. These are people who have struggled to find professional help that actually is helpful to them, and which is in alignment with their own experiences. I would expect that your article will spark in these people compelling needs to self-protect from your rhetoric, which may encourage them to respond with strong words.
I write you in hopes of mediating between these two positions at opposing ends of a continuum: you, arguing the concept of co-dependency has no benefits; while trauma survivors still deeply wounded might see no benefit to your important concepts of personal responsibility. The work I personally am called to do, IS dancing this fine line, and to this end I am designing a residential program for young adult women as action research to study what it takes to fully recover from intimate partner violence, and to collect data for other researches to mine. Success here could serve to break the intergenerational cycle which can genetically predispose the children of trauma survivors and increase the risk that they, too will be victimized. (see literature by Dan Siegel, Luis Cozolino, and Robert Sapolsky) The leaps and bounds being made by current brain mapping is validating biological mechanisms inherent in the stress-response, and I believe this IS exactly why the people who say get over it enrage the ones who wish they could!
I recently heard a new term which presents a profound distinction from co-dependency: pathalogical caretaking was used to describe what happens in parentified children. For human children, survival depends on adult caretakers. When adults are dysfunctional, children find ways to actively regulate the others emotions, because doing so is essential to the childs safety and survival.
The way I use co-dependency with my clients and Alanon sponsees, is this: True co-dependency is being addicted to someone elses addiction. True co-dependents SEEK OUT dysfunction, and that is quite different than the miracle of surviving it. If you prefer unhealthy partners and are turned off by healthy ones, you qualify. This is much clearer than how the term is generally used by laypeople, and clearer than the way you are using it.
Perhaps we could agree, as a matter of professional discourse, to change the way we use the term co-dependency with our clients, to be more accurate in describing symptoms. We should offer clients terms which are helpful in actually distinguishing between experiences, rather than use terms so weakly defined that they include nearly everyone. Whether they say so or not, our clients have to dance with these terms, ideas, and their own stories every day. Before we can dance with anyone elses line, we first have to draw one.

Kristen Annastasia
MFT / Art Therapy Trainee
2009 Dingaroo Press

Go Booky! You put a sandeled (don't know if that's spelled right) foot right up their URL. :P

People choose not to believe in codependency many times because then they do not have to look or evaluate themselves.

That seems true "hoops".

In treating codependency then we have to go deep into feelings and emotions, and into family history and parenting, and it is tuff to look into our self and evaluating it all.

It does seem reasonable that many people are afraid of codependency because they do not want to face their own reality.

I see the recovery of codependency as enlightening and empowering, so other people are cheating them selves by not dealing with it.