COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL, DO NOT REPRODUCE

Rethinking men and codependency

By Dan Griffin, MA and Rick Dauer, LADC

Over the past two years we have been training and speaking with addiction professionals around the country in
an effort to rethink how the addiction field can provide effective treatment services for men. Our work, with a strong
emphasis on how men navigate relationships, already had us thinking about the idea of male codependency. When we
were invited to speak last April at a conference sponsored by the Indiana Association of Addiction Professionals on
the issue of male codependency, it required us to flesh out a framework for our emergent ideas.

In this article we offer a brief description of this concept, with the primary interest of generating dialogue and
inquiry into how addiction professionals might think differently about men and codependency. We propose the
following for consideration:

· The traditional notion of codependency pathologizes behavior that is intrinsically human and even healthy at
times.
· Codependency can be viewed as existing on a continuum of relational behavior.
· Men engage in codependent behavior as frequently as women do.
· Codependency manifests differently according to gender and is a product of gender-based socialization.
· The masculine expression of codependency may include dominating and violent behavior, which is a
compensation for shame and lack of relational skills.

Men and relationships

Core to our message is the notion that supportive and healthy relationships are critical to long-term recovery. Further,
we believe that while most men have little difficulty getting into relationships, they often are not equipped with the
requisite skills for maintaining relationships.

These skills are rarely taught and modeled by fathers, brothers, coaches, teachers, or other adult males. In fact,
boys are generally encouraged to devalue and scorn many of the skills that we identify as central to the process of
developing intimate relationships. This results in many boys and men acting as though connection and intimacy are
not important to them.

Some might therefore conclude that relationships are not important to men, or that men are somehow
inherently incapable of engaging in relationships to the same degree as women. We could not disagree more. While
the manner in which men engage in and talk about their relationships is often different from the way women manage
relationships, it is no less important or valuable.
Relational cultural theory

Until the 1970s, the predominant model for developmental psychology focused on the process of separation,
individuation and autonomy. In 1978, Jean Baker-Miller, MD, along with psychologists Judith Jordan, Irene Striver
and Janet Surrey, posited that developmental psychology and clinical practice were not paradigms that worked well
for women based on their experiences.1 They suggested that all growth for women occurs through the development of
relationships with others.

Relational cultural theory (RCT) primarily focused on women and women’s experience; to date there has been
little written on RCT and men. Stephen Bergman, MD, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and Janet Surrey’s spouse,
wrote a seminal article on men and RCT entitled “Men’s psychological development: A relational perspective.”
Bergman acknowledges that men are raised to want independence and individuation, but he says there also is a
significant cost: “As with women, the sources of men’s misery are in disconnections, violations and dominances, and
in participation in relationships that are not mutually empowering.”2

Men are raised to separate and be separate, irrespective of the harm caused to themselves and others. Control
and power are two of the skills that boys are taught in their journey to manhood. The idea that this psychosocial theory
could be applied to men in addiction treatment by taking into consideration the developmental differences inherent in
men’s psychological growth is relatively new.3,4

Independence-interdependence-codependence

The term “codependency” was initially used in describing the cluster of maladaptive behaviors that family members,
partners, children and other concerned persons develop in response to the addicted person. It subsequently became a
way of defining individuals who became enmeshed in a relationship to the extent that their self-worth and emotional
stability were entirely contingent on the behavior of another.

Codependency implied that deriving positive feelings about oneself through a relationship was not entirely
healthy. It implied that as adults, we should be able to discover and maintain self-worth as autonomous and
independent creatures, not needing others’ approval. Finally, it became an identity (a pathological identity) rather than
describing a tendency toward certain behavioral patterns.

In addition, most of the literature on codependency was written by women and for women. Apparently, it was
thought that men were far less susceptible to sacrificing their identity and autonomy in relationships. As proponents of
strength-based treatment models, we saw the traditional framework for thinking about codependency as highly
problematic. And as adherents of RCT, we believe that men are just as likely to experience codependency as part of a
relational continuum.

We believe that there are three relational postures that exist along a continuum: independence, interdependence
and codependence. We do not believe that any of these are inherently positive or negative, but rather represent points
along the continuum of relational behavior—we are all constantly moving among these points. At various times and
within various contexts, we may be well served by being more or less self-sufficient. It is tempting to look at
interdependence—when individuals seek to relate to one another through a system of mutuality and compromise—as
the ideal form of relationships, yet it is unlikely that most relationships can remain in that space for an indefinite
period. In other words, because relationships are inherently dynamic, none of these stages are final points.

We may, in fact, define relational “health” as an ability to adapt as necessary depending on the context of the
relationship and what is called for from the individual in that moment. Therefore, another way of looking at
codependency is the act of sacrificing our needs and wants for the welfare of another. Parents do this all the time. It
also might be appropriate within intimate partnerships at times when one partner’s needs are extreme.
 Thus, we suggest that there is a healthy form of codependency that is different from interdependence. It
becomes problematic when this chronically characterizes a particular relationship or becomes the primary posture in
all relationships. It is also destructive when it manifests as control, manipulation, or violence.

Male relational dread

Bergman also introduced the concept of “male relational dread.” Because men are taught to prize independence and
are not taught the skills to develop interdependence, relationships become inherently threatening. As a man moves
toward more intimacy and commitment in a relationship, he literally may experience dread as he faces the perceived
loss of independence and is required to utilize skills that he does not possess (and that have been systematically
rejected as unmanly).

Primary among these skills are fluency in the language of feelings, an ability to be vulnerable, a willingness to
ask for and offer support, extending and honoring trust, compassion, and empathy. Very few, if any, of these requisite
behaviors for healthy and intimate relationships are consistent with the “rules of being of a man” that boys are taught
from a very early age. If we accept the notion that all human growth occurs through connection with others, then
growing up male is a process that is inherently conflicted and perhaps even traumatic for many boys and young men.

When boys do not follow the expected rules and instead exhibit some of the qualities identified above as being
necessary for intimate relationships, they are likely to suffer ridicule, shaming, alienation and even physical violence.
Boys thus grow into men who lack the experience of learning and practicing relationship skills. And as men, they
view intimacy and connection with fear and hostility. This is not because they do not desire intimacy and connection,
but because they have little familiarity with them. In other words, men lack what we refer to as “relational
competency.”

Relational competency

Using RCT as a foundational principle inevitably leads to a strength-based approach, with a focus on skills, resources
and natural supports. We have identified nine core skills we believe are essential to supporting men in creating and
maintaining healthy relationships:

· Communication.
· Conflict resolution.
· Setting healthy boundaries.
· Identifying personal needs.
· Self-care.
· Emotional expression and regulation.
· Intimacy with both men and women.
· Willingness to ask for, accept and offer help.
· A healthy concept of one’s sexuality.

It is evident that these core skills are not part of the “rules” that guide how boys become men. We therefore
suggest that it is imperative for clinicians to ensure that we are addressing these topics and helping men build these
skills while they are in treatment. In fact, we suggest that developing these skills should be one of the primary goals of
addiction treatment.
Male relational dread and codependency

As we began thinking about how male codependency might be reframed, we considered relational dread and the
external and internal communication strategies that men tend to use in relationships. When we look only at men’s
external behaviors we are not likely to view their behavior as interdependent or codependent. In fact, it is these
behaviors that led Bergman to label men as “agents of disconnection” because the behaviors are much more about
interrupting or ending relationships. Working with men will inevitably demonstrate that most of these external
behaviors are compensation for distressing internal experiences that they are frequently unaware of, have difficulty
communicating, or are unable to resolve.

Feelings of deep shame about one’s “neediness” and “lack of manly virtues” become central to the internal
experience of many boys and men. They may feel pride in their independence and self-sufficiency, but they also feel
lonely and isolated, as well as emotionally and spiritually empty. There may develop a stark dissonance in how they
present to others and how they feel inside. Such a dichotomy might look like this:

External

Arrogant

Rageful

Detached

Manipulative

Controlling/Paternalistic

Internal

Ashamed/Powerless

Vulnerable

Inadequate

Fearful

Insecure/Need

Men are disconnected from these internal feelings that are not permissible according to the rules of being a man.
However, that does not mean that these feelings are not affecting the man and driving his behavior. On the contrary,
they tend to have greater influence on his behavior precisely because he is unaware of them. Male codependency is
thus frequently expressed through manipulation, emotional abuse, verbal intimidation and violence.

Subsequently, men and their partners tend to focus on those behaviors that take on the aspect of aggression, power
and control, and ignore the underlying internal state. Some men might be constantly fighting an energy that pushes
them toward extreme independence at the cost of their relationships. Other men are constantly fighting an energy that
pushes them toward extreme dependence on others at the cost of their sense of self. Frequently, these opposing
energies are driving behaviors in the same man at the same time.

Male codependent tendencies may manifest in a variety of harmful ways:

· Avoidance of intimate relationships.

· Serial sexual relationships.
 · Abusive relationships (as perpetrator and/or victim).
· Fear of abandonment.
· Hyper-vigilance.
· Control and manipulation.
· Aggressive, threatening, violent behaviors.
· Excessive emotional neediness.
· Deep and visceral lack of trust of self and others.

While this list is by no means exhaustive, it should demonstrate that male codependency is more complicated than
we might have initially assumed. This list also outlines the areas of relational competence that we believe clinicians
should focus on.

Conclusion

We offer these ideas as an opportunity to initiate an important conversation. We believe that we are not the only ones
thinking about men and codependency, though we are not familiar with any previous discussion that examines this
issue from the perspective of gender and RCT, as well as through a more strengths-based lens.

At this point, we have more questions than answers: What do addiction professionals think about these ideas?
Do these concepts provide a useful framework for clinical practice? What are some innovative strategies for helping
men learn how to build supportive, healthy relationships?

We also believe that understanding the links among codependency, relational competency and male
socialization could greatly improve our understanding of men’s abusiveness, men’s experience of trauma, and the
phenomenon of violence in relationships. We historically have looked at domestic abuse and violence as a function of
power, control and anger. And while these elements are certainly present, it is our belief that shame and codependency
are also fundamental elements.

We also believe that early childhood attachment issues, physical or sexual abuse, and other traumatic
experiences are frequently the antecedents for domestic violence, and this cannot be divorced from any attempt to help
men change their abusive behavior—in other words, understanding and compassion must accompany accountability in
our delivery of services. Our next article will focus more specifically on this hypothesis.

Dan Griffin is the author of A Man’s Way Through the Twelve Steps, co-author of Helping Men Recover, and author of
the forthcoming (and tentatively titled) A Man’s Way through Relationships, focused specifically on supporting men in
creating healthy and lasting relationships in recovery. He can be reached at dan@dangriffin.com or via
www.dangriffin.com. Rick Dauer is Clinical Director of River Ridge Treatment Centers in the Twin Cities area. He is
the co-author of Helping Men Recover. His e-mail address is rickdauer1@aol.com. Griffin and Dauer will be co-
presenters at the 2012 National Conference on Addiction Disorders (NCAD) in Orlando, Fla., Sept. 28-Oct. 2.

References

1. Jordan JV, Kaplan AG, Miller JB, et al. Women's Growth in Connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New
York City: The Guilford Press; 1991.
2. Bergman SJ. Men’s psychological development: A relational perspective. In Levant RF & Pollack WS (eds.), A
New Psychology of Men. New York City: Basic Books; 1995.
3. Anderson L, Griffin D. Treating the whole man. Addiction Professional 2008;6:22-8.

4. Covington S, Griffin D, Dauer R. Helping Men Recover: A Program for Treating Addiction. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass; 2011.
COPYRIGHT 2017 BY VENDOME GROUP. UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION

STRICTLY PROHIBITED

Source URL: https://www.addictionpro.com/article/rethinking-men-and-codependency