How Dependent Are We?
What Makes Us So Dependent

Love & dependency

Songs, poems & novels attest to our desperate yearning for love. Psychologists talk about it too (Fromm, 1974; Maslow, 1970; Shostrom, 1972; Peele, 1976).

Mature love, according to Fromm, doesn't say, "I love you because I need you," but rather "I need you because I love you."

Romantic love is referred to as D-love by Maslow. D-love is based on one's deficiencies, on one's weakness, as in popular songs: "I'd be lost without you" or "Since you left me baby, my life is over."

We need someone else to make us feel adequate or whole & secure. B-love is mature, unselfish love, i.e. based on a love of the "being" of the other person.

The self-actualized person wants but doesn't desperately need love so the loss of love to them is regretted but not traumatic. If our loved one decides to leave us, it probably means they're growing &/or trying something new.

We could wish them well instead of being crushed. We're crushed because we feel so needy. Maslow's theory suggests our reaction to the loss of love depends on how we look at it & our self-esteem.

D-love is like an addiction to drugs: we get hooked on someone we can't do without because of our own inadequacies (Peele, 1976).

How common is this? Some form of "social dependency" (a lover or friends) is the addiction of 2/3 of middle class teenagers; lower classes use drugs & alcohol, according to Peele.

After the infatuation is over, how can you tell if it's mature love or addictive dependency? Ask yourself these questions (Peele, 1976):

1. Is each lover mature & confident of his/her own worth & ability? Are they independent? Are they each comfortable alone?
2. Are both continuously improved by the relationship?
3. Do both have outside interests & relationships?
4. Is the love relationship integrated into his & her life rather than being an isolated part of life?
5. Is there no jealousy of the lover's success, growth & new interests?
6. Are the lovers also genuine, honest, close friends?

When our obsession with another person causes us to neglect our own needs & priorities, to neglect our own life, you need to cure your love addiction. Bireda (1990) addresses this problem directly.

Germaine Greer (1971) in The Female Eunuch points out that some lovers like their partners to fail or to have a weakness because a scared, inadequate person is more likely to stay dependent on them.

Likewise, making yourself indispensable to your partner, i.e. making him or her dependent on you, may be harmful to the relationship in the long run.

She says the question to ask is: "Do I want my love to be happy more than I want him/her to be with me?" If your answer is yes, it's probably mature love. If it's no or "I'm not sure," watch out for clinging dependency.

If your life centers almost entirely around your loved one, naturally breaking up will be agonizing & take a long time. Of course, growing & mature people often go different directions; parting will be regretted & painful for them too, but not a long-lasting emotional disaster.

In those cases where love suddenly turns to hate, it suggests that the person was thinking more of him/herself than the lover all along.

There's a saying,

"Love is nature's trick to insure the species."

The deep internal feelings of love are so similar all over the world, it isn't likely we learn to love from the movies.

Of course, we're often hoping for more from love than a relationship & sex. So often we hope that love & marriage will solve many or all of our anxieties & problems (Gordon, 1976).

As we'll discuss later, traditional women have wanted economic, social & emotional satisfaction; traditional men have wanted all the comforts of home, admiration & emotional support. (Non-traditional men & women expect less from their spouse.)

When our expectations aren't met by our lover, we have problems (disappointment & anger).

Being familiar with these theories - & that's all they are - may make us more aware of the emotional dependency & unreasonableness involved in "blind" love.

This awareness can help us cope. If deep, intimate love can't exist without certain kinds of dependencies, maybe we can anticipate those needs & handle them. Judith Bardwick (1979) & Marion Solomon (1994) say that lovers are always dependent.

To them dependency merely means mature lovers need affection & affirmation as being good, capable people. Lovers don't need to be insecure, self-doubting & helpless. But dependency is a part of intimacy.

They say mature lovers need both closeness & also distance; they need emotional connections & also autonomy. This is called an interdependent relationship.

Without a long-term commitment to a love relationship, Bardwick says we're in danger of feeling insecure, finding little meaning in life, & longing for unconditional love (Mother's love or amae).

I think love may be a basic human need, like safety or being touched or sex. I think there's some inevitable pain when love is lost (at least, it seems true for most of us). Thus, people in love aren't independent in the sense that they can just easily walk away (angry lovers perhaps can).

Healthy people in love are independent enough that they can, with conscious effort, walk away from a very unhappy, restrictive relationship.

Having formed a couple, each person should, of course, remain free to have his/her own interests, friends & activities. So, lovers need to be independent & dependent.

A student shared with me this beautiful, poignant message:  

Being Your Own Person

After a while you learn the subtle difference

between holding a hand and chaining a soul,

And you learn that love doesn't mean leaning

and company doesn't mean security,

And you begin to learn that kisses aren't contracts

and presents aren't promises,

And you begin to accept your defeats with your head up

and your eyes open,

with the grace of a woman, not the grief of a child,

And learn to build all your roads on today because tomorrow's

ground is too uncertain for plans and

futures have a way of falling down midflight,

After awhile you learn that even sunshine burns

if you get too much,

so you plant your own garden

and decorate your own soul

instead of waiting for someone to bring you flowers,

And you learn that you really can endure,

That you really are strong and you really do have worth,

And you learn and learn... with every goodbye you learn.

An unknown lover

There's so much more we humans need to know about dependency & love, jealousy, submissiveness, painful rejection, anger, etc. Chapter 9 helps us understand ourselves & relationships; chapter 10 deals with love & sex.

Reactions To Social Influence

When someone or a family or a social-cultural group tries to influence you, there are several ways you can respond. You can argue & rebel. You can go along with the idea or request or tradition, in which case there are 3 types of reactions you can have (Aronson, 1984):

1. Compliance, as we have seen in the Asch & Milgram studies above, is agreeing with the request or idea in order to get some payoff, perhaps just to avoid unwanted consequences. Thus, family members may gather at Mom & Dad's every Sunday, because the parents would be hurt if the children didn't. Likewise, students do homework to avoid a low grade. People do hard labor for money. Take away the grading system or the pay & the work won't be done. Underlying compliance, in this case, is power - the ability to reward & punish.

2. Identification is where you want to be like someone else & thus, do & think what they do. Thus, if your favorite aunt is a singer, you may study hard on your voice & guitar lessons in order to be like her. If your father is a republican, you may vote that way because you identify with him & respect his political views. Underlying identification is an attraction - having adopted the other person's ways & values because of the appeal of the person, not because of the validity or morality of his/her ideas. If you start to dislike that person, your actions, ideas & values may change.

3. Internalization is based on the desire to be right. If you hear a speaker who seems knowledgeable say something that makes good sense to you, you're likely to accept these ideas as your own. This is the strongest & most permanent reaction to social influence because our motivation to be right is powerful. You keep these opinions until they're proven wrong.

What Is A Woman's Place?

In addition to needing love, as we grow up we identify with older people, primarily of our own sex & internalize many of their attitudes & values. Anne Schaef (1981) asked people to first describe God & humankind in relation to each other, then describe males & females. She got these responses:

The conclusion? It would appear that in the eyes of many people, males are to females as God is to humankind. That is, man is regarded as superior & women as inferior.

If these sexist beliefs are internalized by boys & girls at an early age, what an awful burden for both sexes. Given this image of differences between the sexes, no wonder men are always competitively striving for superiority. No wonder women accept subservient, self-depreciating roles.

Where does this idea of male superiority come from? Anthropologist Boyce Rensberger (1979) suggests that humans started pairing because two could care for the offspring better than one & because physiologically we evolved into sensual beings interested in full-time sex, not just when the female is in heat like other animals.

In addition, human males seem to be more interested in co-parenting if they're confident that they're the biological father; this can only be known if the female has only mated with them; thus, pair-bonding & love evolved as a method for the species to survive & thrive.

Sex (enjoying it frequently), a bigger brain & uprightness (to carry food to our family) may also have been vital to the development of human life in which males & females lived in pairs.

The history of gender roles

But, when, how & why did males become dominant? Interesting questions. We don't know the answers. Apparently some primitive form of humans existed 4 million years ago, but the current human brain developed very recently, perhaps only 35,000 years ago. It's thought that humans lived in groups of 15 to 25 until 12,000 to 15,000 years ago.

These groups wandered long distances looking for available food. About 10,000 BC, some groups learned to cultivate crops, stored grain, developed weapons for killing larger animals, domesticated animals, settled in one place & built more permanent shelters.

The settlements grew larger. Some historians believe that 10,000 years (300 generations) ago women were the leaders & the gods of some larger groups. Mother earth & females were obviously the magical sources of life & thus, closer to God.

But, according to Rensberger, in a more settled existence where goods & wealth could be accumulated, well beyond what one could carry, there developed a strong relationship between meat-eating & male dominance.

Men were the hunters because they were stronger, didn't have children to suckle & were more expendable. The more meat provided the tribe by the men, the more the men were revered, the more economic & political power men accumulated & the more dependent & submissive became their wives.

We still speak of "bringing home the bacon." This historical scenario may support one contention of feminists, namely, that women will have to become economic, political & religious equals of men before they'll be regarded by society as individuals of equal status.

There are other theories about the source of male chauvinism. Even before anthropologists developed their theories, Freud was impressed both w/the power of love-sex drives to dominate our lives & with the male feeling of superiority over women.

He, being a male, thought young girls might feel inferior because they don't have a penis & because they may fear it had been cut off as punishment for being bad.

Traditional roles & The Women's Movement

There was an enormous amount of feminist literature written in the 1960's & 1970's (Friedan, 1963; Greer, 1971; Janeway, 1971). It rebelled against the 5,000-year-old stereotypes for men & women. I won't try to summarize the feminist literature but its focus was on the importance of equality between the sexes, including being against male chauvinism (feeling superior or "god-like") & female subservience or dependency.

Men & women should read & take to heart this literature. Schwartz (1970) is typical of the early assertiveness literature. These writers point out how much more is involved than the emotional need for love (as discussed above) or the need for sex discussed by the anthropologists.

The feminist writings clarify how tradition has dictated male & female sex roles that control much of our lives - our interests, our work assignments, our attitudes towards ourselves & others, our status, our love lives, our dreams & aspirations & almost everything about our lives.

As we've seen, people tend to conform to other peoples' ideas of what's right or how things ought to be. For example, only men are supposed (according to "old" tradition) to strive for economic & political power, e.g. to become chief of the tribe or president of the country or CEO of the company.

Only women are supposed to be homemakers & full-time caretakers of the children (this is really slow to change).

Indeed, tradition in America (until the Women's Movement) had a notion of the ideal or "perfect" marital relationship. For traditional women, it's being loved & taken care of by a successful, good man (Dowling, 1982; Willis, 1981).

He goes to work & makes good money to provide for the family. He knows about finances, cars, repairing the house & makes the major decisions. She doesn't just feel dependent on him, she is truly dependent on him.

For example, if she, like a good wife, puts him thru medical or business school by working as a secretary & he later leaves her because she no longer shares his interests & intellect, she can't financially take care of herself & the children.

She isn't self-sufficient. However, he can perhaps earn well over $200,000 a year. That's not equality.

What does the traditional husband need? He wants to be successful, to beat out his competitors for money & advancement. It's stressful & he wants a haven from the "rat race." His haven includes a loving, devoted, admiring wife who cares for his basic needs - food, clean & pressed clothes, good sex, a comfortable social life, a neat, clean home, etc.

She takes care of the kids & their problems; she's in awe of his achievements & nurtures his ego when he's down; she keeps their love relationship going smoothly. She's indispensable too. If she finds the homemaker life frustrating & seeks an exciting career & in the process finds a better, more egalitarian relationship, he's crushed.

Dependency in marriage

We're all dependent (interdependency is discussed above). There's nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't place us in a position of feeling inferior or of being unable to cope if we're left alone, as in the marriage situation described above.

Overly-dependent people put themselves, often unconsciously, in situations where they're helpless or feel helpless in order to get others to take care of them, like children.

Often dependent people will refuse to take responsibility for managing their own lives, as long as someone else will. If you feel you can't survive on your own, you're dependent in the worst sense of being incompetent or helpless.

Such a situation is scary, if & when you permit yourself to think about it. Even if you're a liberated woman & not helplessly dependent on a male, it may be difficult or impossible to find an exciting career, so you're dependent on the business world for employment.

The unemployed can tell you how scary that dependency is. Furthermore, the employed woman often has to care for the children & manage the household because her husband is hung up on the old ideas of what is woman's work (&/or because it's easier to watch TV than to bathe the kids).

Indeed, one survey of 50 two-career couples with children found that the wives worked 15 hours more each week than the husbands! Hochschild (1989) helps such couples avoid these unfair gender roles.

How are women coerced &/or lured into the vulnerable passive-dependent role?

Willis (1981) says:

• women are promised the reward of security & little responsibility
• social pressures are exerted on females to do what's expected of women & mothers
• women are subtly encouraged to avoid the stress of asserting themselves & competing in an aggressive world, especially since they aren't considered well equipped or prepared for "a man's world"

A woman may give up being self-directed because she realizes she has been placed by others in an "inferior class," where her being strong, decisive, successful & a leader are discouraged.

Letty Pogrebin (1980) says our current sexual stereotypes give children 2 basic messages:

• boys are better 

• girls are meant to be mothers.

The underlying purpose is to motivate boys to excel - "be the greatest!" However, since most boys fail to be as successful as they had hoped, their frustration is relieved by exerting their superiority over women.

Furthermore, since women are meant to be mothers, women can't fulfill their roles in life without first attracting a man; this creates enormous concern in women about sex appeal & attractiveness.

Too often the woman's self-esteem comes from how good a man she can attract, rather than from within herself or from her own achievements. Pogrebin believes males have sold the boring, menial job of childrearing to women by glorifying motherhood.

On the other hand, she thinks the Women's Movement has made careers more appealing than homemaking, at least for the middle-class, well educated elite.

Consequently, it's predicted that 25+% of women between 25 & 29 will not be married but will have careers. Gradually the old traditions are changing. And why not? Men aren't the only ones capable of "bringing home the bacon."

And, women aren't the only ones capable of "taking care of the kids."

Feeling inferior & super responsible at the same time

Being considered by society to be inferior to men, some women may simply accept being helpless & become a "Door Mat" (Namka, 1989). Other women may try to over-compensate by trying to become everything to everybody, by feeling super responsible, by taking charge, by loving & giving too much, by pleasing everyone, by becoming "Superwoman."

Thus, there are a spate of books about women doing too much for others while forgetting their own needs (Norwood, 1985; Bepko & Krestan, 1990; Leman, 1987; Braiker, 1989). Low self-esteem & shame are thought to underlie this self-depreciatory behavior. Bepko & Krestan say there is a "Goodness Code" for women:

• be attractive & sexy!

• be ladylike!

• be unselfish & thoughtful!

• be sure everyone is getting along!

• be competent!

• & don't be uppity or a bitch!

These rules are so pervasive that they seem to "come natural" to women. But part of being "good" is believing you've never been good enough. So, built into women's roles is a mechanism for creating self-doubt, insecurity & a tendency to take on too much.

Likewise, our culture encourages women to seek perfection in terms of attractiveness. As Rodin (1992) observes, the beauty contest goes on & on. Woman worry about their looks, feel vain & in turn, are ashamed of how much their bodies mean to them.

It's almost immoral if you don't diet & exercise; it's impossible to look perfect all the time; it becomes a trap.

Willis (1981) notes that even "liberated" women are frequently in conflict about other things, such as dependency & assertiveness. Examples:

• an aggressive business woman acts like a emotional teenager in sexual relationships

• a strong, powerful, dogmatic anti-ERA female speaker declares that women's' place is in the home being taken care of by a man

• an egalitarian female wants a challenging career but feels guilty when she isn't the main caregiver with the children & makes more money than her husband

• a feminist demands equality but doesn't want to be drafted into combat like men

Many women are still struggling with these dilemmas.  

We also expect a lot of boys & men

High expectations of men can be enormous burdens for them too (Farrell, 1975). Remember, they're to be God-like, omnipotent & successful. Examples:

• Real men are expected to be tough - "big boys don't cry" & fearless

• Men, in turn, become demanding of others too, inclined to criticize & direct or advise rather than empathize.

• They're supposed to be logical & practical, not emotional & idealistic.

• They're expected to pretend to be women's equals except whenever they "have to put their foot down" to avoid doing housework or to keep her at home.

• They must be successful in their trade & have a superior answer to all problems at all times.

• They must look confident & impress people.

• They must be aggressive & approach attractive women.

• And, they must, of course, be a sexual powerhouse - a "stud."

Taken altogether those are impossible standards to meet. Anyone (including the liberated female) compelled to be so competitive & so superior has become an unhappy slave to a demanding stereotype.

What about innate dependency needs?

Sex-role stereotypes & social pressures may not be the sole causes of dependency. Indeed, emotional dependency may not be learned at all, it may be a basic need. Eichenbaum & Orbach (1983), psychoanalytic therapists, argue that males & females have innate dependency needs - needs for love & emotional support.

In terms of these needs, men hide their needs more than women but women are raised to meet those needs in men. In short, women learn to be depended upon, not dependent!

According to this theory, women may be economically dependent & mechanically (fix the car) dependent, but they're trained to deny their needs & become the emotional & interpersonal caretakers & controllers of the family.

The entire family depends on mother; she is the family organizer & therapist. But, there's no one to take care of mother's emotional needs. Certainly men aren't trained in our culture to attend to feelings & to discuss emotional interactions at length.

If we grow up in a nurturing, loving family which gives us self-esteem & teaches us self-reliance, we're fortunate. However, if our innate dependency needs were unmet as a child, we may grow up yearning for the impossible - a soul mate who'll love us constantly & make us whole.

Many wives provide this emotional support; many husbands don't. Thus, self-sacrificing women look needy. And bewildered men wonder, "What does she want?" According to Eichenbaum & Orbach, much of the dependency problem in marriage goes back to basic deficiencies in the mother-child relationship.

The push-pull in mother-daughter relationships is especially strong; for the daughter it involves needed love & unwanted control. Boys, starting at 4 or 5, can reject some of the emotional involvement with mother as they identify with father; girls don't have that way out of a consuming relationship with a powerful person (mother).

Sometimes the intimacy with a lover at age 20-25 revives in a woman the old dependent, push-pull struggles she had w/her mother. Sometimes intimacy with & dependency on a good spouse is scary (reminding us of our need for mother), sometimes dependency keeps us in a bad relationship.

Sometimes we think we're secure & independent but it's a childhood facade, the bravado of a 9-year-old boy. We all need love, which is something our hormones prove to us at 13 or 14 years of age. We can't escape our biology; our "nature" helps explain our behavior but we can learn to handle these needs & drives.  

Women are making progress

Partly because of the Women's Movement & partly due to economic necessity & fewer children, substantial progress is being made in the status of women (Sacks & Rubin, 1982).

• In 1970, 38% of women had some college.

• In 1980, 63% have some college.

• In the late 1980's, about 1/2 the BA's & MA's (in all areas) were earned by women & 45% of the Ph. D.'s went to women.

• By 1995, 75% of BA's in psychology went to women

• 70% of MA's, & 60% of Ph. D.'s were awarded to females.

• In 1970, 4 in 10 white women worked for wages

• in 1980, 5 in 10 did & in 1990, 6 in 10

20 years ago women earned only 65 or 70 cents for what a man got a dollar for, but recent surveys show that they now earn 85 to 95 cents for a dollar's worth of men's work.

Low paying service jobs are still dominated by women, however.

• 1/3 of the children under 6 had wage earning mothers in 1970

• 1/2 had wage earning mothers in 1980

• in the 1990's about 70% of these mothers worked outside the home

• In 1970, 1/3 of the women between 20 & 24 weren't married

• in the 1980's, more than 1/2 weren't married at that age

Still about 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce.

As more & more women break away from the stereotype of marriage, homemaker & motherhood, women in general will be freer to chose their own lifestyle, including:

• not marrying

• not having children

• having children with parenting shared equally

• having children with one parent - the male or the female - doing most of the child-rearing.

In spite of dogmatically held personal biases, so far as we know, all would be equally good options in a society free of antiquated stereotypes.

The child needs care & love; gender of the lover doesn't matter to the child. (There's evidence that children benefit from having both a male & a female caretaker.)

An independent person will not only decide about life-style but he/she will be self-sufficient. That doesn't necessarily mean earning half of the income but it does mean being capable of earning an adequate income if you needed to do so.

It means being socially & emotionally strong enough to live alone &/or find another partner if you needed or wanted to do so. It means having a fair division of labor & the knowledge & skill as well as a positive attitude towards your partner's duties so that you could easily exchange or take over his/her role.

Great personal security comes from knowing you can handle problems that might arise.

There's an old joke: Where does an 800 pound gorilla sleep? Anywhere it wants!

Likewise, what's a woman's (or a man's) place?

Whatever she wants it to be! Yet, there are powerful forces opposing women being equal:

• men, being competitors, like their superior position & are threatened by talk of change

• already successful women, hoping to keep their status, may not welcome more competition from other ambitious, capable women

• the women themselves, wanting good relationships, are hesitant to be assertive & seek advancement.

However, since unequals aren't likely to be true friends, both men & women have much to gain from being equals (Miller, 1976).  

Assertiveness & Excuses For Not Acting

In the 1960's & 1970's the Women's Movement blossomed, not just in books but in millions of families. Women went back to school, got jobs & asked their husbands to help with the housework & the child -care.

One big strength of the movement was the personal support available to women from friends or from consciousness-raising groups. These groups preached equal rights:

• the right to be treated with respect & have an equal voice in all family decisions

• a right to have & express your own feelings

• a right to be listened to & taken seriously

• a right to set your own priorities

• a right to get away from the children for a while or develop a career

• the right to have a social life independent of their husband

• a right to say no without feeling guilty, etc. (Bloom, Coburn, & Pearlman, 1975).

More importantly, perhaps, the consciousness-raising groups encouraged & coached each intimidated & dominated group member.

Every small step in each life was discussed & practiced in these groups:

• how to get a job 

• how to share more equally child care duties, cooking, cleaning, financial decisions, etc.

Remarkable changes were made in many families. Some men resisted but most profited from a happier, more confident, more interesting & more self-sufficient partner.

The next step in human liberation flowed naturally: several books on assertiveness training appeared, starting with Alberti & Emmons (1970) who wrote,

"If you must go thru life inhibited, bowing down to the wishes of others, holding your own desires inside you, or conversely, destroying others in order to get your way, your feeling of personal worth will be low."

Assertion training isn't just a method for overcoming insecurities & submissiveness. It's a philosophy of life involving:

• self-respect

• self-confidence

• self-direction 

• meeting one's own needs & values without offending anyone's dignity or violating anyone else's rights 

That sounds perfectly reasonable & harmless, doesn't it? So, what keeps us from standing up for our rights? We have our excuses.

Just like the Asch & Milgram studies of conformity, Moriarty (1975) documented how reluctant we are to confront a person who offends us or is inconsiderate of us.

• Only 5% of college students studying for an exam insisted that a neighbor turn down loud music.

• Another 15% asked the neighbor nicely once to turn it down (which did no good).

• But 80% said nothing & put up with the disruption.

Likewise, loud neighbors in a library were asked to be quiet by only 2%, 23% moved away & 75% simply endured the disturbance. Most of us just don't want to make waves. What are our excuses?

You'll remember that we tend to have excuses for not living up to our values, for procrastinating, for being hostile to others & now for being passive. Here are several common excuses for not asserting ourselves (Bower & Bower, 1976).

See if the shoe fits:

"Maybe I'm overreacting, I'll be quiet." You have a right to expect quiet in a library or movie or dorm or your own house, so admit your frustration to yourself & firmly insist on quiet. You have lots of rights.

"Everybody has rights." Yes, but their rights end where your rights begin. This comment is just an excuse for not confronting the aggressive, thoughtless person. Stand up for your rights.

"Oh, well, it won't happen again." This may be true but it's an excuse. You should be assertive

• for your own self-respect 

• to help the offender be more considerate of others.

"I don't want to make a scene." Tactful & rational assertiveness shouldn't degenerate into a loud fight. If you're being over-charged or under serviced, it's your civic duty to point out the unfairness & request better service.

"They'll get mad at me." Could be, many people have learned to intimidate others by getting angry. But look at it as another manipulation that doesn't need to upset you & does represent a silly, unfair way of controlling you & others. Don't get angry, just be firmly assertive.

"Why haven't others complained?" Like 1 - this thought raises our self-doubts. Remember the studies in this chapter that show how very conforming & passive people are. Suppose the napkins in a bar degrade women & when you express your disapproval to the manager, he says, "No one else has ever complained. In fact, many people think they're funny. Maybe you've got a hang up." Don't let this insult put you on the defensive. Tell him that just because most customers don't say anything doesn't mean they like the putdown of women.

And to prove your point, if he doesn't change the napkins, tell him you'll write a letter to the editor of the local paper asking people's opinion of his attitude towards women. If you're in public & in doubt about how others feel, conduct your own poll but word your question so that people taking no action appear to support your position.

For example, suppose you'd like the loud music to be turned off at a picnic, you might ask everyone: "How many here want to listen to the radio?" rather than "How many want to turn the radio off?" That way all the non-responders, for whatever reason, look like they don't want to listen to the radio.

"I can't do anything about it." This helpless attitude is the major cause of compliance. It's a self-putdown. It's also a condemnation of "the system" which is seen as unchangeable.

Blacks, women & other minorities "went along" for a long time. Victims give power to the oppressor by doing nothing. Do something! Write letters, talk to the owner or manager, ask a politician to change things, start a group to correct some situation, etc. 

Don't Depend on Someone Else to Make You Happy - By Don Diebel

Thankfully Codependent - by Brenda Ehrler

My unofficial definition of the term codependent is an individual who is affected by the actions of others.

How do I know if I’m participating in codependent behavior?

I start by examining my discomfort. Where does it come from?

Is my discomfort caused by the action of another?

When I can put my finger on the source of my discomfort, I possess a valuable tool. Once I'm aware of the source, I have an opportunity to make an internal change.

This life changing awareness isn't available to non-codependent individuals. After all, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it. Therefore, I can say, I'm thankfully codependent.

As I take advantage of this opportunity to learn, grow & change, I'm careful not to make judgments. My experience is neither: right or wrong, good or bad. Life as not an ‘either or’ situation, it's both. I see life as a continual opportunity for growth.

I’m comforted with the fact that when I look back at my life, I discover many experiences I labeled as ‘bad’ at the time. In truth, they've become some of my grandest life lessons.

By seeing my past as learning opportunities, I can change my perception. Rather than seeing an action as uncomfortable or unpleasant, I can look for the lessons already learned or the new opportunity for adventure hidden within.

I didn’t always view life as a learning opportunity.

It wasn’t until my husband’s sobriety that I discovered my own need for inner healing & recovery. When I didn't experience the expected peace following his recovery, I started on my own journey.

I share my experience in the book I wrote, Learning to Be You; It’s an Inside Job: Recovery & Healing for the Loved Ones of the Substance-addicted. Below I'll share some of my discoveries & the steps I followed to heal & change from within.

Thru understanding manipulation & control, I was able to detach & discontinue enabling.

Manipulation
I see codependent behavior as very proactive behavior. Many (non-codependent) individuals see it as passive behavior. They might view a codependent, as someone who allows others to “walk all over him or her,” when in fact the opposite is many times true.

A codependent can be a very powerful individual by using manipulation in a covert way. As a corporate employee, I might be viewed as someone not forceful or tough enough to be a supervisor.

When in fact, I use my ‘niceness,’ as a form of manipulation. I can get others to buy in, when my request is done so in an ‘easy to take’ way.

This tactic works much better than the tough forceful approach others view as a leadership quality. As the saying goes, “one can get more bees with honey.”

A codependent individual may use manipulation to gain control over situations & individuals.

Control
Everyone is trying to gain control to various degrees. Many times individuals who practice control without conflict are being led to believe they're in control by the individual they think they're controlling. (That was a mouthful.)

Trying to control something outside of me, whether it's an individual or a circumstance, puts me in a position of responsibility. I have an example of an experience I had with having to be in control of a circumstance.

When the department at my workplace decided to go to lunch as a group, I always insisted on picking the restaurant. One day another individual wanted to pick. I struggled with giving up this control, but I eventually gave over.

Surprisingly, with my decision to let go of the control, I experienced overwhelming release. I hadn’t realized that with my need to select the restaurant, I also took responsibility for whether the dinners liked their lunch.

By giving up trying to control my external circumstance, I experience freedom from consequences that are truly not my responsibility. The only control I should want is control over my internal thought process. With control over my internal thought process, I change the way I see the experience.

In other words, I can change my perception. I choose internally to accept & see the value in the external circumstance. In my example, I started to look forward to the experience of new restaurants picked by someone else.

Taking the responsibility for whether my co-workers liked their lunch is minimal compared to taking the responsibility of another individual. When I take the responsibility from another individual I create a paradox, thru my attempt to control I put myself in a position of being controlled, by the actions of others.

This is attachment (I'll talk more about it later). How do I let go of my desire to control my loved ones? First, I realize how really out-of-control I am when I attempt to control a freethinking individual.

Second, I try to understand that in the same way my life experiences are neither: good or bad or right or wrong, my loved ones are also living the same reality. My loved ones are being offered the opportunity to learn & grow thru life experiences, whether pleasant or unpleasant. I need to get out of their way & delight in the whole individual they're becoming.

I practiced control with the illusion that I was protecting my loved ones, especially my children. But rather, I was taking away their learning opportunities. It's literally impossible to take the unpleasant consequences away from my loved ones.

When I change my perception & see discomfort as an opportunity to grow, why would I ever want to take these precious life lessons away from my loved ones? When I practice trying to control others, I take their responsibility & become attached.

Attachment
If I can let go of control by seeing value in all life experience, I start to detach. I didn’t want to call the authorities in 1990, when my substance-addict husband shot the back of my car with a shotgun, while in a drunken blackout.

The reason being, I was so financially attached to him, I knew I'd suffer more financially than he would. Thankfully I did call the authorities (it took some convincing) & thankfully the State of Washington charged him rather than leaving the decision whether to press charges up to me.

He needed to experience the consequences of his actions, jail time & substance abuse treatment, in order to begin his path to recovery. As in my situation, an attached victim is reluctant to charge the perpetuator, for the simple reason, they'll suffer too. Many times more so, depending on the degree of attachment. In addition, my control & attachment of my loved ones enabled them to continue to practice dysfunction.

Enabling
As I mentioned, with my control & attachment I became the owner of my loved ones’ responsibilities. I got between my loved ones & the consequences of their actions. I, rather than them, experienced the unpleasant consequences.

By doing this, I enabled them to continue their dysfunctional behavior. Since I was the one experiencing the discomfort, they had no need or desire to make a positive change in their life.

My mother’s reaction to my pregnancy in 1972 (before marriage) wasn't one I expected. I was surprised that she received the news with little reaction. The bottom line, the problem wasn't hers, it was my problem, whether she realized this at the time or not.

I soon discovered what her reaction meant. I was on my own to accept consequences & discover responsibility. Both my parents supported me, but they were careful not to let me think they were going to take on my responsibility of a newborn. As with all my life experiences, this was a life-changing learning opportunity.

It took an internal change in perception to surrender control, release attachment & with it enabling & start to see my life brimming with opportunities for growth & change.

Now I can sit back & discover the peace, joy & happiness, which accompany the release. Freedom is mine to think about me, thankfully non-codependent!