Adult children: the secrets of dysfunctional families

underreaction to things inside of us. These things that we are
avoiding are our feelings, our pain, our joy, hopes and dreams.
These things inside of us are us. Co-dependency is thus a
dangerous denial of self.

---

Page 159
A Unifying Model of Co-dependency and Addictions
Our "iceberg model" that we have been using since 1984 is shown
in Figure 16.1. It is borrowed from the psychodynamic notion that
what is on the surface (in our model, the more overt symptoms of
addiction, depression, stress-disorders, etc.) is tied to a much
deeper inner reality of guilt, shame and fear of abandonment which
was learned in our family of origin. Mediating between our surface
symptoms and this deeper reality is what we are calling "co-
dependency".
Thus, when we begin to remove the alcoholism, sexual addiction,
eating/food disorders, migraine headaches or whatever, through
primary treatment, what we are left with is our co-dependency.
That co-dependency must also be treated if we are to avoid the risk
of relapse. Our model also allows for the explanation of the various
forms that addiction take and the various roles that we can cycle
through, including the "offender", "victim" and "rescuer" roles.
Thus, some relationship addicts are victims, some are offenders
and some are rescuers, but they are all co-dependent underneath it.
Some alcoholics are terribly irresponsible, some are constant
rescuers, and some are constantly being victimized but we believe
that most alcoholics are co-dependent underneath it all.
Co-dependency Roots
In considering biochemical and genetic theories of addiction, we do
not deny that some alcoholism, some depression, some obesity,
etc., is genetically caused. But we would qualify this and say that a
person who is genetically predisposed to become alcoholic will
have a much greater chance of actually becoming alcoholic if he or

---

she has a deep foundation of co-dependency learned from their
family of origin. Likewise, this addict will he much less likely to
achieve quality sobriety as long as the underlying: co-dependency
is left untreated.
Delving deeper into the iceberg in Figure 16.1, we see that the
roots of our co-dependency are guilt, shame and fear of
abandonment (inability to trust) which correspond to Erikson's first
three psychosocial crises.
The guilt accounts for our inability to make decisions, to get
"unstuck" and to take our own needs into account. It is this guilt

---

Page 160
Figure 16.1. 
Unifying Model of Co-dependency and Addictions
© 1984 Friel & Friel

---

Page 161
which keeps us protecting our family of origin and unable to
protect ourselves at the level closest to the surface of ourselves.
The shame represents our inability to be separate, to stand alone, to
enjoy being alone, to be interdependent with others and to feel
good about ourselves. It represents our feelings of being broken
and defective that we don't make mistakes, we are mistakes. The
fear of abandonment is at the very core of our being. If we are co-
dependent, it means that at a deep, unconscious level, we believe
that we do not have the right to exist, to live or to survive. It is
there because either literally and overtly, or metaphorically and
covertly, we were abandoned or neglected over and over again in
our childhoods, until our trust was so eroded that we couldn't trust
anyone.
Is Co-dependency Universal?
Given our definition, it is not true that almost everyone is co-
dependent? Is it not true that almost everyone had some form of
dysfunction in their childhood that could lead to co-dependent
symptoms? And if everyone has ''it", does it not lose its conceptual
and diagnostic meaning? We think not, for the same reasons that
"depression" has not lost its meaning despite the fact that everyone
has "it" sometimes. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the
American Psychiatric Association (DSM-III-R) always describes
symptoms, but asks us to look at length and severity of symptoms,
as well as total number of symptoms, before we make a definite
diagnosis. The same should be true with co-dependency. Just
because everyone has some co-dependent behavior does not mean
that the concept is therefore useless.

---

One of the major criticisms of "co-dependency", at least in
Minnesota, is that it is discriminatory toward women because our
culture encourages women to practice some co-dependent
behaviors as part of their "normal" female role. Our definition and
model of co-dependency does not fall into this trap, we believe,
because it is neither "male" nor "female" in bias. It implies that too
much focus on others is unhealthy, as is too little focus on others. It
allows for separate male and female identities and, like recent
models of psychological androgyny, presumes that the healthiest of
us are able to apply both male and female traits where and when
appropriate. It also implies that victim behavior is unhealthy
whether in a man or

---

Page 162
woman, as is offender behavior or rescuer behavior. Thus, it avoids
what we believe has become a dangerous and false dichotomy, and
a misleading stereotype, of the "abusive-offender-male-addict-
married-to-the-overly-responsible-saint-of-a-Mom-co-dependent-
victim-rescuer."
In other words, we see co-dependency resulting from abuse and
neglect in childhood. Some co-dependents later go on to medicate
the pain of their co-dependency by becoming alcoholic or drug
addicted. Others handle that pain by becoming saints or martyrs.
Others become workaholic, compulsive housecleaners, addicted to
their children, to television, to relationships, etc. Some manipulate,
some are manipulated, and most do both in cycles.