How Attachment Theory Ignores Codependency

What is Codependency?

Codependency, or fusion (in Bowen theory terms) refers to an overinvolved relationship in which those involved get their immature emotional needs met in the boundary-less relationship. Typically, this type of relationship starts out close, able to fulfill the excessive needs of both people–but will typically fall apart eventually due to stressors and become distant, conflictual, or otherwise dysfunctional. Relationships require boundaries to stay connected, otherwise people begin to feel threatened by one another. 

Many people experience codependency in their relationships, and have learned that they need to grow themselves and get beyond their immature neediness in order to respect others’ boundaries and uphold their own boundaries. Codependency has also been seen in many research studies, validating that it is a real phenomenon that is experienced by many people (Bacon et al., 2020; Cullen & Carr, 1999; O’ Brien et al., 1992). It has also been found that codependency creates overt dependency in children, and plays a significant role in their mental health challenges (Carr et al., 2021; Odenweller et al., 2014; Winner, 2019). 

Denying the Existence of Codependency

Despite this research, attachment theorists deny that codependency exists. Some do this explicitly and some in less direct ways. Some of the more explicit are Levine & Heller (2010), who are authors of the book “Attached,” an extremely popular book on Attachment theory. They state that codependency is a myth, and argue that teaching people to be more self-sufficient and to better respect boundaries is misleading. They suggest that dependency is a fact, not a choice, and that attachment needs are powerful and therefore, uncontrollable. 

This is a rather seductive way of thinking–who wouldn’t want to believe that they don’t need to become more self-sufficient and to better respect others’ boundaries? Growing yourself is uncomfortable and challenging, and our “needs” for others are indeed powerful and difficult to control. However, this view goes against the numerous research studies that point to the existence of codependency and its harmful effects.

Indirectly Denying Codependency

Other attachment theorists are more indirect in how they deny codependency’s existence. For instance, Sue Johnson, a leading figure in attachment theory, suggests that a child comes to be independent due to parents always meeting children’s attachment needs, not due to overcoming codependency (unresolved symbiosis) with their child. 

Her argument is based in the overarching argument of attachment theory–that attachment needs are real and that denying them is very problematic. The problem with this is that there is never a point when the theory distinguishes between reality attachment needs and excessive needs for connection that have developed due to codependency. 

Neediness Caused by Unmet Need

Attachment theory does recognize that people can become needy and demanding, but this is conceptualized as the result of having unmet attachment needs–not from having too many needs met. To attachment theorists, it is problematic to suggest that a person could be overly needy because they have become codependent. This would mean the person needs to be less dependent, which would be seen as pathologizing dependency. The theory is very much against pathologizing dependency as this is seen as invalidating people’s attachment needs. 

However, in their insistence that attachment needs are always valid and must always be accepted, the theory is constructed in a way that is unreasonable. It ends up denying that codependency could ever be the reason someone has become needy and demanding. It denies that codependency could ever be the reason a child stays overly dependent on their parents.  

Codependency in Parenting

This is not only an unreasonable idea that is refuted by research, but it can be very problematic for relationships–especially for parent-child relationships. The idea that codependency is never the reason children become needy and demanding puts parents (and children) in a precarious position. 

Imagine, for instance, that parents have given a great deal of their time and energy to their child–more than the child realistically needs–and the child is still needy and demanding. If these parents take the advice of attachment theorists, they would be led to believe that they actually haven’t adequately met the child’s needs for attention, involvement and emotional support, and therefore need to give more. And after this, if the child is still needy and demanding, guess what–the parents will again be told that they have still not given enough and need to give more. 

This is because the only possible explanation for children’s needy and demanding behavior that attachment theory provides is that children have an insecure attachment due to unmet attachment needs. Therefore, the only possible solution it puts forth is for parents to give more and more–always accepting the child’s attachment “needs,” until the child eventually feels safe enough to be go off and be autonomous and independent. 

Feeding into Codependency

Now imagine that codependency does exist (which research suggests)--then where does this leave these parents that have given more and more and more to their children? Well they have now fed into the codependency that was probably the reason for the child’s needy and demanding behavior to begin with. So if codependency truly exists as the research suggests, then that means attachment theory is very likely feeding into parents’ codependent relationships with their children. This is problematic for multiple reasons. 

First, the relationship will lack boundaries, and therefore, will become overwhelming and suffocating, likely leading it to break down and become unfulfilling to those involved. Second, the parent will always feel guilty, feeling they have never given enough “love”--and will also feel burnt out and overwhelmed by trying to meet the child’s excessive expectations. And third, the child will become a prisoner to their excessive needs–they won’t be happy or confident–they will feel anxious and insecure when not getting what they “need” to feel complete.

Overall, this type of relationship does not promote connected parent-child relationships, nor does it empower parents or children. It makes relationships more likely to become distant (even abusive or neglectful) and it makes parents and children unhappy. 

Never Good Enough Parenting

Attachment theorists seem to have recognized that their theory makes parents feel guilty and overwhelmed, because they invented “Good Enough Parenting” as a way to say that they don’t actually do this. It is based in research that shows that in healthy parent-child relationships (with 6 month old infants) meeting children’s attachment needs 30 percent of the time was good enough to promote a secure attachment (Tronick & Gianino, 1986). 

However, this research does not actually align with attachment theory (even refuting it). According to the theory, even if parents have met children’s needs 30 percent of the time, if the child is still needy and demanding, the parents have actually not given enough and need to give more. It would be good if the theory truly did provide some sort of cut off point at which parents could trust that they have given enough and can start to uphold boundaries, but this is simply not part of attachment theory. Perhaps a better way to describe attachment theory is “never good enough parenting.” 

Good Enough Parenting

Fortunately for parents, there is a theory that truly can help parents to trust when they have given enough and that truly warrants the description of “good enough parenting.” Bowen family systems theory distinguishes between reality needs for connection and needs that have become excessive due to a fused (codependent) relationship. It therefore provides parents a cutoff point when they can trust that they have given enough–when their child’s neediness doesn’t mean they have failed, but that they can safely back off and uphold boundaries without harming the child’s attachment to them. 

They can trust that doing so is actually helpful, promoting the child’s confidence and independence, and therefore, their happiness. It can also help the relationship to have lasting, genuine connection. And of course, it can help parents to no longer feel constantly guilty and that they have never given enough. They can feel free, calm, and balanced. 

References

Bacon, I., McKay, E., Reynolds, F., & McIntyre, A. (2020). The lived experience of codependency: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Int J Ment Health Addiction 18(3), 754–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9983-8

Carr, V. M., Francis, A. P. & Wieth, M. B. (2021). The relationship between helicopter parenting and fear of negative evaluation in college students. Journal of Child and Family Studies 30, 1910–1919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-01999-z

Cullen, J., Carr, A. (1999). Codependency: An empirical study from a systemic perspective. Contemporary Family Therapy, 21, 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021627205565

Levine, A., & Heller, R. (2010). Attached: The new science of adult attachment and how it can help you find - and keep - love. Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin.

O'Brien, P. E., & Gaborit, M. (1992). Codependency: A disorder separate from chemical dependency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48(1), 129–136.

Odenweller, K. G., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Weber, K. (2014). Investigating helicopter parenting, family environments, and relational outcomes for millennials. Communication Studies, 65(4), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.811434

Tronick, E. Z., & Gianino, A. (1986). Interactive mismatch and repair: Challenges to the coping infant. Zero to Three, 6(3), 1–6.

Winner, N. A. (2019). Overparenting and young adult narcissism: Psychological control and interpersonal dependency as mediators. Dissertations. 1483. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/1483