(For
co-dependent read 'cult sponsee'. For narcissist read 'cult sponsor')
“Codependency
is defined as a psychological condition or a relationship in which a
person is controlled or manipulated
by another who is affected with a pathological condition (typically
narcissism or
drug addiction); and in broader terms, it refers to the dependence on
the needs of, or control of, another.[1]
It also often involves placing a lower priority on one's own needs,
while being excessively preoccupied with the needs of others.[2]
Codependency can occur in any type of relationship, including family,
work, friendship, and also romantic, peer
or community relationships.[2]
Codependency may also be characterized by denial,
low self-esteem,
excessive compliance,
or control
patterns.[2]
Narcissists
are considered to be natural magnets for the codependent.”
“Historically, the
concept of codependence "comes directly out of Alcoholics Anonymous, part of a dawning realization that the problem was not
solely the addict, but
also the family and friends who constitute a network for the
alcoholic."[3]
It was
subsequently broadened to cover the way "that the codependent
person is fixated on another person for approval, sustenance, and so
on."[3]
As such, the concept overlaps with, but developed in the main
independently from, the older psychoanalytic
concept of the 'passive dependent personality' ... attaching himself
to a stronger personality."[4]”
“Narcissists, with
their ability to "get others to buy into their vision and help
them make it a reality," are natural magnets for the
"'co-dependent' ... [with] the tendency to put others' need
before their own".[9]
Sam Vaknin
considered that codependents, as "the Watsons
of this world, 'provide
the narcissist with an obsequious, unthreatening audience
... the perfect backdrop.'"[10]
Among the reciprocally locking interactions of the pair, are the way
"the
narcissist has an overpowering need to feel important and special,
and the co-dependent has a strong need to help others feel that way.
... The narcissist overdoes
self-caring and demands it from others, while the co-dependent
underdoes
or may even do almost no self-caring."[11]”
See
also “Alcoholics Anonymous”, Ch 5, How It Works, pp. 60-62 (a near perfect description of your average
cult sponsor):
“Being
convinced, we were at Step Three, which is that we decided to turn
our will and our life over to God as we understood Him. Just what do
we mean by that, and just what do we do?
The
first requirement is that we be convinced that any life run on
self-will can hardly be a success. On that basis we are almost
always in collision with something or somebody, even though our
motives are good. Most people try to live by self-propulsion.
Each person is like an actor who wants to run the whole show; is
forever trying to arrange the lights, the ballet, the scenery and
the rest of the players in his own way. If his arrangements would
only stay put, if only people would do as he wished, the show
would be great. Everybody, including himself, would be pleased.
Life would be wonderful. In trying to make these arrangements our
actor may sometimes be quite virtuous. He may be kind, considerate,
patient, generous; even modest and self-sacrificing. On the other
hand, he may be mean, egotistical, selfish and dishonest. But,
as with most humans, he is more likely to have varied traits.
What
usually happens? The show doesn’t come off very well. He begins to
think life doesn’t treat him right. He decides to exert himself
more. He becomes, on the next occasion, still more demanding or
gracious, as the case may be. Still the play does not suit him.
Admitting he may be somewhat at fault, he is sure that other people
are more to blame. He becomes angry, indignant, self-pitying.
What is his basic trouble? Is he not really a self-seeker even
when trying to be kind? Is he not a victim of the delusion that
he can wrest satisfaction and happiness out of this world if he only
manages well? Is it not evident to all the rest of the players that
these are the things he wants? And do not his actions make each of
them wish to retaliate, snatching all they can get out of the show?
Is he not, even in his best moments, a producer of confusion rather
than harmony?
Our
actor is self-centred—ego-centric, as people like to call it
nowadays. He is like the retired business man who lolls in the
Florida sunshine in the winter complaining of the sad state of the
nation; the minister who sighs over the sins of the twentieth
century; politicians and reformers who are sure all would be Utopia
if the rest of the world would only behave; the outlaw safe cracker
who thinks society has wronged him; and the alcoholic who has lost
all and is locked up. Whatever our protestations, are not most of us
concerned with ourselves, our resentments, or our self-pity?
Selfishness—self-centredness!
That, we think, is the root of our troubles. Driven by a hundred
forms of fear, self-delusion, self-seeking, and self-pity, we step
on the toes of our fellows and they retaliate. Sometimes they
hurt us, seemingly without provocation, but we invariably find that
at some time in the past we have made decisions based on self which
later placed us in a position to be hurt.
So
our troubles, we think, are basically of our own making. They arise
out of ourselves, and the alcoholic is an extreme example of
self-will run riot, though he usually doesn’t think so. Above
everything, we alcoholics must be rid of this selfishness. We must,
or it kills us! God makes that possible. And there often seems no way
of entirely getting rid of self without His aid. Many of us had moral
and philosophical convictions galore, but we could not live up to
them even though we would have liked to. Neither could we reduce our
self-centredness much by wishing or trying on our own power. We had
to have God’s help.
This
is the how and why of it. First of all, we had to quit playing
God. It didn’t work. Next, we decided that hereafter in this
drama of life, God was going to be our Director. He is the Principal;
we are His agents. He is the Father, and we are His children. Most
good ideas are simple, and this concept was the keystone of the new
and triumphant arch through which we passed to freedom.“
See
also Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions esp:
“No
adult man or woman, for example, should be in too much emotional
dependence upon a parent. They should have been weaned long before,
and if they have not been, they should wake up to the fact.” [p.
38]
“Our
whole trouble had been the misuse of willpower. We had tried to
bombard our problems with it instead of attempting to bring it into
agreement with God’s intention for us.”
[p. 49]
“Nor
is the quest for security always expressed in terms of money.
How frequently we see a frightened human being determined to
depend completely upon a stronger person for guidance and
protection. This weak one, failing to meet life’s
responsibilities with his own resources, never grows up.
Disillusionment and helplessness are his lot. In time all his
protectors either flee or die, and he is once more left alone and
afraid.
We
have also seen men and women who go power-mad, who devote themselves
to attempting to rule their fellows. These people often throw to
the winds every chance for legitimate security and a happy family
life. Whenever a human being becomes a battleground for the
instincts, there can be no peace.
But
that is not all of the danger. Every time a person imposes his
instincts unreasonably upon others, unhappiness follows. If the
pursuit of wealth tramples upon people who happen to be in the way,
then anger, jealousy, and revenge are likely to be aroused.
…....
When
an individual’s desire for prestige becomes uncontrollable, whether
in the sewing circle or at the international conference table, other
people suffer and often revolt.
…....
We
had to see that every time we played the big shot, we turned people
against us.
…....
Of
course the depressive and the power-driver are personality extremes,
types with which A.A. and the whole world abound.
…....
The
primary fact that we fail to recognize is our total inability to form
a true partnership with another human being. Our egomania digs two
disastrous pitfalls. Either we insist upon dominating the people
we know, or we depend upon them far too much. If we lean too
heavily on people, they will sooner or later fail us, for they are
human, too, and cannot possibly meet our incessant demands. In this
way our insecurity grows and festers. When we habitually try to
manipulate others to our own willful desires, they revolt, and resist
us heavily. Then we develop hurt feelings, a sense of
persecution, and a desire to retaliate. As we redouble our efforts at
control, and continue to fail, our suffering becomes acute and
constant. We have not once sought to be one in a family, to be a
friend among friends, to be a worker among workers, to be a useful
member of society. Always we tried to struggle to the top of the
heap, or to hide underneath it. This self-centred behaviour
blocked a partnership relation with any one of those about us. Of
true brotherhood we had small comprehension.” [pp. 43-53]
“After
we come into A.A., if we go on growing, our attitudes and actions
toward security—emotional security and financial security—commence
to change profoundly. Our demand for emotional security, for our own
way, had constantly thrown us into unworkable relations with other
people. Though we were sometimes quite unconscious of this, the
result always had been the same. Either we had tried to play God
and dominate those about us, or we had insisted on being
overdependent upon them. Where people had temporarily let us run
their lives as though they were still children, we had felt very
happy and secure ourselves. But when they finally resisted or ran
away, we were bitterly hurt and disappointed. We blamed them, being
quite unable to see that our unreasonable demands had been the cause.
When
we had taken the opposite tack and had insisted, like infants
ourselves, that people protect and take care of us or that the world
owed us a living, then the result had been equally unfortunate. This
often caused the people we had loved most to push us aside or perhaps
desert us entirely. Our disillusionment had been hard to bear. We
couldn’t imagine people acting that way toward us. We had failed to
see that though adult in years we were still behaving childishly,
trying to turn everybody—friends, wives, husbands, even the world
itself—into protective parents. We had refused to learn the very
hard lesson that over-dependence upon people is unsuccessful because
all people are fallible, and even the best of them will sometimes let
us down, especially when our demands for attention become
unreasonable.
….....
If
we really depended upon God, we couldn’t very well play God to
our fellows nor would we feel the urge wholly to rely on human
protection and care.
…......
We
were still trying to find emotional security by being dominating or
dependent upon others. Even when our fortunes had not ebbed that much
and we nevertheless found ourselves alone in the world, we still
vainly tried to be secure by some unhealthy kind of domination or
dependence.
….....
True
leadership, we find, depends upon able example and not upon vain
displays of power or glory” [pp. 115-124]
(our
emphases in bold print)
Comment:
No wonder this text (together with the AA pamphlet Questions and Answers on Sponsorship) is so unpopular in cult circles! Cuts
too close to the bone we think!
Cheers
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
I think you make some good points, mostly about the big ego of "directive sponsors". It also helps to fend off feelings of emptiness to surround oneself with adoring fans and to make that type of AA the total focus of one's life instead of taking the challenge of getting out into life and forging meaningful relationships and activities out there. But I also think, at least for some, perhaps not the top-dog "directive sponsors" but the middle range ones, the followers of the big guys who adopt their attitudes and behaviors as much as they are allowed to do so by the top guys, there is a type of co-dependency on their sponsees as well. Care-taking, controlling, using those relationships to give their life meaning. I think the idea of co-dependency is good here but it is, shall we say, a complicated mess of relationships. Most of which could be avoided by practicing the principles you outline above in the quotations but also, in many case, with some outside therapy in order for members to see these dynamics better.
ReplyDelete