I was on hold, waiting for the radio interview to begin. That's the nice thing about radio shows; I can do them from home, in my pajamas--especially when it's 5:00 a.m. This is how it goes: I set my alarm, get up, make a pot of coffee, the phone rings, I say "Yes, it's me," then listen while the news runs, followed by a commercial, then the host introduces me. I was publicizing my latest release: The New Codependency by Simon and Schuster. Back in 1986, when Hazelden released Codependent No More--my first book on codependency--people shouted Hallelujah when they heard the word codependency. We weren't crazy, we were codependent. Whew. What a relief. But twenty years had passed and the wheels of change had ground their way around, as they always do. Now, many of us don't want to admit having been it or being it (codependent). Confusion reigns, over the word, what it means, and the implications of "being" it. People had misinterpreted what I wrote. Some hadn't read the book but thought they knew anyway what I meant. That's why I wrote this book: I wanted to set the record straight.
So far, all the interviews had gone well. The hosts had actually read the book. I hadn't been nailed to any crosses--yet, not like I was when Codependent No More came out. I know the media because I am one. I've said it before; I'm saying it now; likely I'll say it again: I'm not an expert or a guru. Above all else, I'm a reporter. A journalist. A nonfiction writer. Journalists like to find conflict We need crisis for a story (or we think we do). It's our job to find trouble. The problem comes when we think we need to create it (trouble and problems). Many media people thrive on it, feed on it. Back in the eighties, I was frequently "someone's lunch." I hadn't learned how to handle adversarial interviews yet.
I was accused of: making up a problem just to make a buck. Zzzzzzt. Wrong! I received a $500 advance. if I had a price, it would be a lot bigger than that.
Codependency was berated as being unreal. The buzzer went off again. Too many people reached "gun to the head time" for it not to be considered a significant, actual problem.
Recovery from codependency (what I wrote about) was looked upon with disdain because people who hadn't read about it thought it meant blaming our parents for how we felt and what we did. ZZZZZZZT. Recovery means taking responsibility for ourselves. To do that, we have to be conscious of how we feel and how we felt. Then we come full circle to taking responsibility for ourselves.
Furthermore, isn't everyone codependent? Bingo. That's the idea I communicated then and am reiterating now (in case some people forgot). The behaviors we associate with codependency are normal reactions, behaviors that all, or almost everyone, tend to do. The problem comes in when we cross a line, can't stop, are unconscious of what we're doing, and the behaviors hurt other people and ourselves.
Okay, so then give us a list of rules. Sorry, Can't. It's not one-size-fits-all.
The entire point and focus of recovery is learning to trust ourselves. Yet, some groups had become stuck--perpetuating the victim myth. Some people felt guilty because they didn't want to go to groups all their lives. Guess what? Maybe they don't need to. Some people don't need to go to groups or therapy at all. A tap on the shoulder, or a wake-up call is enough.
Every revolution becomes an institution, a dear friend told me a long while back. I didn't get it then, but I do now. The ideas that had set so many of us free in the eighties had become a prison for some, a bureauracy for others, a shameful memory for the therapeutically savvy, a hiding place for the rest.
When I first wrote about codependency, all the publishers turned down my proposal. Later, one changed its mind. Then, when the book became a raging success, that's all the publishers wanted me to write about--from then on. "Come on, write it again." "Can't. I already wrote it." "Please, please, please write it again?" "I already said it. There's no more juice to squeeze out of this recovery grape."
Now, I could feel it in the air. With the . passing of time, culture had changed. People talked about setting limits, having boundaries, taking care of themselves--people who didn't have a clue that these ideas originated with the codependency recovery movement. These same people that knew all about boundaries, and not obsessing, and taking care of themselves, and not rescuing others because they were no longer politically correct--they were therapeutically correct--looked at codependency with great disdain. Codependents? Those rabbit-boiling stalkers? Nah. I'm not one. I know what it means to take care of myself. I have limits.
It's all the same thing. We don't even need the "c" word anymore. Job is done. Now we can focus on the behaviors that accompany taking care of ourselves. A diagnosis cannot be made by looking at the external behaviors. Two people can do exactly the same thing and for one, it's healthy, healiing, a great choice and for the other one, it's keeping him or her sick. It's not what we're doing, it's why and how we're doing it that makes it codependent. That's what people, well many people, don't get.
That's another reason I wanted to write this book. Since the nineties, people had been running around with cell phones instead of staying at home obsessing, waiting for him or her to call, and taking anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs instead of dealing with the big mush of feelings we used to call "family of origin work." We got sick of working on ourselves. No wonder. It's a big job. But avoiding it isn't the answer, either. We were ready--no, we are ready--to start feeling and dealing again. The difference is, we know it's not the key to "getting someone to love us" now because we're learning every so slowly and slightly that getting isn't love, giving love is what love is about.
Just a minute! You said that we needed to get our needs met, and not stay in relationships that don't meet our needs. You said we gave too much, not to give so much, that we deserved to get and receive too. Are you taking back what you said?
Nope. That's all true. Remember, it's not what we're doing, it's why we're doing it. If we're giving to get, giving to convince someone to love us, we'll feel better if we stop. If we're giving and the giving drains us, then it's probably not giving we're meant to do. Don't look at me. Look at yourself. That is where the answer and the magic is.
I promise.
Some promises come true.
Anyway, the radio host finished the news and the commercial and began to introduce her guest. Me. She started groaning about the "illneses de jour" and how sick to death she was of that, and to make matters worse, here she was, the codependency lady (she didn't use those exact words but the feeling was there) again and she couldn't believe the book that was sitting on her desk so folks, get ready, Melonie Beattle is back again to tell us we're sick. (I'm paraphrasing, please understand). Here she is.....
Great intro, I thought. Twenty years ago, I would have folded, gotten angry and upset, argued to make my point. Or hung up the phone.
"You're on," she said.
"Did you read the book?" I asked.
Pause.
"No," she said.
"Didn't think so," I said. "Because I absolutely, completely agree with everything you said."
The hour flew by and we had a grand old time. When the interview finished, she invited me to her town, out for lunch, and into the studio some time. I thanked her and meant it. I genuinely liked this woman and enjoyed her show and the hour--had it been that long?--that had passed.
I'm not the same person I was before. Now I know what it means to take care of myself.
Ladies and gentlemen, children too, let me again present my newest release, also available on audio cd.
