partner acts in a way that undermines your sense of security, you
should be able to distance yourself from the situation emotionally,
“keep the focus on yourself,” and stay on an even keel. If you can’t do
that, there might be something wrong with you. You might be too
enmeshed with the other person, or “codependent,” and you must learn
to set better “boundaries.”
The basic premise underlying this point of view is that the ideal
relationship is one between two self-sufficient people who unite in a
mature, respectful way while maintaining clear boundaries. If you
develop a strong dependency on your partner, you are deficient in
some way and are advised to work on yourself to become more
“differentiated” and develop a “greater sense of self.” The worst
possible scenario is that you will end up needing your partner, which is
equated with “addiction” to him or her, and addiction, we all know, is a
dangerous prospect.
While the teachings of the codependency movement remain
immensely helpful in dealing with family members who suffer from
substance abuse (as was the initial intention), they can be misleading
and even damaging when applied indiscriminately to all relationships.
Karen, whom we met earlier in the televised race, has been influenced
by these schools of thought. But biology tells a very different story.

THE BIOLOGICAL TRUTH

Numerous studies show that once we become attached to someone,
the two of us form one physiological unit. Our partner regulates our
blood pressure, our heart rate, our breathing, and the levels of
hormones in our blood. We are no longer separate entities. The
emphasis on differentiation that is held by most of today’s popular
psychology approaches to adult relationships does not hold water from
a biological perspective. Dependency is a fact; it is not a choice or a
preference.
A study conducted by James Coan is particularly illuminating to that
effect: Dr. James Coan is the director of the Affective Neuroscience