When We Know Better, We Do Better

Most people who know me understand that after years of teaching about "codependency" as a dreaded disease that needed to be eradicated, I have changed my mind. Again, more on that later, but for now, let's clear something up in terms of assumptions.

When we know better, we do better. Codependency was a word that was created to describe the dance treatment professionals noticed between family members and loved ones with their "dependent" - a person with a substance use disorder. I'm sure those early observers didn't mean it to become a cuss word or a term of condescension - but this is what happened.

Families were soon getting "blamed" for their loved ones choices even as the experts told them that they did not cause, nor could that cure or control the disease that had overtaken their beloved. But honestly - if anyone has ever said to you, "Wow, that's pretty codependent." You felt blamed. At a minimum, you felt judged.

In Emily and Amelia Nagoski's book, Burnout The Secret to Unlocking the Stress Cycle, they discuss the role of science in their introduction - and it is brilliant. They remind us that science is a particular way of being wrong. This certainly would have been good information for us to remember as various ones of us have railed against "the experts" during the covid crisis. Science is SUPPOSED to get it wrong; that's how they figure out how to get a bit better at a problem that no one had ever resolved before! Scientists are trying to be a little bit less wrong than the ones who came before them. They want to be wrong in a particularly helpful way. They want to be wrong in a manner that can be tested and proven.

Codependency language was a first step; it was picking up on something that addiction researchers understand better now, because, well, science. Addiction is a family disease - and various family members "break out" in different symptoms. The person with the use disorder looks one way; their loved ones look another. All of it is fairly predictable.

We could think of it like this. The family members become the "human givers" and the used disordered represent the "human beings" - because, duh. When someone has a use disorder, their brain is greatly compromised. They are fighting to survive and do not have much capacity for giving. This disparity is not limited to families with use disorders, but I just want to make note of the similarities because...as we walk through what happened to me and how I found my way through the tunnel of darkness, maybe others will find common ground and (I hope and pray) maybe their own way "through."

Today, take a few minutes to see where you are in life. Are you giving or being?

When We Have Hope...

Hope never abandons you; you abandon it.

George Weinberg

Last night I was on yet another zoom call; Dr. James Bjork from VCU was sharing his research on the brain and addiction. He talked about “gray abnormalities” in the brain and how consistently these same anomalies appear across the spectrum of mental illnesses. He tied it to other studies that showed gray matter oddities in children who display uncontrollable emotionality and frequent bad behavior. And I thought: Huh. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Is substance use disorder a symptom or THE problem? This really, really matters. And of course, it is an over-simplistic question. It ALL matters, right? Multiple problems or one problem. People who are struggling need support and help - which is most effectively provided if the problem is accurately identified AND we have a treatment protocol that works. As fascinating as the research is, it is tough to come out of that meeting without a lot of practical questions: what does this mean for MY kid? (And there is hope; it turns out research is showing that our brain has healing powers too.)

I think about all the courageous families I know who never give up as they search for answers to all manner of chronic health problems that their loved ones face. Whether it is a rare cancer diagnosis or tips on how to avoid catching the coronavirus - when we love someone, we want to support their thriving. We hope for better days and healing.

As much as I appreciate George Weinberg’s perspective on hope, I cannot agree with his premise. People, for the most part, do not abandon hope. It would be the equivalent of saying that people abandon their love for dessert or peanut butter or their favorite sports team. People do not give up on the good stuff and when we have hope, we can keep going!

I do not think we abandon hope. We get depleted. Exhaustion sets in. Compassion fatigue saps us. Frustration overwhelms us. Confusion clouds our capacity to choose a path and walk down it. We lose confidence in ourselves, others and even God. Are we weak? No! Life is hard. Tomorrow, I want to propose a cure for what ails us.