A.Psi - Codependency: A Jungian Perspective on Lost Selfhood, Individuation, and Archetypal Entanglements

Defining Codependency from a Jungian Perspective

Codependency, a term not explicitly used by Carl Jung but highly relevant to his psychological framework, refers to a pattern of relating characterized by an excessive emotional or psychological reliance on another person, often involving the neglect of one’s own needs and identity in favour of meeting the needs of, or controlling, the other (Jung/Keller). From a Jungian standpoint, it represents a profound loss of Self, where the individual’s personality becomes entangled with another, hindering the vital process of individuation (Jung/Keller). It signifies a state where one has failed to differentiate psychologically, remaining fused with external figures or internal complexes, thus failing to “possess” their own soul (Jung/Keller). Jung touched upon this danger, lamenting the modern tendency towards illness “through a schema imposed on him (Jung/Keller)… forgetting that pastoral wisdom of Jesus: what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul!”

The Psychological Cost of Lost Selfhood

Codependency is psychologically significant because it signifies an arrest in personal development and a disconnection from one’s authentic inner life. It often manifests as a “synthetic persona,” a mask adopted to gain approval or maintain connection, which suffocates the individual’s true nature (Jung/Keller). This state prevents genuine self-acceptance and the confrontation with one’s totality, including the shadow aspects. In dreams and visions, this state might manifest symbolically as being chained, trapped, fused with another figure, lost in a maze, constantly serving others while starving, or searching for a lost part of oneself (Jung/Keller). These images represent the unconscious attempt to compensate for the conscious one-sidedness and signal the urgent need to reclaim the lost Self. The suffering inherent in codependent patterns – anxiety, depression, resentment, burnout – is the psyche’s cry for integration and wholeness (Jung/Keller).

Codependency and Core Jungian Concepts

Codependency stands in direct opposition to key Jungian concepts:

Individuation: This is the lifelong process of becoming a distinct, integrated individual, differentiating from the collective and integrating conscious and unconscious aspects. Codependency halts this by fostering fusion and reliance on external validation rather than inner guidance. Jung’s counseling aimed to “help man to find himself,” correcting the “schematism” that ignores individual uniqueness (Jung/Keller).
The Self: As the archetype of wholeness and the regulating center of the psyche, the Self is the goal of individuation. In codependency, the ego is not aligned with the Self but is instead dominated by external demands or unconscious complexes related to the other person (Jung/Keller). True self-sacrifice requires possessing the Self first: “What one does not possess, cannot be given away” (Jung/Keller).
The Shadow: Codependent patterns often involve projecting one’s own unacknowledged needs, desires, or negative traits (the shadow) onto the other person, or conversely, idealizing the other and denying their shadow (Jung/Keller). Confronting one’s own shadow, the “confession of sin” in a psychological sense, is crucial for breaking these patterns, acknowledging oneself “simul justus et peccator” (simultaneously righteous and sinner) (Jung/Keller).
Persona: The codependent individual may over-identify with a helper, caretaker, or victim persona, mistaking this socially conditioned role for their true identity. This “suffocating armor” prevents authentic living (Jung/Keller).

While there isn’t a specific “codependency archetype,” the dynamic engages several archetypal patterns and oppositions:

The Wounded Healer/Caretaker: Often, the codependent person takes on a distorted Caretaker role, driven by their own unhealed wounds rather than genuine altruism.
The Eternal Child (Puer/Puella Aeternus): The reliance on another can reflect an unconscious refusal to grow up and take responsibility for one’s own life (Jung/Keller).
Victim-Tyrant: Codependent relationships often oscillate between these poles, with individuals unconsciously playing both roles.
Animus/Anima: Undifferentiated or projected animus/anima complexes can fuel codependent entanglements, where one seeks completion externally rather than integrating these contrasexual aspects within.
Key Opposition: The central conflict is between Individuation vs. Fusion/Enmeshment, and Self vs. Persona/Other-Domination.

Though Jung didn’t analyze “codependency” per se, his detailed study of the young medium “S.W.” (On the Psychology and Pathology of So-Called Occult Phenomena) provides analogous insights into personality fragmentation, dissociation, and the influence of unconscious complexes, dynamics relevant to understanding the loss of self seen in codependency (Jung/Keller).

Example 1: Double Life/Split Personality: Jung describes S.W. leading a “curiously contradictory life, a real ‘double life’ with two personalities existing side by side,” her normal “unstable and inharmonious” waking self and her somnambulistic “Ivenes” persona, who seemed more mature and integrated but was dissociated from ordinary reality (CW1 ¶44). Context: S.W. experienced trance states, visions, and communications with “spirits” (interpreted by Jung as autonomous complexes or split-off parts of her unconscious) (CW1 ¶50). Jung’s Interpretation: Jung saw this as a manifestation of psychopathic inferiority and potential hysteria, where unconscious contents gain autonomy and overwhelm the ego (Jung/Keller). The “Ivenes” personality, though seemingly mature, represented a dissociation, a flight from the difficulties of reality into a fantasy world (CW1 ¶59).
Relevance to Codependency: This illustrates dramatically how the personality can fragment under pressure or when individuation is blocked. While not codependency, it shows the psyche’s capacity to split, creating personas or sub-personalities that are cut off from the whole – akin to how a codependent person might feel parts of themselves are lost or inaccessible due to their entanglement with another (Jung/Keller). The “Ivenes” persona needing the “spirits” (grandfather, Ulrich von Gerbenstein) mirrors a reliance on external (or externalized internal) figures (CW1 ¶59).
Example 2: Influence of “Spirits” / Autonomous Complexes: S (Jung/Keller).W.’s actions and personality were heavily influenced by the “spirits” she channeled, such as her “grandfather” providing guidance or the frivolous “Ulrich von Gerbenstein” taking over séances (CW1 ¶50). Context: These “spirits” dictated actions, offered advice, and expressed distinct personalities, often controlling S (CW1 ¶50).W.’s behavior during trances.
Jung’s Interpretation: Jung viewed these spirits not as external entities but as personified unconscious contents or autonomous complexes (CW1 ¶50). They represented split-off aspects of S.W.’s psyche, including familial influences (grandfather) and perhaps underdeveloped aspects of her personality (Gerbenstein’s frivolity contrasting with Ivenes’s solemnity) (CW1 ¶59). Relevance to Codependency: This parallels how a codependent individual can be unconsciously dominated by internalized parental figures (imagoes) or by the needs and expectations (real or perceived) of the person they are dependent on. Their actions are driven not by their own Self but by these powerful internal or externalized “voices” (Jung/Keller). The lack of ego strength to mediate these influences is key.

Jung’s Critique of Pastoral Care and Schematism

Jung’s critique of certain forms of pastoral care also sheds light on dynamics relevant to codependency.

Example 3: Spiritual Schematism: Jung criticized pastoral care that imposes a uniform “schema” for salvation, ignoring individual differences (Jung/Keller). “The first corruption is the spiritual schematism that denies the individual (Jung/Keller)… overlooking the obvious diversity of individual psychic reality.” Context: Jung argued that demanding adherence to a single path ignores the unique psychological journey each person must undertake (Jung/Keller). Jung’s Interpretation: This approach fails because it doesn’t respect the individual’s need to find their own center and path (individuation). Analytical psychology, conversely, “wants to help man to find himself” (Jung/Keller).
Relevance to Codependency: Codependent patterns often arise from or are reinforced by rigid family rules, cultural expectations, or internalized “shoulds” (a personal schema) that deny the individual’s authentic feelings and needs, forcing them into a pre-defined role rather than allowing self-discovery (Jung/Keller).
Example 4: Moralism vs. Self-Acceptance: Jung noted that many educated people avoided pastors, feeling “less understood than judged or condemned” (Jung/Keller). He contrasted moralistic judgment with analytical psychology’s approach of taking “man firstly in his psychosomatic totality without imposing from outside a valuation” (Jung/Keller). True morality arises from the individual’s confrontation with themselves. Context: Jung advocated for psychological understanding and self-acceptance (“confession of sin” as psychological inventory) before moral judgment or demands for change (Jung/Keller). Jung’s Interpretation: Imposed moralism often strengthens the persona and repression, hindering true ethical development which requires acknowledging the whole self, including the shadow (“simul justus et peccator”) (Jung/Keller).
Relevance to Codependency: Codependent individuals often operate under a strict, self-imposed (or projected) moralism, judging themselves harshly for any perceived selfishness while compulsively meeting others’ needs. This prevents genuine self-acceptance and understanding of the unconscious motivations behind their behavior.

Symbolic Language of Codependency

Key symbolic elements connected to the dynamics of codependency include:

Water (undifferentiated): Merging, drowning, floods – symbolizing loss of boundaries, being overwhelmed by the unconscious or the collective/other.
Chains, Nets, Vines, Cages: Representing entanglement, lack of freedom, being trapped in the relationship dynamic.
Masks/Costumes: Symbolizing the synthetic persona hiding the true Self.
Puppets: Indicating loss of autonomy, being controlled by external or internal forces (Jung/Keller).
Mirrors (distorted or empty): Reflecting identity confusion, seeing oneself only through the other.
Vampiric figures: Symbolizing the draining nature of the relationship.
Being Lost/Searching: Representing the disconnection from one’s own inner guidance and soul.

Mythological and Religious Echoes

Mythologically, the story of Echo and Narcissus resonates, with Echo losing her own voice and identity, only able to reflect Narcissus – a metaphor for losing oneself in another’s orbit (Jung/Keller). Religious parallels can be seen in distorted interpretations of self-sacrifice, where service becomes pathological self-negation rather than conscious offering. Jung’s critique of pastoral care highlights this danger: neglecting the individual soul (“what does it profit a man…”) in favour of an external system or demand. The need to confront the “demonic underground” within, rather than relying on superficial “kind words” or “moral demands,” speaks to the depth required to address the powerful unconscious forces driving codependent behavior (Jung/Keller).

Codependency Dynamics in Dreams and Visions

In dreams or visions, codependent dynamics commonly appear as scenarios of:

Being physically bound to another person (Jung/Keller).
Constantly performing tasks for others while neglecting one’s own needs (e.g., feeding everyone else while starving).
Searching desperately for something or someone essential that is lost.
Having one’s home or personal space invaded or lacking boundaries (no doors, crumbling walls) (Jung/Keller).
Being controlled or manipulated by a powerful figure.
Seeing oneself as dissolving, fading, or wearing a mask that cannot be removed (Jung/Keller).

These images often indicate a compensatory function of the unconscious, highlighting the imbalance and the suffering caused by the conscious attitude of enmeshment and self-neglect. They point towards the urgent need for differentiation and the reclaiming of personal psychic space and identity.

Developmental Roots and Numinous Potential

Codependency often has developmental roots in early family systems where boundaries were unclear, love was conditional, or the child was parentified, forced into a caretaker role prematurely (Jung/Keller). Psychologically, the pattern compensates for deep-seated fears of abandonment or feelings of inadequacy. While the pattern itself is rarely numinous, the breakdown it often precipitates can be (Jung/Keller). The intense suffering can force a confrontation with the deeper Self, leading to what Jung might call a “devastating encounter” necessary for transformation – the “descensus ad inferos” (descent to the underworld) that can precede psychic rebirth and a more authentic connection to the Self (Jung/Keller).

Therapeutic Exploration via Jungian Methods

In Jungian therapy, codependent patterns can be explored through:

Active Imagination: Engaging in dialogue with the inner figures involved – the Caretaker part, the Needy part, the inner Critic, the image of the person one is dependent on. This helps differentiate and understand the motivations of these psychic components.
Amplification: Exploring myths, fairy tales, or cultural symbols related to themes of sacrifice, boundaries, enmeshment, dependency, and autonomy to gain deeper, archetypal perspectives on the personal struggle (Jung/Keller).
Dream Analysis: Paying close attention to dream images related to boundaries, identity, entanglement, and freedom, using them as guidance from the unconscious.
Dialogue in Therapy: Focusing on differentiating one’s own feelings, needs, and thoughts from those of others; exploring the roots of the pattern; practicing assertiveness and boundary-setting; working through projections and transference dynamics.

Questions Arising from Codependent Dynamics

The emergence of codependent themes in dreamwork or therapy prompts critical questions:

Whose life am I living?
What am I afraid will happen if I prioritize my own needs?
What parts of myself have I disowned or projected onto the other?
Where are my boundaries? Can I say “no” (Jung/Keller)?
What does my authentic Self desire or require?
Am I confusing fusion with intimacy, or control with care?
What unconscious wounds or fears are driving this pattern?

Nuancing Common Misreadings of Codependency

A common misreading is to view codependency simply as “being too nice,” “loving too much,” or sheer altruism. Jungian psychology would nuance this by emphasizing the unconscious dynamics at play:

It is less about the quantity of care and more about the lack of differentiation and the loss of Self.
It often masks unconscious needs for control, fear of abandonment, or low self-worth, rather than stemming purely from conscious love.
It involves projection of shadow elements (both positive and negative) and hinders the crucial task of individuation.
True giving, from a Jungian perspective, requires possessing oneself first, as Vinet’s word reminds us: “Pour se donner, il faut s’appartenir” (To give oneself, one must belong to oneself) (Jung/Keller). Codependency represents giving from a place of inner poverty or entanglement, not from the strength of an integrated Self (Jung/Keller).

Codependency: A Jungian Perspective on Lost Selfhood, Individuation, and Archetypal Entanglements