Skip to main content

Codependence and Interdependence: Cross-Cultural Reappraisal of Boundaries and Relationality

Abstract

This article explores the cross-cultural implications of the Western notion of “boundaries” and the Asian matrix of “relationality” for pastoral care ministry. Theorists of codependence (relationship addiction) show that American awareness of boundaries produces phobic attitudes toward the interwoven interplay of human relationships. Noting the underlying American cultural ideal (i.e., individual autonomy), evidences that boundaries are culturally defined are reviewed. Drawing upon the social-psychological concept of interdependence (Asian construal of self), the author proposes that there is a need for a different understanding of “boundaries,” since some Asian people have strikingly different construals of the self, of others, and of the interdependence of the two. Boundaries and relationality need to be in dialogue with each other so as to create “relational boundaries” that empower mutual relations within which we may come to experience the power of the relational, triune God.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  • Berger, P. (1967). The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. New York: Anchor Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. S. (1998). Cognitive contributions to soul. In W. S. Brown, N. Murphy, & H. N. Malony (eds.), Whatever happened to the soul?: Scientific and theological portraits of human nature (pp. 99–125). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, A., & Buchanan, D. (1997). A theological analysis of codependency theories. The Journal of Pastoral Care, 51, 303–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doehring, C. (1995). Taking care: Monitoring power dynamics and relational boundaries in pastoral care and counseling. oNashville: Abingdon Press.

  • Heyward, C. I. (1982). The redemtion of God: A theology of mutual relation. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, J. (1976). Peaks and vales: The soul/spirit distinction as basis for the differences between psychotherapy and spiritual discipline. In J. Needleman & D. Lewis (Ed.), On the way to selfknowledge (pp. 114–147). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, L. I. (1996). Korean ethos. The Journal of Korean American Medical Association, 2, 13–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (1995). Culture and self: Implications for internationalizing psychology. In N. R. Goldberger & J. B. Veroff (eds.), The culture and psychology reader (pp. 366–383). New York and London: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, L. L. (1996). Exploring embodiment. In K. H. Ragsdale (Ed.). Boundary wars: Intimacy and distance in healing relationships (pp. 58–77). Cleveland, Ohio: The Pilgrim Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, A. S. (1993). The wounded heart of God: The Asian concept of han and the Christian doctrine of sin. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaef, A.W. (1981). Women's reality: An emerging female system in a white male society. New York, HarperCollins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaef, A. W. (1986). Co-dependence: Misunderstood-mistreated. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaef, A. W. (1987). When society becomes an addict. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaef, A. W. (1990). Is the church an addictive organization? Christian Century, 107, 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaef, A. W., & Fassel D. (1988). The addictive organization. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soelle, D. (1990). Thinking about God. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. C. (1984). Getting angry: The Jamesian theory of emotion in anthropology. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (eds.), Culture theory: Essay on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 238–254). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchocki, M. H. (1994). God, sexism, and transformation. In R. S. Chopp & M. L. Taylor (eds.), Reconstructing Christian theology (pp. 25–48). Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, D. (1991). Approaching the Christian understanding of God. In F. S. Fiorenza & J. P. Galvin (eds.), Systemic theology: Roman Catholic perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 133–148). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillich, P. (1951). Systematic theology I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitfield, C. L. (1991). Co-dependency: Healing the human condition. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kwon, SY. Codependence and Interdependence: Cross-Cultural Reappraisal of Boundaries and Relationality. Pastoral Psychology 50, 39–52 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010495016418

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010495016418

  • boundaries
  • relationality
  • construals of the self
  • cultural
  • pastoral care