Throughout its history, those who have created psychotherapy models have often had the tendency to completely debunk what has come before. Psychology theorists who advocate the importance of working in the here-and-now will decry that digging around in the client’s past is useless or not helpful. Those who believe that having an interpersonal focus is the key to healing will devalue an intrapsychic approach, and visa-versa. Although there has been an increased interest in bridging and integration in the psychology field over the past two decades, this unfortunate trend continues. This same phenomenon occurs in the addiction/recovery field. A glaring example is the debate about codependency. Robert Weiss, a psychotherapist and sexologist is a leading critic against the codependency model, and advocates instead for what he terms Prodependence. Weiss correctly points out the harm that ensues when therapy involves shaming and labeling, and how the codependency concept is built on inadequate research. He also acknowledges the positive contributions of the codependent model such as setting boundaries, asserting anger, reaching out for support, processing grief and restoring healthy coping. What gets lost in the black and white portrayal of the codependency debate, however, is the very real truth that there are people who develop a survival strategy that enables them to re-coop their sense of worth by attempting to fix, solve, please and help others. Therapists are frequently reminded of how “being helpful” or having an exaggerated sense of responsibility often allowed their clients to cope in a volatile and distressed family. Sadly, the price these clients pay is having to go through life feeling anxious and inadequate if they are unable to fix, solve or alleviate the suffering of another person. It is not really useful to call their strategies addictive or codependent, but instead, the focus needs to be on helping clients experience, and challenge, perceived threats from the past are outdated. Another important component is discovering that their true value has nothing to do with how helpful they are. Weiss proclaims, “let’s view ALL attempts to rescue, save and heal as healthy and normal!” Most therapists know that behavior is often motivated by both healthy and unhealthy impulses. Being concerned about one’s significant other having a problem with addiction is certainly not to be pathologized. At the same time, an excessive need to control can contribute to a loved one’s “using”. To ignore this is clinically irresponsible. Weiss calls the Prodependence model an attachment-based theory of human dependency which states that those who partner with an active addict are “no more and no less than loving people caught up in circumstances beyond their ability to healthfully cope”. I wish life was this simple. Healso points out that the codependency concept rests on the assumption that self-actualization is a measure of health/success rather than the strength of our attachments, relationships, peer and community bonds. There’s no question that the culture of narcissism has seeped into our models of personal development. However, why not reject the destructive elements and continue to embrace what is positive? By linking self-actualization with the “me generation” he implies that personal growth is always a selfish endeavor. Why can’t strong attachments, community bonds and self-actualization be positive goals? In their attempts to highlight the drawbacks of the codependency model Weiss, and others, invalidate and skip over important lessons.