Introduction

Modern critics have re-evaluated the character of William Shakespeare's Prince Hamlet in light of current trends in pop psychology, and the verdict of at least one critic is that Hamlet is a classic example of a codependent individual — i.e., "[l]ike many people crippled by co-dependency, Hamlet is obsessed by the motives and behaviors of others"(Rolfe, 35). This essay aims to show that Hamlet's condition is not pathological: the various traits of Hamlet's character that denote codependent behavior are not sufficient to characterize his alleged codependency as a disease entity; in fact, other equally prominent traits of his character denote contradependent behavior, and others still are indicative of an awareness and sophistication that are atypical of the ordinary codependent individual.

What is Codependency Anyway?

The first thing we need to do in order to argue the above point is to familiarize ourselves with the term co-dependency. What are its origins? What common behavioral patterns typify this condition? The answer to the first question is simple; it is generally acknowledged that the concept, if not the term, evolved in the context of the disease model of alcoholism. The second question is also easily answered; the list with which we shall concern ourselves was compiled by Cermak in 1986, and it includes the following: martyrdom, wherein the individual forgoes his needs in order to fulfill the "perceived needs of others"; fusion, whereby an individual's personality is effaced in an intimate relationship; intrusion, occurring when the codependent controls the behavior of others "through caretaking, guilt, and manipulation"; perfection, wherein the individual's excessively high expectations can lead to "overachievement and inadequacy"; addiction, comprising the "use of compulsive behaviors for self-management" (Hogg & Frank, 371).

With that in mind, the second thing that we need in order to make our case is a working definition of codependency. Melodie Beattie, leader of the codependency movement, describes the codependent as "a person who has let someone else's behavior affect him or her" and who is preoccupied in the extreme with controlling the behavior of others (Lamb, 26). The problem with such a broad definition is that it arguably constitutes a mere sociological statement (Hogg & Frank, 371) – virtually everyone in the Western world, by virtue of their Christian heritage, is a codependent – and is therefore not useful as a diagnostic tool. A subsequent attempt to further characterize the condition as a disorder was made by Whitfield in 1989; he defined codependency as "any suffering and/or dysfunction that is associated with or results from focusing the needs and behaviors of others" (Morgan, 723). This is also inadequate for our purposes. The definition we seek is operational: it must describe the nature of the disease and specific symptoms through which it can be readily identified. Such a definition has been available since 1985, when Wegscheider-Cruse described codependency as "a specific condition that is characterized by preoccupation and extreme dependency (emotionally, socially, and sometimes physically) on a person or object. Eventually, this dependence on another person becomes a pathological condition that affects the codependent in all relationships" (Morgan, 724). In 1986, Cermak clarified this concept by pointing out that personality traits are only personality disorders when they become "inflexible and maladaptive and cause either significant functional impairment or subjective distress" (Morgan, 724). He then proceeded to list a number of criteria to aid in identifying codependent personality disorders, which follows:

1. Continued investment of self-esteem in the ability to control both oneself and others in the face of serious adverse consequences.
2. Assumption of responsibility for meeting other's needs to the exclusion of acknowledging one's own.
3. Anxiety and boundary distortions around intimacy and separation.
4. Enmeshment in relationships with personality disordered, chemically dependent, other co-dependent, and/or impulse disordered individuals.
5. Three or more of the following:
   1. Excessive reliance on denial
   2. Constriction of emotions (with or without dramatic outbursts)
   3. Depression
   4. Hypervigilance
   5. Compulsions
   6. Anxiety
   7. Substance Abuse
   8. Has been (or is) the victim of recurrent physical or sexual abuse
   9. Stress-related medical illnesses
   10. Has remained in a primary relationship with an active substance abuser for at least two years without seeking outside help (Morgan, 725).

It is significant that O'Brien and Gaborit found that the correlation coefficient between codependency and depression to be very low, but they also note that this may be a result of the codependent's lack of awareness of his/her own feelings (134). Note, as well, that this list is remarkably similar to our list of typifying traits from the general literature, and as such it is not based on empirical data. It was O'Brien and Gaborit that finally provided us with factors unequivocally associated with Codependence by virtue of an empirical evaluation of their hypotheses. It is these factors, listed below, that we shall use in diagnosing Hamlet:

1. Care Taking — the codependent derives his or her sense of worth from solving the problems of other people.
2. Other-Referenting — the codependent believes that "the interests and needs of others are more important than his or her own" (131).
3. Risk Taking — the codependent finds it difficult to uphold his self in a relationship for fear of endangering it.
4. Impression Management — the codependent tends to assume things in a relationship, and their behavior is often determined by "fear of rejection" (131).
5. Negative Self-image — the codependent cannot feel good about himself or herself without the approval of others.
6. Control — the codependent believes that his or her desires determines the behavior of others.
7. Social Isolation — the codependent has "excessive involvement with a single person" (132).

Is Hamlet Codependent?

With that body of knowledge behind us, we are now ready to tackle the question to which this essay is devoted. Following Cermak's outline for a diagnostic with the information gathered above, we find, without need for extensive substantiation, that Hamlet's condition is reflected by items A, B, C, E1, E2, E3, and E4. One might even argue that D, "enmeshment in relationships with personality disordered, chemically dependent...individuals" is quite applicable given the Danes' alleged love of alcohol. Checking the list of typifying items, we find that intrusion, too, is relevant in Hamlet; as he himself says, "The time is out of joint. O cursed spite,/ That ever was I born to set it right" (1.5.196-197). He believes that he has the ability and the moral duty to straighten everything that falls in his path, from his mother's affections (3.4.54-89) to the future of the state. In this sense is a model codependent, down to the point where, as predicted by Morgan (725), he feels hopeless and inadequate in witnessing his failure. And he is no less afflicted by his relentless pursuit of perfection: it is this obsession that prevents him from slaying a sorry Claudius in prayer (3.3.73-75), which according to many is the turning point in the play. Insofar as Hamlet suffers from these two flaws, his codependency is pathological (Cermak: Morgan, 724). But are these two symptoms alone enough to declare Hamlet a codependent? The superficial reader could now be content that Hamlet is a codependent. What makes Hamlet a special case?

Let us begin by examining the other items that typify codependence in the literature. We can attribute codependency to Hamlet by borrowing the concept of the Family Hero from the disease model of co-alcoholism; the Family Hero is described by Hogg and Frank as an example of a codependent (371), and if we can successfully liken Hamlet to his most likely real-world counterpart, the Family Hero, we will have evidence that the prince exhibits codependent behavior. Does Hamlet, just as the Family Hero, intervene to "fulfill the neglected needs of the family"? Is he not, furthermore, a "super-achiever in the outside world"? The answer is twice affirmative. On the first count, Hamlet wishes to cleanse his family of incest; he does not approve of the marriage between his mother and his uncle (1.2.154-58), and will later seek to dissolve it. As regards his over-achievement, note that Hamlet is described by Ophelia as ''The courtier's, soldier's, scholar's, eye, tongue, sword,/ Th' expectancy and rose of the fair state,/ The glass of fashion and the mold of form" (3.2.154-156). But we need not trust her words: Hamlet proves to us first his mastery of the language in several soliloquies and then his aptitude for fencing in the match with Laertes. We may be tempted to conclude that Hamlet already shows symptoms of codependency, but there is a subtle difference: whereas the Family Hero unsuspectingly acts to preserve the Status Quo (Hogg & Frank, 372), Hamlet is actually trying very hard to upset the Status Quo — and succeeding.

Having failed to find Hamlet's codependent counterpart in a dysfunctional family system, let us proceed to discard other arguments for his codependency from Cermak's list. First, Hamlet is a martyr, but it is not by choice; although he has contemplated suicide (3.1.60-63), he has also accused himself of cowardice on several occasions (4.4.42- 43), and suicide is but another form of cowardice. Hence, although the this symptom is visible, the agent is not codependency. Second, fusion is never fully realized, for although Hamlet acquiesces to the Ghost's will (1.5.29-31), he finds his own reasons for the actions the Ghost demands; furthermore, Hamlet even questions the Ghost's will, suspecting the apparition to be demonic ( ). Third, addiction is also not a case in Hamlet, who, far from being compulsive in self-management, ponders every point extensively; had he been compulsive, he would surely have committed suicide in the first scene of the third act!

As one can readily see, Hamlet is far from a model codependent. More so when one considers Hamlet's counter phobic behavior, defined by Cermak as a modus operandi of codependents who avoid relationships with those who are closest to him or her (Hogg & Frank, 372), possibly to escape negative feelings. This type of behavior has been further characterized by Hogg and Frank and recast into an interpersonal theory of Contra-dependence, whereby Hamlet would lie on both extremes of the spectrum simultaneously!

Conclusions

What can we say about Hamlet? He is a nosy perfectionist, but he does not fit the Family Hero model, is not a martyr by choice, is not self-effacing, is not compulsive, and actually displays some form of counter phobic behavior. He is therefore certainly not a classic example of a codependent individual. What, then, can we say about Hamlet? Hamlet is too sophisticated a character for any label that we may place on him: if we restrict our definitions to where they are operational, we cannot classify Hamlet; and if we broaden them to where they encompass Hamlet, the label fits snuggly on the head of Humanity itself. What we can say is that Hamlet is much too big a character for any analysis of his personality to be definitive, and no passing fad of pop psychology can ever hope to brand Hamlet indelibly.

---

---

Copyright © 1993-2008 Alex Laburu