Verified by 
This is second of two consecutive blogs on enabling spouses to be either too responsible, or under-responsible. In this article, I will examine the origins and tendencies of under-responsible spouses and the ways in which they encourage their over-responsible counterparts to over-function, even at the cost of their own personal development.
The under-responsible spouse resembles the “child” in Sager’s (1976) parental-childlike relationship. Oftentimes, they know how to have fun and—compared to their more responsible spouses—seem to take life less seriously. They exist on a continuum in terms of maturity and adult functioning, but the typical under-responsible mate appears laid back, funny, and dressed for play. It’s not unusual for the over-responsible mate to attend therapy in business garb while the under-responsible mate presents in casual clothing, even athletic attire. The under-responsible didn’t initiate treatment; to them it’s like being called to the principal’s office. There is usually an underlying anger and anxiety that accompanies them.
Under duress the under-responsible will participate in therapy but they’re not interested in straining themselves. They often make light of their situation. “She’s over-reacting. Life is good. No worries.” Meanwhile, their more serious counterpart is seething. The under-responsible mate attempts to get away with doing as little as possible in almost all areas of life, but they are quite capable of pouring hours into something they find fun. In this vain, they consistently parentify their over-responsible mates (Boszormenyi-Nagy, 1965; Boszormenyi-Nagy & Spark, 1973); in some cases, burdening them to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. One low-functioning husband said to me: “I don’t need to worry. My wife does the worrying for the both of us.” Only when the marriage is in severe crisis do the under-responsible attempt to kick things into gear—and even then, it may only be a half-hearted attempt to do the work that might save their marriage.
The under-responsible tend to show little empathy for the stress their spouses are experiencing in part, because if they acknowledge it they may have to consider taking some of it on themselves. They also firmly believe that the over-responsible are neurotic, up-tight, or wired. They see their behavior as a trip to an early grave. Of course, enabling the over-responsible to carry the load only contributes to making this a potential reality. In truth neither member of this dynamic is happy. The over-responsible partner is in constant danger of burn out and the under-responsible mate is constantly under fire to do more.
The under-responsible may come by their laziness naturally. In contrast to the over-responsible spouse, who tends to be the eldest or most competent of their litter, the under-responsible mate tends to be the youngest or least competent. Most parents are pretty astute at assessing a child’s capabilities and if they sense a particular child lacks a strong work ethic, a strong obligatory nature, or an abundance of talent, they may let the potential under-responsible child off the hook. Meaning they demand very little, and in the process create a fun-loving, yet somewhat incompetent monster: sweet, funny, and on the constant lookout for someone who will meet their needs. In extreme cases some under-responsible were infantilized by their parents (Betchen,1996). Perhaps they were perceived as too sick to bear responsibility. This could be an unavoidable fact, but it’s never a good idea to support someone’s inability to function at the expense of their true ability. Sealing the deal: competent siblings and extended relatives may join in the enabling process and contribute to the crippling process.
The under-responsible may also develop out of being "spoiled" in their families of origin. Some were favored; others may have been raised in wealthy, pampering homes. I refer to these individuals as “Princes or Princesses in exile.” Used to being coddled, they develop an affinity for it, and an entitlement that parentifies without mercy. If in adulthood they cannot maintain their special place, they can regress to the demanding behavior of an angry toddler.
While their entitled dependency seems like a good idea in the short-run, in the long-run they are contributing to their own developmental paralysis. But then again, children don’t usually think long-term—they live in the moment. In an adult crisis, the under-responsible need their parental figures. If they outlive them, they may enter an existential crisis that can bring about catastrophe. For example, after the death of a partner or divorce, some under-responsible impulsively remarry. The anxiety of fending for themselves is far too frightening. Oftentimes they find another over-responsible mate but with less tolerance, obligation, and dedication. These individuals may enter the relationship with an angry chip on their shoulder having already been parentified by a former spouse or long-term lover. If there’s a quick ending, the loss of two or even three consecutive parental figures may be utterly devastating to the under-responsible who may in turn, decompensate quickly.
The under-responsible spouse is not a bad sort. They tend to be pretty flexible and forgiving parents. Fun-loving, they may be better able to play with their children than the more serious over-responsible parent. If given the chance, they can even teach the over-responsible mate how to relax. Nevertheless, treating the under-responsible spouse is almost never easy. They’re affable enough, but therapy is work; and if they were good at working hard they might not be in treatment in the first place. Most clinicians know that the under-responsible mate would almost never continue therapy if the over-responsible one didn’t hold them in place. But the therapist needs to show the under-responsible partner the origin of their ways, and the harm they are doing to all family members. Berating is the way of the over-responsible partner; it breeds more paralysis and passive aggressiveness. The under-responsible need to be gently taught to self-protect. They need to respect the burden their counterpart carries just as their over-responsible spouse needs to value play. They also need to understand that their fun times will not last forever because the over-responsible partner may decide to quit on them. They can indeed be a valuable asset to a marriage and family: “All work and no play…” But balance is the key to this dynamic. Without it, trouble usually follows.
References
Betchen, S. (1996). Parentfied pursuers and childlike distancers in marital therapy. The Family Journal, 4, 100-108.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. (1965). A theory of relationships: Experience and transactions. In I. Boszormenyi-Nagy & J. Framo (Eds.), Intensive family therapy theoretical and practical aspects (pp. 33-86). New York: Harper & Row.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., & Spark, G. (1976). Invisible loyalties. New York: Harper & Row.
Sager, C., & Hunt, B. (1979). Intimate partners: Hidden patterns in love relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.
