Enmeshment 101

This article goes over the basics answering questions like: What is enmeshment? How does it happen? and What are the different types?

What is Enmeshment? While the visual above might help to give you a visceral idea, it is important we have a clear definition as well. Different people will possibly have their own definitions, but the one we will use here is as follows:

Enmeshment is a state in which two or more individuals lose the boundaries between their emotions, time, physical space, perspectives, beliefs, ideas, or energies.

Enmeshment in one area tends to lead to enmeshment in others. If you are enmeshed with your spouse’s emotions, it is very likely you will eventually enmesh with their general perspectives on things, then their beliefs, ideas, and – inevitably – just about everything about them: their overall energy.

At first glance, that might sound like a shortcut to growth. Instead of rising above your natural energy and learning to embrace a new kind of energy, why not just enmesh with another person and effectively have your cake and eat it too? Sadly, that’s not how it works.

Enmeshment is explicitly not healthy. It dissolves the bounds of the individual and effectively starts to chip away at their identity and agency. Typically, one of the enmeshed persons holds onto these things more strongly than the other. They tend to be the one with the naturally more masculine energy – and while their energy may bleed into you in certain circumstances (like when you deal with your kids) it is not natural, not fulfilling, and – most likely – not going to be taken well by those you are enmeshed with.

Let’s use an explicit example for this, following on from the idea of kids. Say you are enmeshed with your husband (who in this case we’ll call the more masculine, dominant one). This implies that your husband is, when dealing with you, dominant. But, when you deal with someone who is naturally less dominant than you, such as your kids, you will take on your husband’s dominance. Not your own natural dominance and authority – his. You will act like how your husband acts. And while he might get good results with it, the odds are you won’t. Why?

The answer might seem trivial: it’s because you are not your husband! It isn’t because you can’t be authoritative, dominant, or masculine. Far from it. It’s because you aren’t being your version of those things. You are appropriating someone else’s energy – and people can tell. Your kids can tell. They might listen to you, but they won’t respect nor understand you. And ultimately, everyone will end up more frustrated.

This also harms your relationship with the other enmeshed person. Resentment likely will build. You can choose to suppress that resentment, but it won’t magically go away. Animosity will grow between the two of you, or feelings of inadequacy and failure will manifest within yourself. Worse than just this, you may not realize the source of these feelings – it is common for people to think that the negativity they are feeling is the result of some external problems, not internal ones. Enmeshed parents might think the disconnect with their child is the fault of a new boyfriend; a husband may choose to see the problems in his marriage as the fault of the mother-in-law. In reality, many negative feelings in a relationship can come down to an enmeshment that is present.

The Beginnings of Enmeshment

How does enmeshment begin? While we may have some fantastic vision of it already with some cruel, abusive dominator metaphorically beating you down until you give in, reality is often much more dull. Enmeshment can occur out of the best intentions of otherwise well-meaning people. Fortunately for all, enmeshment is not possible unless both the feminine energy and the masculine energy allow it. This means even the feminine energy – which is often regarded as the more helpless of the two (even though it’s not) – can always prevent enmeshment. Regardless of who is holding the feminine energy at the time – man, woman, or child – this remains true. It applies to anyone who is in the more feminine position in a relationship: an employee can refuse to enmesh with her boss or job; a brother can refuse to enmesh with his sister; or a son to his mother.

Enmeshment is a choice, but that doesn’t mean that when we first made it, we fully comprehended it. It often isn’t even one choice, but a series of them. Many of us end up enmeshed over time, slowly. We don’t recognize it happening to us. We don’t recognize something bad is occurring at all. All we know is that as time progresses, we fail to feel more happy, better off, more fulfilled, and more alive. We may find ourselves feeling unhappy, unfulfilled, and even distant from who we once were – losing ourselves.

As we begin to feel these difficult things around enmeshment, we can begin to exercise greater dissonance with other aspects of our lives. We can become disoriented and confused, and are likely to start blaming the things or people around us for how we feel. And that right there is our first observation of enmeshment – the one that all enmeshed states share in common:

Enmeshed realities are based on external factors, not internal ones.

In the four enmeshed states we will explore in later articles, we’ll find they all share this in common. Whether it be someone else defining what your beliefs are, someone else determining whether your feel good or not, or someone else oppressing you and ruining your life with their decisions and behavior – the true problem is that you have made your experience the fault and responsibility of others.

Later articles will tackle specific states of enmeshment – in particular, the most commonly seen ones. But for now, let’s dive into where enmeshment tends to begin in most of our lives. Where the seeds of it are first planted.

Becoming Enmeshed

Without realizing it, we may begin the enmeshment process from a very early age. Do any of the following phrases ring a bell, either from your own childhood or perhaps as the kinds of things you might say to your own children?

“If you do this, it will make mommy very happy.”

“You’re making me very sad right now.”

“That makes me feel very bad.”

“Don’t you want mommy to be happy?”

While all parents make mistakes – and even good ones will likely use some of the above phrases from time to time – true enmeshment often begins with a consistent attitude that the child is somehow responsible for the adult’s feelings. From as early as 2 or 3 years old, phrases like these begin to blur the boundary between the child’s emotions, and the emotions of others. It’s hard enough to deal with your own feelings, especially as a kid. But when you have to suddenly take on the responsibility of others? That is simply too much.

(Importantly, enmeshment tends to begin on an emotional level. On the logical, rational level, people in enmeshment may understand “My child shouldn’t be responsible for my emotions,” but then lack the emotional capabilities to follow through on that idea.)

The child might start to suppress their emotions in response to this. And from there, they are likely to take on an attitude that how they feel must come from outside themselves, while simultaneously believing they are responsible for how others feel. Praise can go from useful feedback to a kind of emotional fix. A person – especially a child – can become dependent on it for feeling happy.

The flipside is a child trying to hide various wrong-doings from their parents or other authority figures. Rather than viewing adults as a tool to help them when they make a mistake, the child in early enmeshment may only consider how bad the adults will feel to find out the child messed up. They may also come to believe that they will always fail to meet their parents' expectations, so why bother trying? If not caught early on, these patterns can make a powerful impression on the child.

That doesn’t mean that if you or your children are beyond hope. Heavens no! It is never too late to make amends. Even if your children are adults already, to simply say “I’m sorry for making my emotions your responsibility” can make a world of difference for them! It can kickstart the healing process for them if they have suffered enmeshment. And it can greatly strengthen your relationship with them.

Keep in mind, this is a much broader societal problem. Children can pick up these ideas from all sorts of places. You may have been the best parents in the world and had no idea your kid came to enmesh with your emotions. Regardless of where the enmeshment came from, it is always important we do what we can to overcome it.

It should be stressed that a very consistent attitude of placing your emotions on the child needs to occur. I fully admit that sometimes I say things to my children like “You’re not listening and I’m starting to get angry.” This isn’t the kind of thing I should be saying – which is why my wife and I make sure our children hear the message that “Our emotions aren’t your responsibility,” and “I’m sorry I talked that way.” A simple “sorry” and admittance of messing up does wonders for the trust a child can have in his or her parents. The amount of damage it can help to undo is uncanny. The most important thing is that kids come away with an overall message of self-affirming responsibility.

Enmeshment in Later Life

Can an adult who has never experienced enmeshment end up there? Yes. While a pattern of enmeshment will tend to stem back from childhood, enmeshment itself can still crop up well into your twenties, thirties, forties, and beyond. We’ll use the made-up example of Alice and Bob to help illustrate this.

Alice meets Bob, and he is so sweet that Alice decides to marry him. However, after the wedding, Bob starts to act a little bit differently. Alice isn’t sure why Bob is acting this way, but she imagines that he’ll get back to normal soon enough. In the meantime, she just puts up with it. Occasionally Bob gets very upset when Alice is late to something, or does something without first telling him. She understands. But he starts to get more and more upset. Finally, Bob starts telling Alice things like “you’ve ruined the whole night” and “Well now I’m going to be miserable for the rest of the day. Thanks.” And rather than remind Bob that he is responsible for how he chooses to respond, she just says “I know.”

Right there: enmeshment. While Alice might have hurt Bob, Bob can choose to get over that hurt. He can choose to find a solution that benefits both himself and Alice. But simply blaming Alice and telling her things are her fault is a form of Bob making Alice responsible for his feelings. He has blurred the boundaries of their emotions. Of course, Alice also bears responsibility here. Alice could choose to not let Bob act this way. She could choose to tell him “I’m sorry I made you upset, but when you’re ready to come out of it I’ll be here waiting.” This leads to an important principle of enmeshment: it can only work if both people allow it too!

I happen to know a lot about this. In the first few months of my marriage, I was quite similar to Bob. My wife knew I was a better man than that, but so long as neither of us was willing to break the enmeshment that had developed, neither of us could grow. I couldn’t be that better man if I kept refusing to be (which I did) and if she kept enabling me (which she did). So what happened? Luckily for me, my wife stepped up for the both of us. She finally rejected the enmeshment, and in doing so, both of us became happier. She began practicing boundaries – not just with me, but with everyone in her life. And as she began to naturally rise, I began to follow my own natural role in the Staircase. Not only had my wife ended the enmeshment on her own, she also got both of us back on track.

Enmeshment tends to first follow from enmeshed emotions – that’s not by any kind of major principle. Emotions can simply become the easiest place to let enmeshment sneak in. The difference between empathy and enmeshment can be very subtle. The attempt to show another person that you hear how they feel can easily be “I do what it is they want,” versus opening a dialogue. Versus a simple statement of “I hear you.” In the case of Alice and Bob, Alice is trying to be empathetic at first – but without the proper awareness of enmeshment, that empathy quickly takes a nasty turn for both parties.

That isn’t to say empathy is bad – it absolutely isn’t! But it needs to be practiced in a healthy way. A wonderful story comes straight from the New Testament in that of the Good Samaritan. The Good Samaritan helped and quite frankly saved the down-trodden man’s life: but he also kept his own boundaries intact. He did not continue to linger on helping the man perpetually. He had a point in which he said “OK, you can stand with your own two feet now. Goodbye.” The Good Samaritan shows us not just why empathy is good – but why boundaries are as well.

Ending enmeshment in your own life doesn’t need everyone else on board. Does that help? Tremendously. At the very least, you’ll want at least one person you can count on to help you. But it ultimately comes down to the decision of one person. I have yet to encounter a single enmeshed relationship that could not have been better with just one person choosing to overcome the enmeshed state. Enmeshment takes two people: but ending it takes just one.

The Good Girl and the Rebel

There are four major types of enmeshment we like to talk about. Two of them are system-enmeshments, in which a person is enmeshed with some kind of structured system. The other two are personality-enmeshments, in which a person enmeshes in a way that fits their specific personality and natural energy. People typically carry one of each (at least). Furthermore, people can have a variety of enmeshments for dealing with a variety of different relationships. Think of it this way: the more people you are enmeshed with, the more ways there are to be enmeshed.

Starting off, the system-enmeshments are the Good Girl (or Good Boy) and the Rebel. These states tend to be enmeshed with a belief system. A simple example is religion: the Good Girl typically finds herself enmeshed with the tenets of her religious upbringing, while the Rebel is typically enmeshed with the rejection of that same upbringing. Both tend to be enmeshed with two different entities: the belief system itself, and a figure in that belief system – someone we call the Caretaker of the Belief. A religious, community, or even family leader could carry this role. Unsurprisingly, this figure is commonly a person’s father or mother.

I want to be clear on something: having religious or spiritual beliefs does not mean you are enmeshed, nor does lacking such a belief system mean that. The key to the Good Girl or Rebel is that the belief system in question is an external one, i.e. one you adopted from somewhere or someone else, but did not fully develop within yourself. To borrow from Christian scripture again, it is the difference between one who draws close with their lips and one who draws close with their heart.

How can you tell the difference between an internal and external belief system? That’s beyond the scope of this article, but may be a good place to reach out to Emily directly. Suffice to say that if you have doubts about your beliefs but are afraid to voice them aloud, it is likely because your belief system is an external one.

The problem with the Good Girl and Rebel arises from the fact that they take the Caretaker’s interpretation of something as the definitive version of the belief system without any real thought given to it. Let’s make the Caretaker the father – if the father insists that the world was unquestioningly built by God in a literal 7 days (168 hours), and the father is LDS, both the Good Girl and Rebel will take the father’s belief to be the doctrine of the LDS church, despite the fact that it absolutely is not. The Good Girl is likely to cling onto this idea strongly, and push it forward like legitimate doctrine; the Rebel is likely to hyper-focus on her grievances with this idea, and may irrationally extend that grievance to the system at large (even though it was never part of the system proper). To be clear, both the Good Girl and Rebel can more softly follow their roles – what most strongly defines them is that a Good Girl gets her self-worth from following certain beliefs, while the Rebel gets her self-worth by rejecting certain beliefs. Neither can derive self-worth independent of these things.

What are the typical traits associated with both of these enmeshed states? Like all people who are enmeshed, reality is defined externally for both. The Good Girl defines her identity and value by how closely she adheres to the belief system. The Rebel, by contrast, defines her identity and value by how much she doesn’t follow the belief system. The Good Girl tends to believe she is an ambassador of sorts for her belief system, and will try to be seen very publicly adhering to it. The Rebel similarly believes that she has a responsibility to show others how bad and untrue the belief system is, and will try to publicly associate herself with speaking out against it and possibly attacking it.

Both states are enmeshed because neither is focused on the internal. The Good Girl is so busy adhering to the belief system she adopted that she doesn’t care how much sense it does or doesn’t make. She will live her life in a way that, ultimately, someone else simply told her she should live it “just ‘cause.” A good analogy for the Good Girl is someone who memorizes that 2+2=4, versus someone who comprehends the main ideas of addition and accepts for themselves that the answer to 2+2 is, indeed, 4.

The Rebel often kids herself into thinking she has “risen above” the belief system, but she is actually enmeshed with it. To rise above the belief system means she is apathetic towards it – it doesn’t really bother her one way or the other because she has her own internal sense of worth and identity. However, the Rebel is actually obsessed with the rejected belief system. Rather than move on from it and seek out her own beliefs, she hyper-focuses on everything she perceives wrong with the old one. She continues to complain and gnash her teeth against it, rather than seeking out something that can enrich herself (or even others!). The Rebel will claim that she is simply trying to protect people from the rejected belief system. But she could do it much more effectively if she stopped focusing on what she believes is wrong, and instead focused on what she believes is right.

To be clear, the Rebel state is explicitly defined as one that exists as an antagonist to a belief. Even if the Rebel does have her own belief system, as long as she hyper-focuses on another system as being “wrong,” she remains enmeshed with it. Her reality will always be bogged down by the existence of the other state, and her value will always be connected to her opposition of it. It is like letting a prisoner outside their cell, but they still wear a long chain connected back to it. They can proclaim they are free all they like, but they are not free: they are simply outside. If a devout Christian spends all their time talking about how wrong Judaism is, they are a Rebel, even if they have a very powerful Christian belief system.

Origin and Evolution of the Rebel and Good Girl

Typically, Rebels start out as Good Girls. During the course of her life, the Good Girl will inevitably reach a point where their Caretaker and their Belief System contradict one another, and one possible outcome is the creation of a Rebel. However, there are at least four possible outcomes in total – let’s go over each one.

Outcome number 1 is the Rebel – the Good Girl, faced with choosing between the two things she is enmeshed with, rejects both of them. She effectively throws the bath-water out with the baby: rather than accept that her interpretation of the belief may have been wrong, or that her Caretaker is simply flawed, she powerfully rejects all association with the belief system, and comes to view the Caretaker as more of a villain than a hero.

Outcome number 2 is the rise. The former Good Girl realizes the Caretaker cannot be the ultimate arbiter of her beliefs, and opens herself up to rebuilding a new belief system that is based on her own thoughts and opinions. This doesn’t mean she outright rejects all aspects of the old belief. For example, an LDS girl who realizes her bishop doesn’t know everything about God may choose to remain in the LDS church and faith – but she begins to re-assess what that actually means, begins reading doctrine for herself, and forms her own testimony of it all. All of this means our former Good Girl has left the enmeshment: she has risen into a new, higher energy state where she is more greatly empowered about her own belief system. She is, hopefully, no longer enmeshed with any external person as the Caretaker, but accepts her own responsibility in trying to form and understand a belief system for herself.

Outcomes 3 and 4 are what we call Late-Stage Good Girl. Both of them involve a former Good Girl who has decided to remain enmeshed with one of her former icons: either the Belief System directly, or with her Caretaker.

In the Belief-Enmeshed Good Girl (out Outcome number 3), the Good Girl has accepted that the Caretaker is a flawed, mortal individual after all. However, she has doubled down on the idea that the Caretaker’s belief system was still correct: even if the Caretaker was unable to act as the ultimate arbiter of it, they still got all the pieces right theoretically. Because this Good Girl has enmeshed more strongly with a belief system that is not her own, she becomes vulnerable to any flaws within that belief system. To compensate, she becomes overly zealous towards the external belief system – it becomes both her sword and shield to cut down but also hide from anyone who could challenge it, and thus by extension her. This Good Girl still takes value in being seen as a Good Girl, although they have effectively become their own Caretaker. A “Holier than thou” attitude is common in these cases.

Outcome number 4 is the Caretaker-Enmeshed Good Girl. Faced with the apparent realization that the Caretaker’s belief system she has adopted and the Caretaker cannot both be right at the same time, this Good Girl decides to reject the belief system in favor the Caretaker. This might sound contradictory, so follow along carefully. This Good Girl has rejected the idea that she is capable of understanding the belief system. The problem was never a contradiction between it and her Caretaker – it was all in her lack of comprehending the belief system. In order to preserve the sanctity of the Caretaker, this Good Girl decides she was the fool, and that the belief system is simply beyond her. She doubles down on the idea that the only way to succeed and thrive in life is dedication to the Caretaker. These ideas are beyond me, but not the Caretaker, so I’ll just do whatever they say.

Outcome number 4 is the most common – especially for somebody with a more naturally feminine energy. It avoids conflict and is the best at restoring things to the way they were before the pivotal Belief vs. Caretaker debacle occurred. It is also quite miserable. Over time, these Good Girls tend to find themselves greatly unfulfilled, despite doing all of the things that supposedly promised them happiness and salvation. This is because people aren’t meant to blindly follow. While scripture may use sheep in many parables, the truth is it is only a parable: at the end of the day, people are not sheep, and they need more than to unquestioningly to follow a shepherd. People were gifted the ability to reason and think for themselves – any path that stunts this will naturally be a very unfulfilling and ultimately exhausting one.

The People-Pleaser and the Dominator

Like how the System-Enmeshed states (the Good Girl and Rebel) focus on very similar ideas but go about them very differently, so too do the Personality-Enmeshed states. In both the People-Pleaser and Dominator states, the overall goal of selflessness reigns supreme, along with a fear of conflict. How these two things are achieved by each, however, couldn’t be more different.

People-pleasing tends to occur in more feminine-energies, while dominating tends to happen with more masculine ones. Keep in mind – this is relative in various relationships. The same person could be a People-Pleaser in one kind of relationship, but a Dominator in another. In fact, within the same relationship, a person could be both: they could be a People-Pleaser when the other person’s emotions are at stake, but a Dominator when their belief system is questioned.

Both people-pleasing and dominating are responses to a fear of conflict. The People-Pleaser seeks to avoid conflict, while the Dominator attempts to prevent it. The People-Pleaser takes on the role of perpetual diplomat, foregoing even their own needs to keep the peace. By contrast, the Dominator believes that the best way to avoid conflict is to make sure others cannot bring it about. Their method is to dominate those around them – to push them into submission using various emotional or logical tricks in order to pre-emptively keep things running the way they like. The People-Pleaser will course-correct things in the moment so as to avoid any sign of conflict; the Dominator will choose to directly address and even crush the signs of conflict when they first appear.

Keep in mind that the Dominator may sound aggressive, but their methods (and overall demeanor) can be quite calm, rational, and even pleasant. Although the language we use to describe their actions carries a tone of powerful abuse, the reality is that these are simply individuals who are motivated to counter trouble as it appears rather than circumvent it. They often attempt to do so from the best of intentions, not recognizing the negative effects or alternative options. Even so, a Dominator can act in a heavy-handed way – they just don’t have to in order to be classified as a Dominator. Before we jump into the Dominator, let’s first look at its softer counterpart: the People-Pleaser.

People-pleasing may seem benign, but it can erode away a person’s sense of joy and even self slowly over time. People-pleasers may also inadvertently harm others through their People-Pleasing: they may break prior commitments in order to stop and help someone else. This is typically motivated by a fear of selfishness: the People-Pleaser fears that by not breaking their prior commitment, they are being selfish.

This goes even further: anyone with whom the People-Pleaser had commitments with becomes enmeshed with the People-Pleaser. This means that if the other person is upset or angry about the change of plans, they are considered selfish, just as the People-Pleaser would have been had they not chosen to cancel in order to help someone new. Another way to view this is through the lens of “the right thing:” when a People-Pleaser’s actions cause someone new to be happy, their actions are retroactively turned into being definitively “right,” and anyone who complains about doing the definitively right thing must, by definition, be wrong.

An example can help illustrate this best – though, keep in mind, it is a purposefully extreme example that is only likely to happen in the most extreme of cases.

Take Emma and Nick: Nick has been planning a big Valentine's Day date with Emma for weeks, having reserved a table at a highly luxurious restaurant, and purchased tickets to a popular stage show Emma has been wanting to see. On the night of the date, Emma’s sister Mary – who has no date and was planning to stay in and read a book – can’t find her favorite book. Emma decides not to leave until Mary’s book has been found. First, she makes herself and Nick late. But when she still can’t find the book and Nick is getting agitated, Emma finally just decides to cancel the date. She knows Nick is upset, and she feels bad about that, but also feels bad about her sister Mary. A half an hour later, she finds her sister’s book. Her sister is ecstatic, and thanks her tremendously.

There are many, many reasons for why Emma made this decision. Some of it comes down to a sudden enmeshment with her boyfriend – her boyfriend’s feelings are no longer his own, but are an extension of hers. Some of it comes down to assumptions she makes about her sister Mary – she doesn’t ask Mary how she feels or what she wants, she assumes and operates off of that. Part of it is motivated by Emma’s fear of being selfish, and the belief that choosing the date over helping her sister makes her selfish. Part of it is motivated by the adulation Emma receives when she finally finds her sister’s book. Overall, no one’s actual needs or desires are discussed or allowed to be brought into the decision process. The People-Pleaser does not communicate – in part, because communication could lead to conflict. It is better to simply act on her own and prevent the conflict from ever arising to begin with.

It is an extreme example, but one that I have personally experienced. In fact, I have experienced it numerous times – my wife was a diehard People-Pleaser. And she would view me as selfish whenever she cancelled our pre-made plans to help someone else – typically with very minor problems. This is a mix of the enmeshment she would suddenly form with me and her emotions, and the fear of her own selfishness.

The interesting thing about People-Pleasers (and with Dominators too, we will see) is that they are ultimately enmeshed with themselves. This can look like being enmeshed with others: for example, Emma is acting in an enmeshed way when she declares how Nick should and shouldn’t be feeling; she is acting in an enmeshed way when she puts her sister’s less-pressing needs above her own. Even if a People-Pleaser is not actually enmeshed with others, they will behave in a way as though they are. Their enmeshment with themselves is very similar to being enmeshed with everyone.

The enmeshment with the self involves very specific thoughts and beliefs. The belief that taking care of your needs and wants is inherently selfish; the belief that selfishness is intrinsically bad; and also, the belief that how others feel is your responsibility. Along with this, there tends to be a belief in the People-Pleaser that they, themselves, have no claim to their own feelings.

The People-Pleaser may feel immense guilt over other people doing nice things for them. They tend to make the People-Pleasing the only way they can feel joy – the joy that comes with making others happy. This can devolve into an addiction of sorts, where the shock and awe that the people they please becomes their drug. They won’t allow themselves to feel any joy associated with selfish desires or needs. This slowly chokes the life out of them.

Dominators seem to stand in complete contrast to this. Unlike the People-Pleaser, Dominators typically can feel their own internal joy. Instead of sacrificing their own identity to keep the peace around others, they tend to make others sacrifice themselves in the name of the greater good – although this is often done under the guise of “self-improvement” or making the other person “better.”

Dominators are also afraid of being selfish, but they twist selfishness to mean not letting everyone else experience my form of joy. Dominators tend to be quite self-centered in their worldview, although that is hardly how they tend to see it. On the contrary, they esteem themselves as very selfless, and may take great umbrage to any suggestion otherwise.

They have a hard time comprehending that people may not enjoy things the same way the Dominator does. A Dominator might think “Well, I like going to church, so everyone should like going to church.” It then becomes selfish of them if they don’t push others to go to church. “It’s for their own good,” the Dominator might think. “They don’t know what they’re missing.” “If they’d only listen to me, they’d know I was right.” Their methods can appear benign – like simple persuasion and reasoning. But the Dominator will make clear, if these methods don’t work, that they are to be listened to. Give a Dominator enough pushback, and you will quickly see them resort to much more underhanded or forceful means – it’s what makes them a Dominator and not simply a masculine voice.

While a People-Pleaser may be so open-minded that they lose any sense of their own beliefs, values, likes, wants, and needs, a Dominator can be so close-minded they can’t comprehend people living differently to them and being as happy as the Dominator is. If a Dominator disapproves of someone their daughter dates, it can’t be because the daughter wants a different kind of person than the Dominator would. Rather, it must be because the daughter doesn’t know what she wants, isn’t experienced enough to choose, or even isn’t in her right mind.

This further exemplifies a problem the Dominator showcases: the belief that they see all while others see very little. The Dominator cannot comprehend that there are elements they are unaware of. If their daughter’s boyfriend seems like he’s not good enough, it can only be because he is not good enough. Rather than seek to gain more information, like asking the daughter “What do you like about him?”, the Dominator will move forward like they already have all the facts that matter.

This isn’t necessarily malicious – remember, enmeshment does not mean ill-will. In the Dominator’s mind, they must act sooner rather than later in order to prevent strife. The refusal to gain more information or take on new perspectives is that fear acting up. To the Dominator, it may be “too late” if they wait. The very fact that the daughter is dating someone that the Dominator disapproves of is evidence that action must be taken now – dissent is already afoot.

Conclusion

As we can see, both the People-Pleaser and Dominator share a fear of conflict and a belief that selfishness is bad, but they go about it very differently. They can both be considered as enmeshed with everyone, but are best defined as enmeshed with themselves. Their irrational fears become central to their damaging behaviors. They may go about things in very different ways, but both tend to be motivated by something very flawed and yet very powerful inside themselves.

Is being enmeshed with yourself consistent with the idea that enmeshed individuals define things externally? Absolutely! Both the People-Pleaser and Dominator still define reality based on things happening outside themselves. The People-Pleaser defines her worth and goodness by how others respond to her; the Dominator defines his worth and goodness by how well he can enforce quiet around himself. Neither state is seeking to quiet their own internal storms – both are focused too much on the problems outside themselves.

While I’ve sometimes used gender-specific pronouns in this article, the truth is anyone can be in any of the enmeshed states! A mother can absolutely be a Dominator. A man can easily be a People-Pleaser. Good Girl and Good Boy? They are the same thing (though Good Girl rolls of the tongue more easily). Anyone can be a Rebel. Anyone can be enmeshed.

While we’ve skimmed the surface of the major types of enmeshment, the truth is there is still SO much to learn. We’ve only hit basic descriptions of the four major types of enmeshed states – never mind the nitty-gritty of how to end these enmeshments, the kinds of ways they can play out in various relationships, and even the many real stories we have involving them. There is so much to learn here – and not just for the sake of fun theoretical ideas.

No – understanding enmeshment is key to helping you grow in both your own personal way, and in your relationships with others. And even then, enmeshment is just one ingredient to the Staircase Model, which is the true description of how to rise and grow.

It can be hard to end enmeshment – heck, it can be hard to identify it. But the joy that comes after you overcome it and get back on the road to rising is well worth the hardships. More articles on enmeshment – and the Staircase Model in general – are in the works, but for the time being, any questions you have can be asked to Emily directly. She is happy to take on new clients or even just help address a few things you want help with. If you are ready to take a step up on the staircase and end the enmeshments in your life, look no further than Emily – she knows how to help. Between her training and experience as a life coach, and her experiences living through many of these enmeshment difficulties, she is the perfect person to help you start your journey back to healthy. Back to joy. Back to fulfillment. Back to YOU.

If you are interested in how to apply this information to your own life, generally have questions or would like to work with Emily, you can reach out to her below.

Instagram Direct Message: @i.am.emily.carolynn.baker

Email: emilycarolynnbaker@gmail.com

Text: 385.212.4236

Via the Site Contact form found at the bottom of the page HERE.