The concept of dependence as developed by Birtchnell: A critical evaluation

Abstract

Birtchnell (1988) appeals for an accurate definition of dependence. Such accuracy would help with measurement, prevention and treatment of depression. He describes dependence as a developmental deficiency. In so doing, he presupposes a psychodynamic trait-based, and gender-related development model, but does not acknowledge its influence on his thinking. Birtchnell's analysis has three types of problem. The reasoning may be questioned because of faulty inferential leaps, undue reliance on the concept of 'maturity', the use of a tautology, ('The dependent person is...dependent'), internal contradictions, and a questionable analogy between children's and adults' behaviour. Secondly, he appears to suggest that there is empirical evidence to support his theoretical approach, but he does not provide explicit evidence. He draws conclusions about causal links and neglects alternative interpretations, especially the transactional interpersonal element in social relationships. Finally, the analysis is potentially weakened by what may be described as an androcentric bias and relies upon a 'medical model' of psychological disorder, which fails to consider the impact of social influences on the expression of emotion. The author argues that it is at present premature and inappropriate to define dependence, but appeals for methods of research which would be more helpful in understanding it.