When “Enmeshment” Isn’t Enmeshment: a message for therapist
enmeshment, culture, collective, individualistic, judgement , therapist
6/2/20266 min read
Many therapists are trained within deeply Western psychological frameworks. These models often prioritize independence, individuation, separation, and self-focus as markers of emotional health. While these concepts can absolutely be helpful, they can also unintentionally create blind spots when working with clients from more collective or relational cultures.
Sometimes what is labeled as “enmeshment,” “fusion,” or “low self-esteem” may actually be culturally normative connectedness.
And sometimes it is not.
The difference matters.
As therapists, our role is not to decide whether collectivism or individualism is inherently healthier. Our role is to become curious about whether a client’s relational style is serving their wellbeing, values, and psychological flexibility — or whether it is causing harm.
Collective Cultures Are Not Automatically Pathological
In many Western frameworks, autonomy is often interpreted as independence from others. However, in many Asian, Mediterranean, Indigenous, African, Middle Eastern, and Latin cultures, autonomy may be understood differently.
Autonomy does not necessarily mean “making decisions without considering anyone else.”
It can also mean:
having the ability to choose freely,
acting without coercion,
living in alignment with one’s values,
and willingly prioritizing family or community because it matters deeply to you.
A person may make choices that benefit the group while still acting autonomously.
Collectiveness and autonomy are not opposites.
Research on autonomy-connectedness suggests that healthy psychological functioning includes both individuality and connection. In fact, researchers note that individualistic and collectivistic values “coexist and complement each other,” and that connectedness to others can actually support autonomy rather than oppose it.
This is important clinically.
A client who regularly supports family members, lives interdependently, or prioritizes relational harmony should not automatically be assumed to have poor boundaries or low self-worth.
The more useful question is:
Do they feel choiceful, grounded, and nourished within these relationships — or trapped, depleted, and unable to act according to their own values?
Connectedness Can Support Health
Human beings are relational by nature. Strong social bonds, trust, and community support are consistently associated with wellbeing, emotional resilience, and better health outcomes across cultures.
Research has found that collectivistic orientation can be associated with greater emotional intelligence and better mental health outcomes.
Other cross-cultural research shows that maintaining relational harmony and fulfilling meaningful obligations can support health outcomes in collectivist cultures. For example, one study found that disengaging from social obligations was associated with poorer health outcomes among Japanese participants, whereas the opposite pattern appeared in American participants.
This does not mean collectivism is inherently healthier than individualism.
It means that wellbeing is often deeply connected to cultural meaning, values, and context.
A person who feels deeply connected, purposeful, supported, and valued within a collective system may experience that connectedness as regulating and life-giving.
But Enmeshment Is Still Real
At the same time, therapists should not romanticize collectivism or assume all family closeness is healthy.
Enmeshment is not simply closeness.
Enmeshment involves blurred boundaries, emotional coercion, guilt-based control, lack of differentiation, chronic self-sacrifice, or the inability to act according to one’s values without fear, shame, or relational punishment.
Connectedness becomes harmful when:
care only flows one direction,
over-giving is expected but not reciprocated,
individuality is punished,
boundaries are not respected,
or the person feels emotionally trapped.
A collective orientation can absolutely coexist with emotional health.
But it can also mask chronic exhaustion, obligation, suppression, and fear.
Again, the therapist’s task is curiosity rather than assumption.
Not:
“This family is too involved.”
But:
“How does this client experience these relationships internally?”
Do they feel held?
Or consumed?
Supported?
Or drained?
Free to choose?
Or unable to say no?
We Must Avoid Cultural Absolutes
It is also important to avoid overgeneralizing.
Not every person from an Asian family is collectivist.
Not every Italian family is highly interconnected.
Not every Western client values individualism.
Cultures are broad patterns, not rigid identities.
People exist within multiple systems:
family culture,
migration history,
socioeconomic conditions,
religion,
neurodivergence,
personality,
trauma,
and personal values.
Even within so-called “individualistic” societies, many people live highly interdependent lives. And within collective cultures, many individuals deeply value privacy, independence, and emotional separation.
Therapists must be careful not to flatten clients into stereotypes.
An ACT-Informed Perspective
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) offers a particularly helpful framework here because it shifts the focus away from rigid cultural ideals and toward values-based living.
ACT does not ask:
“Is this person independent enough?”
Instead, ACT asks:
What matters to this person?
Are they acting freely or from fear and coercion?
Is this relationship moving them toward vitality and meaning?
Are their behaviors workable over time?
From an ACT perspective, a person can absolutely value family obligation, caregiving, loyalty, or collective wellbeing.
The question is whether these actions are chosen consciously and flexibly — or driven by fusion, fear, shame, or avoidance.
ACT helps clients notice:
inherited beliefs,
cultural expectations,
internalized rules,
and relational patterns,
while still making room for respect, connection, and cultural identity.
It allows therapists to honor both autonomy and interconnectedness.
A More Curious Clinical Stance
As therapists, we must remain aware of how Western norms can shape our interpretations of health.
Sometimes “healthy independence” can become isolation.
Sometimes “strong boundaries” can become emotional disengagement.
Sometimes “self-focus” can become disconnection.
And sometimes deep interdependence can be profoundly regulating, meaningful, and protective.
Other times, it can become suffocating.
Our job is not to decide which cultural model is superior.
Our job is to help clients discern:
What aligns with their values,
What sustains their wellbeing,
What feels reciprocal and nourishing,
and what no longer serves them.
Curiosity is more clinically useful than assumption.
Especially across culture.
Submission, Honour, and the Boundaries That Keep Relationships Healthy
In many faith traditions—including Christianity and Islam—there is a shared understanding of submission, honour, and respect within family life. These values are often expressed in the context of submission to God, but also extend into how people relate to parents, spouses, and family structures.
However, within both traditions, submission has never meant the loss of dignity, voice, or moral agency. Instead, it is intended to be paired with justice, compassion, and accountability.
In Christianity, believers are called to mutual respect within relationships:
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21)
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” (Ephesians 5:25)
In Islam, honouring parents and maintaining family ties is deeply emphasised, alongside justice and personal responsibility:
“And We have enjoined upon man [care] for his parents…” (Qur’an 31:14)
“But if they strive to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them, but accompany them in this world with kindness…” (Qur’an 31:15)
Across both traditions, there is a consistent theme: respect is not the same as blind compliance, and love is not the same as self-erasure.
When submission gets misunderstood
In some cultural or family systems, people can unintentionally begin to believe that being “good,” “faithful,” or “respectful” means:
never disagreeing with a husband or parent
Never standing up against sin or wrongdoings ( physical abuse, name calling, lying ect.)
never expressing personal needs or discomfort
always yielding to maintain peace
avoiding boundaries in the name of respect
silencing intuition to preserve harmony
Over time, this can create relationships that look peaceful on the surface, but internally feel heavy, disconnected, or emotionally unsafe.
But true submission in faith-based traditions is not meant to remove voice or agency. It is meant to guide how power is used—with humility, responsibility, and care.
Submission and boundaries can exist together
Healthy submission in family life includes mutual obligations and limits:
A spouse is called to love, honour, and act with responsibility—not control or domination.
Parents are to be honoured deeply, while also respecting the adult autonomy of their children.
Children and adult family members are called to show respect, while still maintaining personal integrity and emotional safety.
For example, a respectful boundary might sound like:
“I hear your concern, and I respect you, but I need to make this decision myself.”
Or:
“I will consider your advice, but I am not able to agree with this.”
This is not rebellion. It is mature relational clarity within a framework of respect.
A simple way to understand it
Submission, in its healthiest form, is not about becoming smaller.
It is about choosing respect without losing self-respect.
It is about honouring relationships without abandoning truth.
It is about maintaining connection without sacrificing boundaries.
Why this matters in real life
Many people who deeply value their faith or cultural family structure find themselves quietly struggling with questions like:
“Am I being respectful, or am I losing my voice?”
“Where is the line between honouring my parents and neglecting myself?”
“How do I remain faithful without becoming passive or resentful?”
These are not signs of spiritual failure. They are often signs that a person is trying to hold together faith, family expectations, and personal wellbeing at the same time.
Support when things feel conflicted
When people are navigating these tensions, it can be helpful to have a space to slow things down and untangle what is expectation, what is belief, and what is emotional pressure.
Counselling can support individuals in:
clarifying boundaries without guilt
strengthening respectful communication
understanding cultural and faith-based values in a sustainable way
learning how to honour relationships without self-abandonment
At Rooted Rowan, this work focuses on helping people stay grounded in their values while also building the skills to maintain healthy emotional and relational boundaries within family, faith, and cultural systems.