Covert/Emotional Incest: How Real Is It?

There are a growing number of psychology articles and books dealing with covert incest, also known as emotional incest. This form of incest is described as a relationship in which a parent makes a child into a partner or confidante that is inappropriate for the child’s age and life experience. Or to put it another way, when a needy parent manipulates a child into taking on the role of surrogate wife or husband.

While some refer to this as covert incest, others call it emotional incest.

But is there a difference between covert and emotional incest? And do any of the terms represent a different and relevant diagnosis, one that creates long-term psychological damage? Some who call it covert incest say that labeling it emotional incest is inappropriate because it implies the absence of sexual harm. However, everything I’ve read about emotional incest refers to both the sexual and emotional impediments created by this relationship. My impression is that there is no significant difference. And when it comes to long-term psychological damage, I find the current theories provocative but too general and unsubstantiated.

Some of the most popular books – “Silently Seduced”, “Sexual Addiction and Covert Incest”, and especially “The Emotional Incest Syndrome – What to Do When a Parent’s Love Rules Your Life” – present articulate arguments for a long list of emotional problems and sexual impediments. But when told that as a result of covert/emotional incest, a child may become overly sexualized, insecure, or narcissistic (part of the same personality type anyway), develop a love/hate relationship with the offending parent, become compulsive or addictive (again part of the same personality type), or guilty and confused by your personal needs, then you’ve covered almost all the bases for possible dysfunctional outcomes and the term becomes a watered-down, catch-all diagnosis.

Then there is the question of definition; “using a child to satisfy the parent’s own non-emotional needs.” What child has not been used to meet their parents’ own non-emotional needs? The reason for having children in the first place is usually to satisfy non-emotional (or in earlier times financial) needs. I realize that it is the degree of use involved, and that it is specifically using the child “as a partner”, but that still covers too much of a fuzzy emotional territory in the average family unit. That’s because parents, like everyone else, are flawed human beings. And their limits, except in the most rigid environments, are wavered, causing their children to be periodically used, manipulated, supported, blamed or shamed in situations that challenge their sovereignty and emotional health. Also, it is extremely difficult to quantify what is the amount of role misuse after which long-term damage occurs. Children come into the world with different temperaments and genetic variations. What might destroy one child may strengthen another. When an action never makes you stronger, as in the case of sexual incest, then you have a clearer diagnosis.

With all of this being said, I’m not ruling out “covert/emotional incest” entirely. However, I question it as a separate diagnosis from emotional abuse. And I also wonder how to treat it. Emotional Abuse creates trauma and mistrust. It undermines a person’s self-esteem and ability to form and maintain intimate relationships. When you have been hurt and betrayed by those closest to you, those who were supposed to protect you and teach you how to function in the world, then you become emotionally disabled in many ways. Instead of creating more provocative diagnoses, let’s look at each individual and address their specific pain and specific pain deficits. Let us refrain from continually categorizing people’s pain. When we do that, we miss their humanity, their special character, and possibly their particular strategy for strengthening self-agency.

Roni Weisberg-Ross LMFT

December 29, 2011