Autonomy VS interdependence
A common tension in couples therapy
One of the central tensions I see in modern relationships is the difference in how partners interpret autonomy and interdependence. Couples often assume they’re speaking the same emotional language, but they’re not. How this often plays out is that two partners both want connection, but they regulate emotional safety in completely different ways, making them feel they are not “aligned”. This brings them to my sofa.
Autonomy as self-regulation
For one person, autonomy is how they regulate themselves. For the other, closeness is how they feel secure. I’ve seen this dynamic play out many times – so when more than one of my couples on Netflix’s Blue Therapy walked in with just that, I saw it very quickly from my vantage point.
Let’s look at Mons and Shay as an example. Shay describes herself as someone who has “always been out with girls that like guys”, acknowledging that previous relationships have sometimes “got toxic”, involving “cheating” or “stepping out of the relationship”. While she is clear that she is committed to Mons as her longest-term relationship, she is also “still trying to find [her] balance” and values her independence and social life.
Mons, however, experiences the relationship very differently. While her anxiety about Shay being out is valid, given the past cheating behaviours and the importance of rebuilding trust, she also admits she doesn’t feel she has many long-term friendships and can feel lonely. Over time, she has become increasingly “all in” – what I often refer to as a merge, where one partner gradually loses parts of their individual identity in the partnership. When that happens, the relationship can begin to carry too much emotional weight.
The partner who has merged may look to the relationship for most of their security, while the other partner may start to feel pressured or constrained.
What Mons and Shay illustrate is something many couples struggle with: two individuals trying to stay connected while still maintaining a sense of self. Strong relationships rely on that balance – two people with their own lives, and the shared space they create together. When that balance slips, the tension between closeness and independence can quickly become a source of conflict rather than connection.
Emotional polarity in relationships
This tension between autonomy and interdependency can lead to a polarity. One partner feels isolated, unseen, or emotionally abandoned; the other feels overwhelmed, intruded upon, or suffocated.
One partner might continually seek reassurance or check-ins. The other might need increasingly more space to regulate. This drives a bigger and bigger wedge between the couple. They may seem like opposites, but in fact, both are trying to protect their own emotional safety – just in different ways. Neither partner is the problem. This isn’t a blame game.
One way this polarity shows up in relationships is through what relationship researchers like Gottman describe as the pursuer-distancer dynamic. When one partner feels anxious about connection, they often move closer – asking questions, seeking reassurance, or trying to resolve issues through conversation. The other partner, feeling overwhelmed by that intensity, may respond by pulling back or needing space. Over time, this creates a cycle where each person’s reaction unintentionally reinforces the other’s behaviour. As the Gottman Institute notes, “when the pattern of pursuing and distancing becomes ingrained, the behaviour of one partner provokes and maintains the behaviour of the other.”
What begins as two people trying to protect their emotional safety can gradually create distance. The partner seeking closeness can start to feel lonely, rejected, or desperate for reassurance, while the partner seeking space may feel criticised, pressured, or suffocated. Neither person is trying to damage the relationship. They are simply regulating their own anxiety. But when this dance becomes entrenched, couples can find themselves repeating the same arguments again and again, without recognising the pattern they are caught in.
Why couples misinterpret this dynamic
Many couples mistake differences in autonomy and interdependence as incompatibility. In reality, one partner may be feeling smothered and the other abandoned – and both are protecting themselves the only way they know how.
This misunderstanding leads to:
- Escalating conflict
- Defensive behaviour
- Emotional misinterpretation
Misunderstanding negatively reframes these differing needs. “They need space” becomes “They’re pulling away,” while “I need reassurance” becomes “You’re demanding too much.” On the surface, this looks like a classic clash between anxious and avoidant attachment patterns, causing emotional misattunement. I prefer to focus on what the couple have in common and what they want from each other, so we can focus on making a new couple deal.
My work is about helping couples recognise the dance between autonomy and interdependence.
I often tell clients that they are both autonomous individuals, but they are also part of a couple. Learning to hold both realities at the same time is the work of building a lasting relationship.
Why this balance constantly changes
This balance is never perfect and it changes all the time as people grow and change. People are continually going through transitions and phases, both individually and as a couple. Life events shift relational needs. Stress changes people’s ability to regulate and their bandwidth, so autonomy and closeness need to constantly rebalance. Conflict often appears during:
- Career changes
- Parenthood
- Relocation
- Illness
- Emotional stress
The important lesson is to move through conflict with collaboration, whatever the factors may be. When a couple learns to name this dynamic, the space between them becomes less adversarial and more collaborative. That’s when real repair becomes possible.
Relationships do not require perfect alignment – they require awareness of the ongoing dance between independence and closeness, which, after all, keeps the spark alive.
