> I'm not sure I'd say it's so polarized. ONLY gives and ONLY takes. It's pretty extreme. Life is complicated, and I'm sure it doesn't always exist in extremes. I guess I'm saying I think it's more of a spectrum.

Because of this part of your comment, I'm not sure whether you see what aspects makes a relation a codependency. I'll try to explain it a bit more.

A dependency is clear: If you need help, you are dependent. Someone can give it to you. Maybe you don't have work and need food.That (indeed) is a spectrum: some people need more than others. If you need a lot and someone gives a lot, that can still be a regular dependency. No problem at all!

However, some people's selfworth is massively based on helping or being there for others. Even so much so that they will - intentionally or unintentionally - keep others down in order to be there for them. If the helper needs the dependent to remain dependent, they become codependent.

This causes a problem for the original dependent: If they stay dependent (e.g. have no job, need to live with someone else) they will remain unempowered and insecure. Which sucks. But if they grow out of their dependency (e.g. get a job, get their own place) their helper may be very disappointed or may even grow resentfull and angry with them.

> So, to go off of that, I think that it's possible for a culture to influence how codependency is percieved/judged/understood, etc. Like they may view the spectrum differently compared to individualistic societies...

I guess some societies could be more or less postivie about codependencies but the definition is quite the same for all cultures.

> But I do understand what you mean about the imbalance within relationships with codependency

It is not the imbalance itself. It is someones unwillingness to change another persons life for the better because it means they themselves would lose their purpose. Hence unnecesarily perpetuating the original dependee's reliance on them.