First, definitions:
- The graph of a function $f : A \to B$ is a subset of $A \times B$, namely the set $\{(x,y) : x \in A, y \in B, f(x) = y\}$.
- The cograph of a function $f : A \to B$ is the quotient of $A \sqcup B$ by the equivalence relation that identifies $x$ with $f(x)$ for all $x$ (and so basically identifies each element of the codomain with its entire preimage under $f$).
These are categorical duals, in the sense that the graph is the pullback of $f$ along the identity, and the cograph is the pushout of $f$ along the identity.
From either the graph or cograph of a function, the original function can be recovered. We can even precisely specify the condition on a subset of $A \times B$ to be a graph of a function, or on a quotient of $A \sqcup B$ to be a cograph.
If we relax that condition on graphs, we get something else interesting, with a rich theory behind it: general relations between $A$ and $B$, including partial functions or multi-valued functions and many other things besides, with various possible properties, of which being "functional" is only one.
If we relax the condition on cographs, I can't as easily see what we get out of it. General quotients of $A \sqcup B$ can represent some relations between $A$ and $B$, but e.g. can't do multivalued functions in full generality, and the treatment of partial functions is less natural (e.g. suppose a partial $f$ is not defined at either $x$ or $y$, should we identify $x$ and $y$ in the quotient?).
So, I can't see that the cograph has as many "places to go" as the graph does, it doesn't seem to expose as many characterisations, variations, or generalisations of the concept of a function. Is there some useful perspective I'm missing here, or is the cograph just not as important mathematically as the graph is?