Boundaries

There's a lot of psychobabble about "boundaries" and the problems that result from "crossing them". Amidst all the smoke it's hard to find what kind of fire is burning. I've spent a lot of hours listening to people talk about the problems that were caused by other people "crossing the boundaries", and out of that I've begun to understand what they mean.

A boundary is an imaginary line that separates one domain from another. "Moving" in this sense can be physical or mental. When we move into a different domain, the rules that govern how we are expected to act change. Each domain is defined by the rules that govern residence in the domain. Examples are generally both easy and obvious. How we act in church is governed by different rules than when we are in our homes or in a bar. How we act at a party is different than how we behave at a funeral. Our behavior in an organization is governed by the rules of the organization, which can cover any aspect of human behavior. When you join the Army, you dress, act and behave differently than you are being a member of a sorority or fraternity.

So what does it mean when we speak of "crossing boundaries"? By the above definition, boundary crossing occurs when someone entering a different domain does not adhere to the rules of the new domain. Showing up at a funeral in a bikini would be an example, but examples are so numerous they become trivial. What we experience when someone moves into "our" domain and does not follow "our" domain's rules is rudeness, at the least. How serious the boundary violation is depends on how important is the rule that is being broken. Domains vary a great deal in the rigidity and vigor with which rules are enforced, some domains (like informal social groups) being relatively lenient, while others (like religious organizations) being relatively rigorous.

We see the boundary crosser as behaving disrespectfully (at least) toward us and all who are in the domain with us. We see it as a violation of our "rights" to set the rules in our domain and have them respected by others. Yet the "right" is a social custom, not some divine necessity or basic aspect of human nature.

We typically respond to anyone who "breaks the rules", who "shouldn't act that way", with anger. The public display and demonstration of our anger is expected to discourage people from not following the local rules, or even to force them into compliance. We have every reason to be uncomfortable with people who "cross boundaries', who are unwilling or unable to follow the "rules" that govern our lives, manners, dress, behavior and so on. We can't predict what they will or will not do. Our "rules" don't seem to control them or govern their behavior.

At the same time, it's important for all of us to recognize that the "rules" of a domain are essentially arbitrary and man-made. We can choose to comply with them, and that makes our social existence smoother. But compliance with these rules is a choice, not a necessity. If we choose in a particular instance not to comply, we should expect conflict and disagreeable responses, perhaps even assault.