Boundary exceptions

“Rules” are values which prescribe or prohibit certain behaviors. We grow up with rules, but as adults few of us follow them rigidly. For the most part we follow our rules, but we sometimes allow ourselves to break them under certain conditions and engage in behavior that we might not normally condone. Of course, such exceptions determine the actual boundary of the rules.

Even in the law, rules are never completely rigidly enforced. Instead of mechanically imposing a consequence on a breach of rules, a human being such as a judge can consider the particular circumstances. For instance, we have a rule forbidding murder. Courts have held, however, that under certain conditions the consequences of breaking the rule can be modified or an “exception” made. Such a condition might be that the murderer was experiencing a strong emotion, such as passion, anger or fear. While we may punish a premeditated or "cold-blooded" murder to the fullest extent, a murder based on strong emotion might be assessed a lesser penalty. The rule forbidding murder may be granted an exception under these circumstances.

I chose this particular example because the “strong emotion exemption” to laws is based on a common to many cultures. We tend to excuse to some degree an otherwise illegal act if it was motivated by sufficiently strong emotion. We believe an emotion that is strong enough may justify a temporary exception to our rule. The “strong emotion” exception is of particular importance in understanding human behavior.

It's as if we said to ourselves "I will never do X", and then privately to ourselves, we add "…unless I'm very angry/frightened/depressed/sexually-aroused”. As a result, the test of all our rules is whether there is a hidden or at least unspoken "exception". As a psychotherapist, I want to know the exceptions to someone's rules and boundaries; I want to know under what conditions they are willing to make an exception to a rule they espouse. Often people are unaware of their own exceptions to their rules, or they may take it for granted that “strong-enough” emotion” automatically grants an exception.

We talk about strong "justifying" emotions as if they were something that "comes over us", that overwhelms our judgment, as if they were something outside of our control. There are truly moments like that, such as in catastrophic events or in combat, but these are fortunately rare. Other than in such emergent or catastrophic situations, much of our extreme emotion is self-induced. We increase or sustain an emotion by going over and over a series of thoughts justifying our emotions. We call this tactic “ramping”. With each repetition of these thoughts our emotion grows stronger until we stop it or until we allow it to reach the level of intensity that "justifies" breaking the rule.

A patient of mine, "Fred", who was driving on the highway was "cut off" by another driver, in what Fred felt was a rude and inconsiderate way. He was outraged. He followed the driver almost sixty miles, all the way "steaming" over his mistreatment. He pulled in behind the other driver in a parking lot, went over to the man's car, opened the door and pulled him out, with the intention of "teaching him a lesson". However, the man obviously didn't even know what Fred was talking about, and was frightened. Fred suddenly recognized the inappropriateness of his own behavior, let the man go, went back to his car and drove off. Later, in my office, Fred said "I drove 60 miles, enraged, ready to hit this guy, and he didn't even know he had done anything! That's just crazy! I don't know what's the matter with me. I would never hit another person."

Of course Fred would hit another person. His rule against hitting has an exception in it. He doesn't mention the exception because he doesn't like to think of himself as a person who hits others, but his exception is clear. If Fred feels sufficiently wronged, he goes over and over his “wrong” thereby becoming increasingly “righteously angry”. When angry enough, he allows himself an exception to his "no hitting" rule. A more precise description of what occurred shows that at the time of the “infraction”, Fred decided almost immediately that he was angry enough that he was justified in hitting the other driver. While he was driving, by going over and over his grievances, he was keeping his anger “ramped up” so that his anger could overcome his rule and allow him to strike a blow. It took a lot of energy to keep his anger going for an hour.

In the parking lot Fred realized that the offending driver was totally unaware of his driving infraction.. Another of Fred’s rules which conflicted with hitting someone popped up: "It's not right to hit someone who doesn't even know they've done anything wrong". His anger dissipated as he recognized that he had been wrong in his thinking. He no longer felt “justified” in breaking his rule. As a result, he stopped ramping his “righteous anger” to the exception point.

We can increase any emotion by ramping up in this way. Whatever the thoughts we have which create or renew our feeling, we can continue cycling through them over and over. Sometimes the rule we are considering breaking simply doesn’t fit our self-image. Someone who is normally proud of “self-control”, for instance, might mentally ramp up sadness in order to justify wallowing in self-pity or simply withdrawing for a while. In a more extreme (but not unusual) instance the self-pity might justify substance abuse or a suicidal gesture. A person who thinks of himself as “brave” might ramp up fearful thoughts in order to justify running away or “backing down”.

We might conceal our unspoken exceptions in order to hide our real intentions or plans. A depressed patient, for instance, might state that he would "never kill himself", but when pushed to state the "exceptions", said "… unless my wife left me... I couldn't stand that". Sometimes the exceptions are so clearly dishonest that the person doesn't admit them even to himself until after the exception has occurred. A married patient admitted to having sex with his wife's best friend, but commented that he "had had too much to drink, and besides, I didn't think my wife would ever find out." He would never have admitted his rationalization PRIOR to the unfaithfulness. It’s interesting to speculate what a marriage service would sound like if the prospective partners had to announce the exceptions to their vows.

The "ramping up" process is a familiar one in cognitive therapies. We use it to whip ourselves up emotionally in order to justify our breaking a rule/boundary. When we do so, we manipulate our own emotions in order to “motivate” our own behavior, rather than making a more rational and cognitive decision. Such apparently impulsive decisions, being dictated by a more primitive and emotional part of ourselves, tend to be of more or less poor quality. We may find ourselves doing things that at a less emotional time we would find unacceptable.

Stopping ourselves from “ramping” is easy to describe: We simply recognize cognitively the cyclic pattern of our "ramping" thinking and choose to break it. By doing so we stop creating more emotion and thereby protect ourselves from arriving at the point where our boundaries have exceptions. Without using strong emotion as a justification for action, we must make behavioral choices based on intellect and logic. Unfortunately, for many if not most of us, intellectual and logical choices do not provide very strong motivation. We may not be so accustomed to making choices coolly by an act of the will. However, by acting on our more mature values we strengthen them and our own emotional maturity. Knowing and admitting our exceptions is an important step in limiting or eliminating them, and every time we are able to do this, we move in the direction of greater emotional maturity.