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.

Unhappiness, grief and depression

In an earlier post I suggested some differences between unhappiness and depression. I now think that I confused the terms "unhappiness" and "grief" by compounding them. At the time it seemed important to me to avoid confusing depression with grief/unhappiness. People generally confuse depression and unhappiness, not realizing that depression is a treatable (and curable) illness.

Grief is not a part of unhappiness, I believe. Grief is a natural healing process that provides relief from losses occurring in all of our lives. It is possible to have a happy and satisfying life even though it is visited by grief at times. Unhappiness is a different emotion, resembling depression more than grief in that it is generally not time-limited, as grief normally is. However, depression is an illness that is characterized by anger or hopelessness directed at the self, while unhappiness is the result of life problems and circumstances that are not suitable for the individual experiencing them.

We can understand grief and depression fairly easily. Unhappiness, however, can result from either circumstances beyond our control (life in a concentration camp, for instance) or from circumstances that could be changed but at a price the person believes may be too high. When our lives are unsuitable for us, we become unhappy, and the unhappiness can endure as long as conditions remain the same. However, I am also aware that many individuals have achieved a happy life in spite of terribly unsuitable and difficult life situations, and that most of us have experienced periods of happiness even during difficult times. Obviously the condition of unhappiness is not solely conditioned by external circumstances.

Unhappiness, then, is composed at the least of our awareness that our life situation is not what we need it to be. One patient described his chronic unhappiness very well: "It's like wearing your shoes on the wrong feet. You can do it, you can even walk in them, but nothing feels right and everything seems to hurt."

Sometimes it seems to me that people choose to remain in unhappy circumstances rather than face the uncertainty and risk of change. This is especially true with those who have never really been happy. When we know no other way to survive than through an unhappy life-style, we tend to avoid chance-taking. For example, I think of the many abused spouses who elect to remain in their marriage rather than risk the uncertainty of trying to survive alone, or to risk the moral judgment of one's religion, or whatever. People get "stuck" in bad jobs and bad relationships, unwilling to risk alternatives or change. Sometimes they even get stuck in lifestyles that they believe are "right" but which result in chronic dissatisfaction and unhappiness.

People can (and should) get treatment for depression. While they sometimes ask for treatment for grief, little beyond support (or supportive treatment) is necessary. In fact, psychotherapeutic intervention for grief may even be harmful in that it treats a normal human response to loss as if it were some sort of pathology.

What about unhappiness? Should we treat that in psychotherapy? In general, I believe it is useful to use psychotherapy as a tool in treating someone who is unhappy over a longer period of time. The therapeutic issue that immediately arises is whether the situation and circumstances that give rise to the unhappiness are chosen by the patient or imposed on the patient. To what degree does the person consent to the circumstances of their life? Can they find their current situation livable if they change their attitude and values? Sometimes the answer is yes. Sometimes, however, the answer is no, and the patient must decide to live with their unhappiness or to change their circumstances. The latter choice is rarely welcomed by partners and family members.

Frequently, if not invariably, the unhappy person has to examine their values and the choices arising from those values. Changing values and associated behaviors is not an easy task, but then neither is living with unhappiness.

Deification trivializes the message.

When we turn teachers or leaders into Gods, we trivialize their messages and their work. As example, consider Siddhartha Gautama, who was later called the Buddha, or Enlightened One. He was an ordinary man, a minor son of a regional kinglet, much like a mayor in a modern city, who left the life his parents arranged for him and pursued enlightenment. He found it, after years of thought and meditation, and then taught the method of attaining enlightenment to all those who would listen.

Later followers elevated him to some sort of Godhood. By glorifying and deifying their teacher, they raised their own status and authority. They made legends of miracles attending his birth and death. He became The Buddha, as if he were the only person who had attained enlightenment. What a farce. The followers, seeking their own self-aggrandizement, missed the entire point, which is (of course) that absolutely anyone can attain enlightenment. Buddha-hood is for every person that is willing to achieve it, not for divinities or deities. There are undoubtedly many Buddhas in this world now, but real Buddhas do not seek power, position, recognition or authority. Why should they? Becoming enlightened is hard work and it is not achieved overnight. It can't be granted to others or handed out as a reward. Everyone has to search diligently for their own enlightenment, and there is no shortcut.

But the point is that enlightenment is for everyone, not special people or godlets. Christianity shows the same pattern as Buddhism. The followers elevate their leader to the status of a god, and then worship, as if that were what the religion is about. They miss the point. Christ (another title, not a name) taught behaviors and attitudes that lead to enlightenment. The heart of Christianity is compassion, as it is in Buddhism. That heart does not lie in rituals or titles or churches. Ridding oneself of the selfishness that allows us to see others as different is hard work. Literally treating the other as if the other were our self is a hard task. Everything else is worthless posturing.