Boundary Setting: Hard Boundaries: Three Issues

In my experience, the single biggest objection raised when someone sets a hard boundary - of any kind - is that this is an unkind [mean, cruel] thing to do.

The second biggest objection is that it's a unilateral act - and the person setting the boundary has no right to act unilaterally.

The third objection is that it's controlling - that the person setting the boundary is doing so in order to control others.

I'd like to address these issues.

-First: setting a hard boundary is almost always resorted to as protection from some form of abuse, misuse, or other inappropriate behavior.

Hard boundaries are not, generally, offensive in nature. They are resorted to, not initiated. One does not encounter them unless one is trespassing... They are inherently defensive. They do not involve attack, rather they involve constraint.

The boundary setter is raising a shield, not a sword. "Thus far, and no farther, shalt thou approach." There is nothing inherently unkind in this; but it often does involve a refusal to tolerate or enable, 'bad behavior'. And tolerating or enabling 'bad behavior' is often encouraged - if not demanded - by our socialization, as though it were a form of kindness.

Tolerating or enabling is not kindness. It's usually the exact opposite, for all involved.

-Second: boundary setting is unilateral because all self-defense is unilateral.

Just as trespassing / boundary crossing / misuse is unilateral. The objection to 'unilaterality' in this instance is merely a straw man - at best; at worst, it's a covert objection to the target's right to protect themselves.

-Third: constraint is not the same thing as control.

Hard boundaries, set as constraints, are intended to limit vulnerability to specific persons or specific types of abuse / attack. This is constraining, in the sense that it does not allow someone to abuse or misuse the boundary setter in specific ways. It is not, however, controlling in any other sense. It does not necessarily even prevent that exact same someone from abusing or misusing others who lack a similar hard boundary... nor does it deprive them of any other basic freedoms.

Of course, not all boundaries are hard boundaries. There are soft boundaries, too, and I'll think about those next.

So That's Why...!

A very quick note before moving on to soft boundaries.

In replying to a commenter on the last post, I pointed out that hard boundaries create emotional distance... that in fact this is one of their purposes.

This is true. The point of setting a hard boundary is to protect oneself, and quite often the protection is emotional in nature.

I want to quickly add, here, that this is the source of the "Beattie Effect" - I call it that because, in my readings anyway, Melody Beattie first articulated it.

To wit: "It is impossible to set a boundary while simultaneously taking care of the other person's feelings."

That is true, and this is why. If the purpose of a hard boundary is to create emotional distance, then of course one cannot simultaneously reduce emotional distance [caretake the other's feelings] while doing so.

This probably seems boringly obvious to everyone reading - but to me, at the moment, it feels like quantum physics.