In the only sense, a boundary separates one thing from one other. A fence is a boundary between two properties; our skin is the boundary between our organs and the surface world. A boundary is the road where one thing ends, and one other begins.
When we set a boundary with one other person, we create some type of separation between us. We may think our boundaries as shields that protect us from things that may threaten our well-being, akin to others’ rudeness, others’ emotional dumping, unwanted touch, or commitments we don’t have the time and space for. Boundaries enable us to honor our limits—what works for us and what doesn’t—and design our lives and relationships around those limits.
Ultimately, boundaries are a recognition that we will’t control what others say or do, but we will control how we respond and what we allow into our surroundings. That’s what boundaries are all about. Although boundaries create separation within the short term, they are literally vital and healthy in all relationships.
BOUNDARIES VS. REQUESTS
When we make requests of others, we ask them to vary their behavior.
But after we set a boundary, we alter our own behavior to guard ourselves, our needs, and our limits. As we discussed within the previous chapter, requests are, at their core, collaborative: a successful request requires one other person to vary their actions. Boundaries, alternatively, don’t require others’ participation. When we set a boundary, we’re assessing what doesn’t work for us and acting accordingly. These examples exhibit the difference between requests and bounds.
As you’ll be able to see in these examples, our boundaries aren’t about changing other people: they’re about setting clear limits for what we’ll and is not going to tolerate from other people. For this reason, boundaries aren’t tools to get more of something from someone. We can’t “boundary” an individual into giving us more affection, attention, kindness, or collaboration. We can ask them for more—that’s what requests are all about—but ultimately, boundaries are about separating ourselves from situations that don’t meet our needs, or interactions that make us feel unsafe, unseen, or harmed in a roundabout way.
COMMUNICATING OUR BOUNDARIES
How we communicate our boundaries is determined by our situation. We might use:
The Short and Sweet Approach
The short and sweet approach tends to work best when others make requests of us that we will’t or don’t wish to meet. Perhaps our sister asks if she will be able to borrow our automobile; perhaps our date asks if we’d wish to return to their apartment; perhaps a community member asks if we will volunteer on the neighborhood bake sale. In these cases, a transparent, straightforward boundary will do:
• “No.”
• “No thank you.”
• “I can’t.”
• “I don’t have time.”
• “Not today.”
• “That’s not going to work for me.”
“I don’t have time for that right now.”
• “Now’s not a good time.”
• “Maybe some other time.”
The I-Statement Approach
Like we discussed within the prior chapter, the I-statement is a four-part communication tool that helps us be direct about our feelings and desires:
“I feel _________________ when you _________________ because_________________. I need _________________.”
When setting boundaries, the I-statement looks like: “I feel overwhelmed when you try to talk things out moments after an argument because I haven’t had time to process on my own. I need to wait at least an hour to cool down before discussing it with you” or “I feel upset when you discuss my mental health issues with the family because it violates my privacy. I need privacy, so I will keep information about my mental health to myself from now on.”
The Radical Transparency Approach
We may also use the unconventional transparency approach to set boundaries. As a reminder, this approach works best with people you trust: individuals who care in your well-being and are unlikely to weaponize the vulnerability of this approach against you.
- “It’s hard for me to say this, but I want to be honest with you: _____________________________________ .”
- “I know that in the past I’ve ______________________________________, but I’m trying to take better care of myself now, so I can’t continue to ______________________________________ .”
- “I’m afraid of hurting you, but it’s important to me that we can be honest with each other. I want you to know that I’m no longer able to ______________________________________ .”
- “I’m nervous to say this, but I’m trying to be more honest with the people I love, so I need to tell you that I can’t ______________________________________ .”
Radical transparency looks like: “Dad, I’m afraid of hurting you, but it’s important to me that we can be honest with each other. I want you to know that I can’t listen when you vent about Mom anymore. It puts me in the middle and I’m not comfortable playing that role” or “Gloria, I know that in the past I’ve joined you and your friends for the annual retreat, but I’m trying to save money this year, so I can’t make it.”
The Speaking Up Approach
Sometimes, we would like to talk up as a way of constructing our own beliefs known. Especially if someone is expressing values or ideals we don’t agree with, speaking up is usually a option to each honor our integrity and insert a mental boundary: separation between what they consider and what we consider. Speaking up can seem like saying, “I disagree,” “I don’t share your opinion,” “I actually believe that _____,” or “I find what
you’re saying to be sexist/racist/transphobic.”
PUTTING BOUNDARIES INTO ACTION
If we set a boundary that a certain behavior doesn’t work for us, we’d like to remove ourselves from that behavior when it arises. Otherwise, our boundary is a meaningless statement that provides us no protection. If you set a boundary that you would be able to’t take part in gossip anymore, then enacting it looks like exiting the interaction when someone starts gossiping. If you tell your mom that you would be able to’t take her calls during work hours anymore, enacting that boundary means letting the phone go to voicemail when she calls you during a gathering. If you set a boundary that you just won’t proceed a conversation when your spouse is yelling, enacting it looks like leaving the conversation when your spouse yells.
Other people may not like our boundaries or may thrust back against them—we’ll discuss this soon—but ultimately, because our boundaries are about our own actions, enacting them is all the time inside our control.
DISENGAGING AS BOUNDARY-SETTING
When we disengage, we exit an interaction that’s harmful to us. By disengaging, we acknowledge that we will’t control others’ actions, but we will control the part we play in our dynamic. Instead of playing tug-of-war, we drop the rope. For the longest time, the thought of disengaging to set boundaries felt strange to me. After all, I used to be attempting to improve at speaking up, and this felt like the other of speaking up. I nervous that disengaging was the identical as avoiding conflict: something I did in my people-pleasing days. However, I quickly learned that disengaging as a type of people-pleasing may be very different from disengaging as a type of boundary-setting.
For years, certainly one of my members of the family had made judgmental comments about other people’s weight. It bothered me to no end. I’d spent years scuffling with my weight, as had a lot of my family members, and I discovered these comments callous and dehumanizing. I attempted so persistently to persuade them to stop, nevertheless it never worked. They thought I used to be being “too sensitive” and taking things “too seriously.” No matter how much I argued and cajoled, they wouldn’t change.
These frequent debates took a toll on me. After each one, I felt frustration and rage, and it took hours for me to feel calm again. Eventually, I noticed that I used to be trying to vary someone who wouldn’t change and harming myself in the method. So as a substitute of continuous to talk up, I disengaged. When they made comments about people’s weight, I didn’t reply. I didn’t reply to the text; I ended the phone call; I left the room. I couldn’t control them, but I could control whether I dignified their comments with my participation and my presence.
Disengaging from a spot of people-pleasing is fear-based. When we disengage out of fear, we’re considering: “I’m afraid to speak up because I want them to like me,” or “I don’t want to rock the boat, so I better stay quiet,” or “I don’t want them to know I have this need because I’m afraid they’ll judge me, so I won’t say anything.”
Disengaging as a boundary is power-based. When we disengage as a boundary, we’re considering: “I can’t control how they treat me, but I can control how much negative treatment I choose to endure,” or “I will not spend my valuable time and energy debating this once again,” or “I will not dignify this rude comment with a response.”
Sometimes, an individual’s behavior is so hurtful that our only option is to go away the connection entirely. Other times, we discover that we will maintain a relationship if we disengage from unpleasant interactions, or decrease our degree of intimacy over time. There are six boundary strategies—three short-term strategies and three big-picture strategies—that we will use to disengage in this fashion.
STOP People Pleasing and Find Your Power is now available as hardcover, ebook, and audiobook.
