Individual Boundaries as the Basic Structural Unit
What Are Boundaries?
You may have been told at some point, like many people, to have boundaries. This is often said in professional arenas, academia, or, of course, in therapy settings. The trick I often find when working with clients is that almost nowhere teaches a comprehensive idea of boundaries. This begs the question, what are they?
Think of boundaries like a room. The walls, floor, and ceiling of the room, to be more precise. They literally define the room’s existence, the space in which the room “is.” They define the space in which a room’s identity is contained, and what the room is further comprised of by the items kept within it. The way you know a bedroom is a bedroom because there is a bed in it. Or that a kitchen is a kitchen because of a sink, oven, pantry, and cabinets.
These walls do more than define what a room is, however. They also help designate what it is NOT. A kitchen is not a bedroom because there is no bed in the kitchen. The bedroom is not a kitchen for similar reasons. And a room tends not to be all solid walls. There are typically doors of one sort of another. These can be shut, locked, unlocked, or left open to allow people in or keep them out.
How Does This Work With People?
To make the analogy more specific: boundaries are a construct through which an individual defines self in domains of ownership and responsibility, they separate self from others, and function with discerning choices to allow good things into their life and keep bad things out.
The walls of the room are metaphorically our skin. Our skin designates our space, where we exist and where our self resides. We are, of course, more than our physical bodies, so the content of a mind is like the furnishings that help further identify the nature of a room. For humans, these are things like beliefs, values, thoughts, feelings, roles, obligations, expectations, attitude, actions, and words. These are the things that belong in our individual room, so to speak. And by extension, another person’s thoughts, feelings, beliefs, values, etc. belong in their room and is not anyone else’s responsibility to own or base life around. Finally, we each have to choose our own actions that allow different people or circumstances into our lives, like opening the door to let someone or something into our room, or shutting and locking it to keep them out.
Just One Room in the Whole House
This is the foundation of understanding structural dynamics, where an individual becomes part of a larger whole (or "structure"), like in the workplace, a relationship, a family, religious community, or some other organization. It’s important not to confuse the importance of individual boundaries as greater than the needs of the larger whole. But it is just as important for longevity and stability in any structure that the boundaries and value of individuals are understood and taken seriously, as well. And each individual has to safeguard their own boundaries by first understanding them themselves. To do that, consider in any given situation, “Is this in my room?”
By James “Drew” Sewell, LCMHC-QS
Owner/Director
Understanding Structural Dynamics
Moving from "I" to "We"
Boundaries have been defined, but this category of posts is about structural dynamics. It’s time to lay out how boundaries, the building blocks of structural dynamics, lead to defining the concept. A major difference between the two is that boundaries typically refer to defining an individual, and structural dynamics are about definition the nature of relationship between two or more individuals.
Relationships as Behavioral Contracts
The thing with relationships is that you can’t touch them, physically. They aren’t physical tethers between people, but understandings. This is why we use the term psychological construct, or an idea with more defined rules. In this case, a relationship refers to a construct in which two or more people agree, or contract, to a general set of behaviors that are ultimately beneficial to everyone in the agreement (relationship). Essentially, principles and rules serve as the basis of protecting everyone in the relationship, whether it is with a friend, family member, workplace, or romantic partner.
Relationships Are Still Made of Individuals
As a disclaimer, the typical rules of stable relationships do not apply to those who are already in toxic, unstable or abusive circumstances. There will be more to come regarding those circumstances. In general, though, for the sake of stability, relationships must come before the individual’s own wants or needs, AS LONG AS they are not doing so at the expense of any individual. Therefore, while it is appropriate to sacrifice for the greater good of a relationship, it is not acceptable to be sacrificed by the relationship.
The Model in Other Contexts
In many ways, this is like constructing a home. Even with proper knowledge and tools, a person could not construct a house alone; they would need to work with another person. In exchange for each other’s help, every person involved could help the other(s) with the construction of their own home. Thus, together, a dynamic of working to benefit the relationship should result in everyone profiting. This could be expanded into a greater flow of work and goods production to include the manufacturing of furniture, production of food, care for children, the elderly, and the ill, etc. The efforts can all be organized and the resulting outcomes distributed to reasonably benefit everyone who works and participates or is otherwise covered by the relationship contract.
The Goal of Felt Connection
A significant part of stability within relationships pertains to the last sentence of the previous paragraph. The relationship should benefit everyone in it to a reasonable degree. This at its base includes emotionally, as the nature of relationships is typically emotional in nature, as well as physically (whether this is via romance, safety, or provision). To make sure the system, or relationship, is healthy, checking should occur to make sure that participating and covered members, to a reasonable degree, are experiencing enough benefits. That doesn’t mean that one person is fully responsible for the happiness of others. Rather, they are responsible to their loved ones to not drain them of their abilities to pursue their own senses of fulfillment.
By James “Drew” Sewell, LCMHC-QS
Owner/Director