Boundaries are the negotiation of how we are in our environments and relationships. How we do this and what we look like while doing it varies from person to person and relationship to relationship. We might use the same tools; we might not. Our tools, like our tool belts, will reflect who we are in all our glorious individuality. We could choose a no-nonsense tool belt, a fanny pack, a green felt purse, a silver cigarette holder-cum-wallet, a faux alligator skin suitcase, the pocket of our baggy jeans, a bike messenger bag with a picture of Elvis on it, a fuzzy blue backpack, or pink furry carryall. Whatever it is, I hope it gets a little heavier as you read on. In the next part, we look at some tools we can use to set boundaries.
Two
Learning to Set Boundaries
In my work with groups on setting and maintaining boundaries, I’ve found four tools to be effective. All of them are based on learning and strengthening communication skills and are categorized under the following titles: name the behavior, give a directive, broken record, and end an interaction. The tools themselves are not new and many different groups teach them. Sometimes, however, these tools are taught in a way that reflects the idea that boundaries are always about keeping people out, saying no, and putting up walls. My view is that these tools are also effective when we use them to practice negotiating what we want. Learning to say yes is just as much a part of boundary setting as learning to say no.
Name the Behavior
There are a lot of reasons boundaries get crossed. People cross our boundaries simply because they choose to cross them, irrespective of what we want, or due to miscommunication, confusion, different wants and needs, power imbalances, abuse, and finally, violence. Before you can respond, you have to know that it’s possible to set a boundary, that you have a right to set one, and you have to be aware of when the boundary has been crossed. A great deal of boundary setting is done with people we care about and with whom we will continue to negotiate a relationship. This complicates boundary work, as boundaries may be at odds with maintaining relationships.
name the behavior entails clearly stating what behavior(s) will be addressed or negotiated. “You are yelling at me.” “You keep trying to kiss me.” “You are standing really close to me.” “You continue to call me after I told you to stop.” “When I say yes to one thing, you continue to ask for more.” “It seems you expect me to work late every day.” “When I come home later than expected, you get upset even if I call.” “When I ask you to spend more time with me, I feel like you ignore my request.” Stating the behavior can clarify specific behaviors that will be addressed through boundary setting. Interpersonal interactions are often complicated and sometimes it is helpful to use name the behavior as an internal, personal exercise to help sort through what is important to address. Other times, it may be helpful to name the behavior to a support system, get feedback on the situation or interaction, and explore possible responses to any identified boundary crossings. It is also possible to use name the behavior to identify concerns that need to be addressed after building or increasing a support system. I have worked with survivors of domestic violence, for example, who realized their relationship was abusive long before they were ready or able to name particular behaviors and leave the relationship. One survivor in a boundary-setting workshop shares how she used the name the behavior skill:
After a while, I began to realize that no matter what I did, my partner would be jealous and blame me. It always ended up being my fault somehow. I think that when I finally said this out loud to myself one night after an argument, I realized how bad it was. I finally understood that this wasn’t about whether I worked late, or talked too much to someone at a party, that there would always be a reason to blame me. I think naming the behavior helped me begin the process of asking for support and eventually leaving the relationship.
The above scenario is a good example of how to first name the behavior to yourself and then to a support system before ever telling the person with whom you are setting the boundary. In this instance, she made her decision based on her own emotional well-being and for safety reasons.
A co-facilitator in another class shares an example of a different way of using Name the Behavior:
I was on a first date with someone who I had just met. We were talking at a café and at some point she put her hand on my leg, flirting with me. I didn’t feel threatened or anything, but I wasn’t really into the date, so I made a joke about how it was too early for that kind of touch and shifted away a bit. She laughed and took her hand away, but a few minutes later, she put it back again, casually, while telling me a story. Reflecting on it now, I remember thinking that she was pushy. I still didn’t feel intimidated or threatened or anything. I just moved again and told her I had a nice time but that I had to go and I left. I never called her and she didn’t call me.
This person chose to name the behavior in her own head and to not say anything aloud to her date for a few reasons. She first took stock and decided she was not that invested in maintaining the relationship; she didn’t feel unsafe or threatened and, she made a plan to keep using the boundary skills she was already employing (i.e., body language, removing her date’s hand, humor, resituating herself) and ended the date early. This is another example of how to use name the behavior nonverbally.
People are sometimes concerned that using Name the Behavior nonverbally is actually just avoiding boundary setting altogether. It depends on intention and context. If someone believes they do not have the right, or is not sure how to set a boundary or name a behavior directly to someone, then the issue may be about avoiding boundary setting. If someone does not have the skill, capacity, or feels it is not safe to tell a person directly, the decision may be strategically sound. Often, people come to boundary-setting workshops with few models of how to identify and set boundaries. They enter class with the goal of learning life skills that they can bring to their relationships and interactions. Sometimes the first skill is learning that setting a boundary is possible and that it may involve many steps that help prepare people for the act of stating a boundary directly. In some cases, pointing out a boundary crossing or telling someone directly that what they did crossed a boundary can lead to victim-blaming, shaming, threats, intimidation, and even physical danger. When I first began to develop boundary-setting curriculums with other Home Alive instructors, we discussed the complexities of teaching workshops for people who have experienced (or who were currently surviving) domestic violence. In classes, many people (including those who had experienced domestic violence) expressed relief in knowing that naming the behavior to oneself was an actual skill. One survivor shares her thoughts:
I was afraid that if I said anything, he would get mad. Even though I knew it was not okay that he was threatening me. When I told him that what he was doing was wrong or manipulative or even abusive, he would tell me I didn’t know what I was talking about and that I didn’t understand how I was pushing him to the point where the only thing he could do was yell or break things. No matter how I tried to point out that what he was doing was wrong, it seemed like it always came back to me. I stopped telling him what I thought. I shut down and began to think about out how to get out of there rather than how to try to change. I didn’t stop seeing his behaviors. In fact pointing it out to myself made me feel less crazy. It’s cool to hear that me naming the behavior to myself was a way of setting boundaries. You blame yourself for staying, for putting up with it, and it is hard to see what you did do.
Of course, there are times when one will name the behavior very clearly and out loud and to other people. A friend of mine shared a story with me. She was taking the New York City subway. She was alone and on her way to meet someone for dinner. The train was packed tight with commuters. As she stood jammed between people clinging to the pole by the exit doors, she felt a hand on her right butt cheek. She froze, thinking, is that a hand on my ass? She waited a few seconds and confirmed—yep, that was a hand on her ass. She looked around and the hand disappeared
. After a few beats it was back. Shit, this time he’s even grabbier, she thought. She turned slowly and out of the corner of her eye identified the man who was grabbing her. “Oh my God, you’re grabbing my butt! Did you all see that?” she yelled, looking at him and then around at everyone on the train. People looked away or down, not wanting to get involved. My friend was undeterred. She looked directly at the man, then at everyone around her, yelling, “I can’t believe you grabbed my ass! You grab women’s butts on the train!” She kept it up until, agitated and looking down, the man got off the train. As he exited, she popped her head through the closing train doors and yelled after him, “Watch out everyone, that man right there in the blue jacket, he grabs women’s butts on the train.” People glanced at him curiously and continued on their way. Clearly, my friend could explicitly name the behavior.
It is normal to try to anticipate the other person’s response when we name the behavior. Class participants have asked me all kinds of questions about the impact of using name the behavior. “What do I do if someone responds in a way that I don’t like?” “What if they get angry?” “What if use name the behavior and I hurt their feelings? Or offend them?” “Can’t name the behavior be rude or escalate things?” One of most important aspects of these tools is being able to choose when and how to use them. Ultimately, we have no control over how other people will respond to a boundary. While we might know our family member or partner’s buttons, and can impact and influence the people in our lives at times, they are ultimately the ones who choose how they will respond. Of course, interpersonal interactions are complicated by individual experiences, histories of trauma and abuse, power, privilege, and other social factors that inform how one will respond in a situation.
There may be times when naming the behavior can, in fact, escalate a situation. This is not always bad. There are times when escalating things is helpful. A client of mine discussed how he was afraid of conflict. He would avoid everything he saw as a potential conflict to the detriment of himself and his relationships. As we addressed his fears, he began to engage in, rather than always avoid, conflicts. This involved having conversations that became heated, agitated, and at times escalated. As his capacity to feel anxious and engage in (rather than avoid) disagreements increased, the possibility of conflict became much less scary and he was able to identify, negotiate, and set more boundaries.
Victim Blaming
The concern that naming the behavior will escalate an interaction is often tied to the belief that those setting the boundary are also responsible for how the other person responds. That if someone sets a boundary in a certain (or correct) way, they will get a specific result. While it is true that people may be aware of what will agitate someone or make them feel upset or hurt, the concept of being responsible for how someone responds is rooted, in part, in the culture of victim blaming. Victim blaming not only places responsibility on the boundary setter for how someone reacts, it takes the focus off the other person and their behavior. There are many ways victim blaming plays out. Women experience victim blaming when society sends the message that women control the way men act. From wearing provocative clothing that “causes” rape, to acting “crazy” in ways that “made” someone hit them, women get the message that they are responsible for other people’s behaviors. Survivors of bullying and hate crimes are often made to feel as if it is their fault, that they were targeted because they looked or acted differently than what was perceived as the “correct” way, or because who they are represents a supposed “threat” or danger. Victim blaming can lead people to try to figure out the “right” boundary skill that will “cause” a particular reaction. In boundary-setting classes, people ask all the time, “How do I use name the behavior in a way that won’t upset or hurt someone?” or “How do I use name the behavior in a way that makes the person respect my boundary?” While you can be mindful about how you are using the skill and be reflective on what you know about effective communication with a particular person, as mentioned previously, you can’t control how they will respond. You can only choose how you respond to their response.
Sometimes it is not clear in the moment whether a boundary has been crossed. If it is clear that a boundary has been crossed, it can be challenging to come up with a response on the spot. Practicing name the behavior not only helps one get clear on what behaviors need to be addressed, but also offers one a chance to imagine a variety of creative responses. It can be helpful to play around and try out new behaviors. In classes, I encourage participants to role-play different ways of naming the behavior. If someone is shy and quiet, I might encourage them to practice being loud and assertive to see what it feels like. If someone is highly verbal, I may encourage them to practice using only body language to name the behavior. If someone is anxious about a particular response, I may encourage them to practice name the behavior in low-stakes scenarios. For example, one class participant shared that she became very anxious when she thought she might disappoint someone. We role-played low-stakes situations where she got to name the behavior that entailed telling a waiter the order she received was incorrect. Practice can also involve recalling past situations and imaging or role-playing what you would have liked to say or how you would have liked to respond.
Freeze Framing
Sometimes it is not immediately clear what behavior needs to be named. When it is unclear, it can be helpful to roll things backwards. Like freeze-framing a movie, the idea is to recall an event or interaction and then stop at each “frame” and examine it. What is happening in this moment? What behaviors are occurring? Who is doing what? What is being said? Do the behaviors sync with what is being said? What thoughts, feelings, sensations, and action urges are present for me? If no boundary crossing is identified in the “frame,” then roll it back to the previous frame and examine that moment until it becomes clear where or how a boundary was crossed. Sometimes no matter how many times the movie is replayed, what happened or where the boundary was crossed still remains unclear. When this occurs, it can be helpful to name thoughts, sensations, feelings, action urges, somatic responses, or even the uncertainty itself, just as one would name the behavior. An example might be, “I do not know what boundary was crossed, but I sense that one was.” Or, “It is unclear how this person made me feel like they crossed a boundary, but they did and it is important to pay attention to that.” Or, “I felt nervous, my hands clenched, and I wanted to leave.” Being able to name an experience and decide how to respond, even if one is unable to point to an exact boundary crossing, is an important part of boundary setting. There are situations where events and interactions are unclear or confusing. This does not mean that one cannot use name the behavior as a boundary-setting tool.
Naming the behavior in clear, direct, nonjudgmental language that is focused on facts is key. Saying, “She was totally rude” does not identify the problem as clearly as saying, “She continued to ask me to work for her even after I told her I couldn’t.” The second statement focuses on the facts of the situation and is free of judgment, which makes identifying both the behavior and the potential boundary one might want to set in response much easier. Communicating in terms of facts and behaviors also makes it more likely that the other person will understand and comply. It’s easier to change a behavior if one doesn’t feel judged. Judgment often provokes defensiveness, which in turn can provoke even more defensiveness from the other person. Mutual defensiveness can lead to a power struggle with both people trying to prove why they or their behavior are right. Rather than exploring one another’s perspectives or trying to understand the boundary, a power struggle entrenches people in justifying their perspective, often at the expense of being able to listen to the other person. While explaining nonjudgmentally what boundary was crossed is not a guarantee for successful communication, it is almost always preferable because it improves the chances that the other person will hear what you are naming. Taking the time to name the behavior without judgment or name-calling creates conditi
ons in which it is easier to hear the concern. This also applies when we are naming the behavior to ourselves and to our support systems. Naming nonjudgmentally helps identify and clarify in ways that judgments often impede.
Being able to name the behavior is critical to boundary setting. Play around with this skill in low-risk situations that are not highly emotional. The more you practice, the more skilled you will become. Like developing any skill, it’s easier to learn by beginning in low-stress environments and then move on to more challenging situations after gaining mastery and feeling more confident and comfortable.
Give a Directive
The second skill is give a directive. This entails telling the person what to do. In my experience, this tool is taught mostly as a command term—that is, telling people to stop a behavior that you don’t want. While this is important, I also want to include how to give what I call a “Positive Directive” in our discussion—that is, a directive for what you would like the person to do or start doing. The term Positive Directive does not imply that the commanding directive is negative; they are not opposites but rather different tools we will choose to use at different times. Positive directives provide an alternative by telling someone what they can do, which often reduces resistance to the boundary. Give a directive, like name the behavior, may also be an internal experience. You can name the behavior to yourself: She is ignoring that I just said no and trying to talk me into loaning her money again. Then give a directive to yourself: Just hold steady, don’t get pulled in by her ability to hook me emotionally. I don’t need to feel guilty. Then you could simply set the boundary by saying, “No.” Or the experience could be external. You could, for example, explicitly tell someone, “You are yelling at me” (name the behavior). “I’ll talk to you about this when you can talk to me without raising your voice” (give a directive). This is an example of a Positive Directive. An example of a Command Directive would be one that does not offer an alternative: “You are yelling at me. Stop yelling at me.”
Empowered Boundaries Page 4