This is the fourth part of a several part posting discussing my views of healthy communication in interpersonal relationships. If you've not read the first part, you may want to. You can find it here.
The boundary. It's been a really rough concept for me to fully understand and apply. The idea behind "boundaries" is that there's a delineation.... a conceptual line between you and me. I own everything on my side of the boundary, and you own everything on your side. Some people speak about boundaries, but in my mind, at least, there's really only one boundary. Take a look at this picture showing the communication process from Part I of this series... I know, I know I'm not the world's most artistic guy.
What does this show? Well, starting at the top, something happens. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the person on the right is me, and the one on the left is you. The Event (yellow star at the top) can be anything really. Let's say you cough while I was talking to you. Then I interpret the event.... "you're trying to tell me something by coughing". Then I make a judgment, "you must not like what I've said." I form a feeling about that, "I'm hurt that you don't like what I'm saying". Finally, I react by saying, "What don't you like about that?" Sure, maybe I read it right... maybe you did cough because you didn't like what I was saying. On the other hand, maybe you coughed because you had something in your throat. Saying my peace becomes the event on the bottom, and the whole process begins anew on your (left) side of the diagram.
Draw an imaginary line between the two yellow stars. That's it! That's the "boundary". Everything that happens on the right is 100%, completely me. Everything that happens on the left is 100% you. I have complete control over everything on my side, and there's not a darned thing I can do about the left side. NOTHING!
The reason that the boundary is so important is that for years, I've taken responsibility for far too much of the stuff on other people's side of the equation. For that matter, I tend to believe other people responsible for lots of stuff on my side. It's really simple... my side is mine, your side is yours. No gray area there at all.
Understanding the boundary means knowing that if I'm hurt, it's because I feel that way, not because anyone MADE me feel that way. It's such a common phrase, "You hurt my feelings", yet it's bogus. Why? Because I own my feelings, and you have no control over them. Look over the coughing example I gave above. I was hurt that you didn't like what I had to say. You hurt my feelings! The problem there is, you may have been coughing for a completely different reason. Perhaps, that's not how you felt at all. Maybe, just maybe, you completely agree with my statements and had an itch in your throat. Who hurt my feelings? Me... by my interpretation and judgment. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you really did disagree with me and that cough was a subconscious response to your disagreement. Okay, then who hurt my feelings? Well, I'm still responsible for my feelings... I own them... I made them... you can't alter them. No matter what, I am fully responsible for everything on the right, and you on the left.
I was talking, the other day, about a couple. They're great people, who've had some serious relationship problems. They almost got divorced, but have been working very hard on saving their relationship. Here's the story: she began going to the gym to work out. She mentioned to her husband that she was chatting with one of the guys at the gym. Actually, a very innocent discussion, some idle chit-chat while they're on the stair-stepper. But he got pretty upset about it. So, she quit going to the gym because he was so upset.
Looking at that in the context of this model what happened? She told him about a conversation with the gym guy (event). He believed they were flirting (interpretation). He thought she may cheat on me with this guy if it continues (judgment). He became scared or worried about the potential infidelity (feelings). He got angry (reaction & new event). On her side, she interpreted his actions as anger or perhaps fear, made the judgment that her actions caused his anger. Felt empathy or sympathy, perhaps fear of losing the relationship. She reacted by saying that she'd quit the gym if it meant that much to him.
Seems pretty straightforward to me... but there's a problem, in my mind. She CAN'T hurt his feelings. She can only affect her OWN feelings, and nobody else's. She knew, deep down, that she just had an innocent conversation with the guy. That she's very much in love with her husband. She knows that she has no intentions of cheating. Yet, when he became angry, she accepted responsibility for his anger. WARNING BELLS to me, but they both missed that. Remember, he owns everything on his side, she owns everything on her side. He got angry in response to his own feelings. He arrived at those feelings because of his own judgment and interpretation of the event. All stuff he controls and she has no power over whatsoever. Yet because she accepted responsibility for his feelings and changed her life to suit.
This is called "blurred boundaries". They blurred the boundaries between him and her. As soon as they do that, and I'm guilty of doing that on a daily basis, they stepped into the abyss. She set a precedent with her response. They both now accept that she hurt his feelings. So, next time he's upset, will they believe she is responsible for that too? My guess is yes. The more she changes to suit his mood, the more resentful and confused she'll become; at the same time, he'll become more and more resentful and angry that she keeps hurting his feelings.
But, if that was not such a cool thing to do? How should she have responded? Had she recognized that he owns his feelings, and she can't control them, she probably would have been better served to learn about his interpretations, judgments and feelings. I suspect the smartest approach is to honor the boundary, and bring all boundary blurring into focus with good questions. How about:
"You seem upset, are you?"
"Of course, I'm upset, you're flirting with some guy in the gym!" [Blurred boundary - his thought, not her action]
"Why do you think I flirted with him?" [Focus with question, and state "you think"]
"Well, you said you two were joking around."
"Yep, we were joking. Honey, I know you think I was flirting with him, but the only man I have designs on is YOU! I love you, and wouldn't jeopardize that for anything." [The goal here is to validate his thoughts and feelings, they're real but they're his. Don't accept his thoughts as your actions.]
I have real problems with this, quite honestly. The second someone states their interpretation or judgment of an event as if it were fact, I get defensive. She wasn't flirting with the guy, but he believes that she was. "No, no!", I think. That's not what I did at all! Sure, it's true. Still, saying "no, that's wrong." often comes across as "invalidating". Invalidating is another form of blurring the boundary. Basically, since he owns all his thoughts, she has no right to tell him that he's wrong. That is REALLY what he thought. It's very real. Still, it doesn't match her intentions, so there's a conflict.
The trick is to recognize the conflict and honor the boundary with respect for the other person. Yes, that's what he thought; his thought is real; at the same time, it's NOT your action. Had he recognized his own thought for what it was, perhaps he'd have been better off asking if his thought matched her intent. "Were you flirting with him?" "No, honey, not at all". Assuming he trusts her, the issue would have dropped right away. Still, she has no control over him. He didn't recognize the boundary, so the ball's in her court. It's up to her to respect and validate him, at the same time enforce the boundary.
I do think, in a loving relationship, people have to make compromises... and even make changes to improve the relationship. Those compromises, in my mind, need to be based on an understanding of what's going on below the surface. Perhaps giving up workouts would solve the problem. In this case, though, I doubt it. Before we begin to compromise, however, we have to understand each other, and respect the boundary. What are the facts:
They began to negotiate a resolution BEFORE they recognized the boundaries. They THOUGHT they needed to negotiate about her flirting with the guy at the gym, so they arrived at her quitting her workouts. We know that's off base. Had they respected the boundaries, they'd recognize the issue was his fear of her cheating. That has nothing to do with her working out at all.
My goal is to understand, recognize and respect the boundary. Without it, I'll wind up taking responsibility or other people's thoughts and feelings. I'll erroneously believe that someone else has control of my thoughts, feelings or actions. If I don't recognize who's responsible for what, then I can never effectively fix problems.
0 comments:
Post a Comment