Protecting Psychological Boundaries Is The Responsibility Of The Person Himself

Table of contents:

Video: Protecting Psychological Boundaries Is The Responsibility Of The Person Himself

Video: Protecting Psychological Boundaries Is The Responsibility Of The Person Himself
Video: 5 Reasons To Set Healthy Boundaries with Toxic People 2024, March
Protecting Psychological Boundaries Is The Responsibility Of The Person Himself
Protecting Psychological Boundaries Is The Responsibility Of The Person Himself
Anonim

Man is a social being and needs the company of other people. However, in addition to sociality, there is such a trait as individuality. That is, each of us has our own interests, values, needs, which sometimes run counter to the interests, values and needs of other people.

And for himself, for his interests, a person has to fight.

Himself. Without shifting this task to others.

This is exactly what I want to say: PROTECTING OWN BORDERS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSONSELF.

What happens when a person does not defend his own boundaries is well illustrated in one story. No, it was not a psychological experiment (like the world famous experiments of Zimbardo and Milgram), it was a performance.

The artist, creator of world-famous performances, Yugoslavian Marina Abramovich, in 1974 organized an event called "Rhythm 0". In the hall of the exhibition center in Naples, a table was placed where 72 objects, both household and dangerous, lay: feathers, matches, a knife, nails, chains, a spoon, wine, honey, sugar, soap, a piece of cake, salt, a box with blades, metal pipe, scalpel, alcohol and much more.

The artist posted a sign:

"Instructions

There are 72 objects on the table that you can use however you want

Performance

I am an object

During this time, I take full responsibility

Duration: 6 hours (20:00 - 2:00)"

And the audience, at first timidly, and then more and more boldly, began to interact with the artist, using the proposed objects.

At first, people kissed Marina, gave her flowers, but gradually they grew bolder and began to go further and further.

Art critic Thomas McEvilly, who was present at the performance, wrote: “It all started innocently. Someone turned her, another pulled her hand, someone touched it more intimately. The passions of the Neapolitan night began to heat up. By the third hour, all of her clothes were cut with blades, and by the fourth the blades reached her skin. Someone cut her throat and drank the blood. Other sexual things were done to her. She was so involved in the process that she would not mind if the audience wanted to rape or kill her. Faced with her lack of will, there were people who stood up for her. When one of the men put a loaded pistol to Marina's temple, putting her own finger on the trigger, a fight broke out between the spectators.

Image
Image

“At first, the audience really wanted to play with me,” recalls Abramovich. - Then they became more and more aggressive, it was six hours of real horror. They cut off my hair, stuck thorns of roses into my body, cut the skin on my neck, and then pasted a plaster on the wound. After six hours of the performance, with tears in my eyes, I walked naked towards the audience, which is why they literally ran out of the room, as they realized that I “came to life” - I stopped being their toy and began to control my body. I remember that when I came to the hotel that evening and looked at myself in the mirror, I found a lock of gray hair."

Why do people do such things (with others or with themselves, or with Marina Abramovich)? Are people really evil? No, not angry - but they are curious. We are hominids, descendants of great apes, and we have inherited their curiosity and research spirit. Therefore, it is in human nature to test boundaries until you feel them. And if there are no boundaries anywhere, then a person will use his neighbor until he completely washed away to zero.

And more importantly: in Marina Abramovich's performance, one of the conditions was voiced: “My body (at the time of the performance) is an object”. That is, it does not have its own will, subjectivity, the ability to say "no" to what is unacceptable. And the subjects do not stand on ceremony with the object. After all, no one apologizes to the chair for touching its leg? Or in front of a cup that dropped it (or even broke it)? Things can be damaged and broken, and the responsibility for their damage, if it comes, is before their owner (i.e., the subject).

And when you allow yourself to be done with something that is unacceptable, you turn yourself into an object, a thing, an object for use. And who is to blame for treating a thing as inanimate objects are treated?

The key tool in building boundaries is the word no. "No" is said to what is unacceptable, what a person will not do, what he will not get involved in. Or the other side of the same coin is the word "yes". "Yes, i want". "Yes, I will." "I stand on that and I cannot do otherwise." "Here the city will be founded, from here we will threaten the Swede." "It will be done." "I said".

But just to speak - only to shake the air. It is important to hold on to the stated positions, to turn word into deed. Change the object world with your subjectivity. This is what makes a person a subject.

Image
Image

Setting boundaries once and for all is unrealistic. Any new participant in communication will certainly look for where the borders go and test them for strength. That is why boundaries are not set “from the outside,” but can only be held “from within,” by the will and determination of a person. "I am like that." "This and this is important to me." "I said".

So I repeat once again: it is the responsibility of the person himself to keep his boundaries. Nobody will do it for us.

But to keep them, you need an inner strength, a pumped-up personality.

The dream of all infantiles is to get to a place where boundaries will be held by themselves, where no one will offend me, where it will become comfortable and safe in itself. But this is wrong and unhealthy! Biologists have found that in a too comfortable environment where all bacteria and viruses are destroyed, human immunity falls. Where there are no natural enemies, biological immunity weakens, and where the physical body is regularly tested for strength (naturally, with unlimited loads), the immunity is pumped and is ready to reflect a serious danger if it arises. The same is with "psychological immunity" - in an environment where everyone is too delicate, does not touch and does not affect others, the person becomes weak, pampered and unable to stand up for himself.

And psychological terminology is about how a person deals with their boundaries and with the behavior of others. "Open borders" - oh, come in, I am glad to everyone I meet and I am sure that no one can harm me, I am strong enough. "Closed borders" - "I am scared and depressed, I am weak, it seems to me that people are dangerous, so I will not let anyone near me (just in case)."

I am happy when, in the course of psychotherapy, the client learns to say “no” to me. This means that his "yes" will now be more weighty. It is much safer for me when I know that one can rely on a person's consent, that it is sincere (and not cowardly and lethargic, given only out of fear - that he will be abandoned, punished, scolded, deprived of communication, etc.)

Borders are a very convenient and pragmatic thing for all participants in communication. If a person knows how to say “no” and speaks it weightily, defending his will, this is really, seriously convenient for all participants in the communication. Yes, yes, and for the one who was told "no" - it is also convenient and safe. In this case, one will not be injured, and the other will not become a rapist (forcing the communication partner to do what is unacceptable for him).

That is, good boundaries are a safety feature. For all participants in the communication. Excessive complaisance provokes the worst. If the aggressor does not meet with resistance, then he moves deeper and deeper into the territory further and further. And all of us, the descendants of great apes, are also very aggressive - this is normal and correct (I will write about aggression later). So these are two balancing instruments of communication: aggression and boundaries. If both are worked out, then communication and interaction becomes effective and brings great pleasure to the participants.

When Marina Abramovich left the performance, people tried not to look her in the eye - they were ashamed of everything that they did to her. They treated her as an object, and she was the subject. It’s embarrassing, wrong, ugly. This traumatized not only the "victim" herself, but also the "rapists" - those who did this to her. And Marina showed with her artistic work that protecting the boundaries of the human personality is an important element in ensuring that everyone can remain human: both those who can offend and those who offend.

But the main, key responsibility for protecting one's own borders still rests with the person himself.

Recommended: