Defining boundaries

Setting the limit between the acceptable and the frowned-upon is already a difficult task when exercised on your children: there are so many variables in the context of an action (their age, the social or family setting, the mood and tone of the response) and the divide can be so thin that you only get acceptable results with A LOT of repetition. Besides, the boundary keeps moving as they age, because you would not allow a 14-year old the same things as to a 4-year old and vice versa. The good thing of this problem is that, as a parent, you have the authority. It is not that authority would enable you to give out random directions (a smart kid will quickly point out the inconsistencies and the authority would be significantly undermined) but as long as the rules are credible and consistent they do not pose much of a problem. However, the situation is different with your partner.

It has not always been like that, but in the most modern western societies both members of a couple are understood as equal. In the past and even in many present societies, husbands have authority over their wives, so that most things are not up for debate and the only acceptable option is the one vetted by the husband and, if the wife wants to have a say she would have to trick him into believing that it was originally his own idea. But even in the most egalitarian societies, where both partners are equal and, in principle, free to speak their mind, setting boundaries can be problematic at time.

Photo: arbyreed

In an ideal case, both partners should have world views which are mostly aligned, so that they do not require any debate. However, there are situations where they are bound to have different opinions and negotiating these differences is sometimes much harder than the simple "Divide and choose": the emotional connection with your partner would naturally "soften" your views and make you ready to move the boundary at your partners request, but that would mean renouncing (at least partially) your principles. For instance, if you consider that 22 C is an adequate thermostat setting but your partner feels cold, you would tend to accept moving the boundary and, eventually pay higher heating costs for the sake of a peaceful cohabitation. There is a lot of room for discussion about how much each partner should yield and the psychological meaning of these renunciations, but that is not my point together. Today I want to discuss what happens when these agreements start to affect third parties.

It is obvious that one does not use the same code of conduct at home, with people who are reasonably aware of rules that have been mostly explicitly stated, as in public, where the rules have a much more implicit definition and can even vary from group to group (you would not have the same behavior at church as in a dance club, both of which have different norms, equally valid in their own settings). But what happens when you receive a visitor in your home? One might argue that, as a host, your first responsibility is to accommodate to the welfare of your guests, so you should renounce your standards to adapt to your guest's. On the other hand, it is your house that we are talking about, and if you cannot be comfortable at home, what is left to you? There is, in principle, no limit to how far your "private" customs have drifted apart from the general rules, so if you go on with your family settings in the presence of a guest, they might be understandably shocked.

I mention this today, because today at lunch we had a discussion that came to some friction between Karen and Jason. After quite a long time of pleasant exchanges, conversation veered into a subject which is emotionally charged for  Karen. She, being a very competent writer and quite expressive in person too, started to argue providing an extremely vivid (and somewhat crude) representation of an attitude that she despised. We have been together for more than twenty years now, so I have seen this kind of presentations before and, although I find them a bit disturbing, I have learnt to put up with them because they are a way for Karen to channel her fiery nature and vert some steam. Jason, on the other hand, being quite sensitive himself and not accustomed to being part of conversations in this tone, felt overwhelmed by the depiction and was so disturbed that, when the acting extended over ten seconds, he ended up exploding with "OK, OK, I get it! What is your point?". Karen was upset by the comment, stopped immediately and did not speak for a while. Caught between two positions that I understood equally, felt bad for both and tried to explain to Karen that Jason was not used to the vivid depictions that she presented sometimes, but it was not meant to be mean to her. Then I thought if I had been too lenient with her, allowing her to give free rein to her expressive needs without every mentioning that it could be inappropriate anywhere except in our closest circles.

Luckily, Karen is mature enough to handle this and it did not take long before she was back to her normal self. We have not discussed the matter (and we probably never will), but I hope this has been a learning opportunity for her. I have also learnt that I should not put up with anything just because it is bearable by me, I would be harming her if I do. Have a nice evening!