The Web address of this
two-page article is
http://sfhelp.org/Rx/kin/boundaries.htm
Continued from p. 1...
Example
Let's take the example of your sister driving
a minor child to a school activity when the woman is drunk.
The family's first task is to get clear that there's a boundary violation,
agree on what it is, and on what it means to them.
That might sound like
"From what Jocelyn said, Mary (the adult sister) smelled of liquor,
was weaving all over the road, and ran a red light. We can't trust her to
drive Jocelyn again, for fear she'll have an accident."
The unspoken boundary here is "We family adults will not tolerate
other people putting young Jocel-yn at significant risk of injury."
The next step is for adults to to brainstorm their options, and agree on one.
They include ...
-
(a) saying nothing to Mary,
and not asking her to drive Jocelyn again; or (b) politely declining her offers
to do so. This is a (safe) first-order (superficial)
which avoids the real
problem;
-
confronting Mary indirectly
about "unsafe driving," and avoiding bringing up the scary
alcoholism subject;
-
talking to Mary's husband,
siblings, or
parents about her drinking and unsafe driving to discuss options
("someone has to do something!") A possible complication
is that her husband may be a wounded co-alcoholic
in
who will get
angry at and/or resent accusations about his wife - specially if he
and Mary have minor kids or grandkids;
-
parents plan a direct
confrontation (assertion) with Mary about her
to
(a) explain why they
won't allow young Jocelyn to drive with her again, (b) ask her to get
appropriate help, or (c) both.
Planning includes getting clear on (a) what each co-parent really
needs, (b) who will confront her, (c) picking an optimal time and place, (d) crafting an
effective, respectful assertion, and (e) brainstorming her probable
reactions ("defenses."), and how to respond to each of them.
An option to evaluate is whether to warn Mary - i.e. to
calmly describe specific consequences for violating the boundary: "If we
hear you're driving (anyone) after you've had too much to drink, we're going
to (take some meaningful action.)" This decision will depend partly on
whether her drunk driving has oc-curred before, and whether anyone has
confronted her about it.
An implicit part of this assertion-planning is co-parents being very clear about what
(a) they each need, (b) what Jocelyn needs, and (c) what Mary needs - and
who's responsible for meeting each need.
and
adults would
assume responsibility for "getting Mary to sober up," or
try to put that responsibility on her husband or parent.
Using
and
skills to plan the confrontation and handle Mary's
expected
resistances might yield something like this:
Co-parent: "Mary,
Jocelyn told us last Thursday that when you drove her to her dance class,
you smelled of liquor, weaved on the street, and drove through a red
light." (calm, factual description, vs. emotional generalizing like
"You drove really unsafely.")
Mary: "Why that's
just not true! Why would Jocelyn make up such a story?!"
If this kind of (defensive) response was compassionately expected,
the co-parent/s could (a) use genuine (vs. insincere) empathic listening
to validate what she said ...
"You feel Jocelyn didn't
tell us accurately what happened."
Note: empathic listening does
not mean you agree with the speaker!
...before
(b) asserting
their boundary and (c) perhaps related consequences:
"Mary, we feel you have
a serious drinking problem. We're not saying you're a bad or sick person -
and (not "but...") we can't trust Jocelyn is safe in driving with
you if you've been drinking. We want you to understand why we'll not ask
for or accept your driving help again."
Note several things: the parents ...
-
Didn't lecture or threaten
Mary, or name-call, or moralize about "responsible adult
behavior;"
-
Were clear, direct, and calm,
and didn't "beat around the bush" or come on like Attila the
Hun;
-
Were ready for Mary's expected denials, and knew what to do about
them (use empathic listening, and calmly re/assert);
-
Didn't get hooked into a spiraling
lose-lose ("You drove drunk!" <-> "No
I didn't!") argument, or allow Mary to change subjects; and
the parents...
-
Had a
("=/=") attitude, vs. pitying or blaming Mary
(disrespectful implication: "We're 1-up"), and they...
-
Avoided taking responsibility
for Mary's drinking decisions, "fixing" her," or intruding on
Mary's fam-ily ("We're morally forced to take legal action because
you're endangering your kids, and other drivers!") This is a
complex personal choice - people will have different opinions on what's
"right" here.
This simplistic example shows the theme of parents identifying, owning, and
responsibly asserting a shared boundary and consequence with a relative who violated it; using
awareness, respectful asser-tion and empathic listening skills. The
example assumes both parents are guided by their respective true Selves.
If this weren't true, their false selves would probably find ways to avoid,
postpone, or sabotage the intervention.
This illustration shows nothing about the primary problem: Mary's (probably)
being a wounded and ruled by a protective false self
trying valiantly to (a) self-medicate her relentless daily
by using toxic ethyl alcohol,
(b)
to herself and others that she's not
in pain and medicating, and (c) deny that she's
pretending.
This example also omits an essential step: parents co-operatively
assessing, ranking, and separately
resolving the concurrent (a) values and (b) loyalty
conflicts, and stressful (c) relationship triangles
that may add to the complexity of typical family boundary (and other) conflicts.
Recap
This article summarizes what interpersonal boundaries are, why they're
useful, and what simple and complex boundary violations
are in a typical multi-generational stepfamily. It then provides 16 options to select from in building an effective style of asserting
and enforcing personal, household, and family boundaries. The article closes
with an
example of some of these options in action.
This
article complements others focusing on family adults effectively resolving boundary conflicts between
ex mates,
stepsibs,
and stepparents and stepkids. The
details may differ, but the themes are the same.
+ + +
Pause, breathe, and reflect - why did you read this article? Did you
get what you needed? If not - what
you need? Who's answering these questions - your wise
or
<<
Previous page / Add to favorites
/ Print page
/ Email this article's address
>>
