'Healthy' Boundaries & 'Defensiveness'

What're the Differences and Crossovers?

Recently, a client described the texture, or somatic experience, of their evolving boundaries as “like flubber” 🟢

This is a great reflection to lead into a topic I’ve been mentally parsing for many months: the ven diagram of interdependent boundaries and codependent/hyper-independent defensiveness.

Employing healthy boundaries and being ~overly~ defensive clearly have (at least) one thing in common- there is a ‘defense’ between oneself and the outside world 🚫

Cue that hilarious “This is my no-no square video” 🤣 —————> 👀

Boundaries are phenomenal, certainly.

Boundaries give an individual, or a group, space to experience the energy inside the boundary with less/no influence from energy outside the boundary.

Many motivations fuel boundaries, including desires for safety, peace, freed time & space, autonomy, structure, and clarity 🕊️

One could argue that defensiveness- being overly defensive- is fueled by similar core motivations as healthy boundaries. What, then, are the differences between healthy boundaries and being overly defensive? 🤔

Imagine an individual or group has set a boundary and given the ‘in-group’ space separate from the ‘out-group.’* The ‘in-group’ can now self-reflect, process, and transmute whatever is arising for them in order to embody the intention of setting the boundary in the first place (sense of safety, peace, etc.). Perhaps the embodiment turns out differently from the intention, it almost certainly will to some degree; the point is that the in-group now feels clear, both with itself and with the out-group.

This process completes when the in-group has released any charge held in relationship with self and any charge held concerning the outside group. This process might come in waves, meaning the charge will dissipate for some time once transmuted, might re-emerge, and can be discharged again. Over time, riding this wave can become easier and more efficient, until the particular wave is, perhaps, transcended 🌊

Now, imagine an individual or group has set a boundary, giving themselves space from the out-group. And imagine that the in-group does not take absolute personal responsibility for themselves and their relationship with the out-group. This will mean that an illusion of the out-group continues to play a role in the in-group’s space, which will perpetuate the dissonance that the in-group sought to resolve by setting the boundary in the first place. Essentially, under these circumstances, the in-group continues to play victim (or martyr, or some other shadow aspect) to the out-group despite the boundary they have set.

Let’s acknowledge that setting a boundary is only the beginning of the work. To actualize the intention for setting the boundary, the boundary with the out-group itself must be maintained. Perhaps more importantly, the in-group must acknowledge the parts of themselves that continue to feel triggered by the out-group and assume responsibility for them.

These parts might emerge as mental and emotional patterns that place blame on the out-group for the in-group’s circumstances, or patterns in which the in-group assumes responsibility for the out-group’s circumstances. These are examples of continuing codependency through a boundary. Hyper-independency might emerge as the in-group perceiving itself as intrinsically better than the out-group.

The gift of a boundary in a relationship is the opportunity to create a new, interdependent, authentic harmony between the poles. However, this process will be inhibited to the degree that codependency and/or hyper-independency lingers in any group/individual. Self-awareness and absolute personal responsibility for one’s experience are key.

So, circling back…

What is the difference between a healthy boundary and one that is overly defensive ❓

The overly defensive boundary still has codependency and/or hyper-independency to sift and winnow through- there is still some charge between the in-group and the out-group, at least from the in-group’s perspective ⚡️

A healthy boundary is set by an in-group who has- or is in the committed process of- released all charge with the out-group via assuming complete personal responsibility for their experience 🧘🏼‍♀️

Hint: If you’re still making yourself or others intrinsically ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘less than’ then you are not assuming complete responsibility for yourself. You are, in effect, allowing others or the illusion of others in your mind to control part, or all, of your experience.

So! As far as comparing boundaries to flubber… 🟢

Three qualities stood out to me as my client compared their newly effective boundaries to flubber- adaptability, elasticity, and durability.

Adaptability- the ability to change (upgrade), autonomously, in relation to those the boundaries are set with. Not fixed in one way of being.

Elasticity- the ability to receive the behavior of those the boundaries are set with without letting it stick to self, or linger. Allowing others’ ways of being to bounce off once received. Not taking others’ behavior personally.

Durability- the ability to remain centered in self. Not allowing others’ ways of being to permeate one’s sense of self.

This client differentiated their flubber boundaries as a very different internal experience from more rigid boundaries and from boundaries that interpreted others’ behavior in a very personal way. They described feeling freer, centered in self, and in control of self while released of responsibility for others 👏🏻

Healthy boundaries, healthy defenses = personal responsibility for one’s experience and not making others the problem = freeeeeedoooommmm🤸🏻‍♀️🙌🏻

*Please note that the ‘in-group’ in this conceptualization is always the self or a group the self belongs to. When reflecting on these ideas as applied to you, you are always the (or in the) in-group!