Sometimes we do not notice our boundaries at all, and sometimes, on the contrary, we react painfully to the slightest violation of them. Why is this happening? And what is included in our personal space?
There is a feeling that in our society there is a problem of borders. We are not very accustomed to feel and protect them. Why do you think we still have difficulties with this?
Sofia Nartova-Bochaver: Indeed, our culture of borders is still rather weak. There are good reasons for this. First of all, historical. I would say state traditions. We are a collectivist country, the concept of catholicity has always been very important for Russia. Russians, Russians have always shared their living space with some other people.
Generally speaking, they never had their own private place where they would be alone with themselves. Individual readiness for neighborhood with the other was strengthened by the state structure. Since we lived in a closed state, the external borders were rigid, while the internal ones were absolutely transparent. This led to very powerful control by social structures.
Even such deeply personal decisions, such as, for example, to get a divorce or not to get a divorce, had to be discussed and sanctioned from above.
This powerful intrusion into personal life has made us completely insensitive to the boundaries that we set ourselves and arbitrarily. Now the situation has changed. On the one hand, globalization: we all travel and observe other cultures. On the other hand, private property appeared. Therefore, the issue of borders has become very relevant. But there is no culture, no means of protecting the borders, they sometimes remain a little undeveloped, infantile or overly selfish.
You often use such a concept as individual sovereignty, which immediately reminds you of state sovereignty. What are you putting into it?
As for the parallel between the state and the individual, it is perfectly appropriate. Both tension between people and conflicts between states arise for the same reasons. Both the state and the people share different resources. It could be territory or energy. And for people it is information, love, affection, recognition, fame … We constantly share all this, so we need to set boundaries.
But the word «sovereignty» means not just separateness, it also means self-governance. We do not just put a fence around our own garden, but we also have to plant something in this garden. And what is inside, we must master, inhabit, personalize. Therefore, sovereignty is independence, autonomy, self-sufficiency, and at the same time it is also self-regulation, fullness, content.
Because when we talk about boundaries, we always mean that we separate something from something. We cannot separate emptiness from emptiness.
What are the main components of sovereignty?
I would like to turn here to William James, the founder of pragmatism in psychology, who said that, in a broad sense, a person’s personality is the sum total of everything that he can call his own. Not only his physical or mental qualities, but also his clothes, house, wife, children, ancestors, friends, reputation and labors, his estates, horses, yachts, capitals.
People really identify themselves, associate with what they own. And this is an important point.
Because, depending on the structure of the personality, these parts of the environment can be completely different.
There is a person who completely identifies himself with his idea. Therefore, values are also part of the personal space, which is strengthened due to sovereignty. We can take our own body there, of course. There are people for whom their own physicality is super value. Touching, uncomfortable posture, violation of physiological habits — all this is very critical for them. They will fight to prevent this from happening.
Another interesting component is time. It is clear that we are all temporary, ephemeral beings. Whatever we think or feel, it always happens in some time and space, without it we do not exist. We can easily disrupt another person’s being if we force him to live in a way other than his. Moreover, we are constantly using queue resources again.
In a broad sense, boundaries are rules. Rules may be spoken, verbalized, or implied. It seems to us that everyone else thinks the same way, feels the same way. We are surprised when we suddenly find out that this is not the case. But, in general, people are not all the same person.
Do you think there is a difference in the sense of sovereignty, in the sense of boundaries between men and women?
Undoubtedly. Speaking generally about men and women, we have our favorite parts of personal space. And what catches the eye in the first place is backed up by a large amount of research: men control the territory, value and love real estate. And women have more attachment to «movables». How do women define a car? Very feminine, I think: my car is my big bag, it’s a piece of my house.
But not for a man. He has completely different associations: this is property, a message about my power and strength. It really is. Funny, German psychologists once showed that the higher the owner’s self-esteem, the smaller the engine size in his car.
Men are more conservative when it comes to regimen habits
Women are more flexible creatures, so we, on the one hand, change regime habits more flexibly, and, on the other hand, we are not so painfully offended if something encourages them to change. It’s harder for men. Therefore, this must be taken into account. If this feature is recognized, then it can be controlled.
How to respond to situations when we feel that our boundaries have been violated? For example, at work or in the family, we feel that someone invades our space, disregards us, thinks out our habits and tastes for us, or imposes something.
An absolutely healthy reaction is to give feedback. This is an honest response. If we “swallow” what worries us and do not give feedback, then we are not behaving very honestly, thereby encouraging this wrong behavior. The interlocutor may not guess that we do not like it.
In general, border protection measures can be direct or indirect. And here it all depends on the personal complexity of the interlocutor. If very small children or people who are simple, infantile communicate with each other, then for them the most effective answer will probably be a direct answer, mirroring. You parked your car in my parking lot — yeah, so next time I’ll park mine in yours. Technically it helps.
But if you solve strategic problems and the possibility of promising communication with this person, this, of course, is not very effective.
Here it is useful to use indirect methods of defense: hints, designations, irony, demonstration of one’s disagreement. But not in the language in which our space was violated, but verbally, in another sphere, through removals, through ignoring contacts.
We must not forget that boundaries not only separate our being from others, they also protect other people from us. And for a mature person, this is very important.
When Ortega y Gasset wrote about mass consciousness and about people whom he called «mass people» in contrast to aristocrats, he noted that the aristocrat was accustomed to consider others, not to cause inconvenience to others, and rather to neglect his own comfort in some individual cases. Because strength does not require proof, and a mature person can neglect even a significant inconvenience for himself — his self-esteem will not collapse from this.
But if a person painfully defends his boundaries, then for us psychologists, this is also a sign of the fragility of these boundaries. Such people are more likely to become clients of a psychotherapist, and psychotherapy can really help them. Sometimes what we think of as an implementation is actually something else entirely. And sometimes you can even ignore it. When we talk about defining our boundaries, it is always a matter of the ability to express our “I want”, “I need”, “I want” and reinforce this ability with the skills of a culture of self-control.
The interview was recorded for the joint project of Psychologies magazine and radio «Culture» «Status: in a relationship.»