Setting Boundary Strategies In Families

Practical Ways of Setting Boundaries

Today's Learning Moment 02-06-23 – Setting Boundary Strategies In Families 

Written by and for people with Lived Experience - Port Alberni Community Action Team - Families Helping Families

This article is a follow-up to the article on boundaries and enablement written by Ron Merk. An excellent article by the way, explaining the importance of boundaries and the differences between enabling and setting boundaries when supporting a loved one who is struggling with substance use.

During my career, I had the honour of creating and facilitating various topic/discussion groups in our day treatment program which I ran for a couple of years while working at Mental Health and Substance Use at Interior Health. I found that the most important groups included understanding boundaries along with communication styles. The response to this series was overwhelming with people commenting about their learning experience and their common experiences in context with the information presented. I thought that I might share highlights of that information here.

As Ron had stated, boundaries are meant to establish a safe and stable structure. This structure has two purposes. First to protect the person within the established boundary and second to assist the person to filter thoughts and feelings about others and the world around them. They help us to walk where we can and recognize where we can’t walk.

Some First Nations people describe boundaries as the fence that keeps the wolves out and those within safe.

Here’s how I would frame boundaries. First, we would study a spectrum from having no boundaries at all to having very rigid boundaries and everything in between. All of us fall somewhere along this line. The challenge is to find the spot that best works for you and those needing defined boundaries in your life.

So, no boundaries refer to someone who does not or is not able to establish any kind of “fence” for the protection of self or to prevent wandering beyond safety. We may often refer to this person as someone who is a “doormat” ( a rather judgemental term and all too common ). Here we could say that no could mean maybe or yes. There are no clear messages and thoughts can be easily swayed this way or that.

Weak boundaries are similar to no boundaries except that there is a fence established. The issue is that the fence has many holes in it or isn’t very high. Sometimes no means no but comes out as maybe or yes. The person can identify the places to walk but may stray beyond the fence. The person may think they are being flexible but may go too far. The fence is there, although weak and easily bypassed. Unfortunately, the message can be easily misunderstood by those you’re trying to set boundaries with.

I am going to jump over Clear boundaries for a moment to look at Rigid boundaries.  Rigid boundaries include not just a fence but a brick wall. They are usually impenetrable and issues are non-negotiable. No definitely means no without any question. They definitely keep the wolf out and can often keep the person within safe. However, impenetrable fences also result in isolation and disconnection. We would often use the example of a broken heart. Someone with a broken heart might say “I will never ever love again!” or someone might also say “I will never allow my loved one in the house again!” These would be considered rigid boundaries. Now I’m not saying this is wrong, in fact, there is a time when we demonstrate a degree of each of these boundaries. Rigid boundaries could be quite necessary. “No, you can’t stay here tonight. You are a “drug addict” and I’ve drawn the line”. There is no question as to the message given though we can see how it is presented and predict the inevitable outcome.

Clear boundaries are exactly that. Clear, transparent, and understandable. The message is plain. Clear boundaries may be flexible and negotiable within an established structure. The fence is there. There are no holes in it but there are certain gates that can be opened. The person knows clearly where they stand within their boundaries as do others outside of those boundaries. “I get that you want to stay the night. I want you to be safe. However, I am afraid that you will use drugs in the house. I need you to follow the rules that we agreed upon and understand if you don’t, that you cannot stay here”.

Now how do we express those boundaries? I added communication styles to each of the boundaries on the spectrum.

I think one can understand the basic meaning behind these terms but I will describe them briefly.

Passive language reflects no boundaries. The message given is unclear and usually misunderstood. The person using passive communication is usually in a lose/win situation. They will often succumb to aggression and are often on the defensive. They will likely experience increased anxiety and depression as needs are not usually met.

Passive Aggressive communication is at best inconsistent. A person may give in or succumb, and then react with aggressiveness and anger without obvious provocation. Again the person will likely experience a heightened sense of anxiety and depression. As with no boundaries, a sense of safety is not very strong, if it exists at all. Sometimes the person might win temporarily but typically this also ends up as a lose/win situation.

Again, I am skipping to Aggressive language. At best it is usually expressed with a tense tone and behaviour. The language can be intrusive and blaming. Overall, tone, behaviour and language can be perceived as threatening, putting the other person on the defensive most of the time. The aggressive person may get what they want but at the other person’s cost. It is typically I win, they lose situation.

Assertive language usually accomplishes the task. The non-verbal and verbal communication invites the other person to listen and discuss rather than fight or give up.  Assertive language creates a win/win situation for both people. Again, the language is clear, understandable and consistent. Outcomes are realistic and reachable.

Something I learned from listening to others and processing this information for myself is that these boundaries can be interchangeable. All of them have a purpose, depending on a given situation. Sometimes we need to be somewhat passive, and other times aggressive. I’m still not sure how passive-aggressive is functional but we know that assertive communication provides clear boundaries and helps us to remain safe while providing a safe environment for others as well.

So overall this is basically scratching the surface. I hope it expands on the previous article by Ron Merk regarding boundaries and demonstrates a little further how we manage our boundaries. Perhaps by studying boundaries and communication styles we can better understand what enabling actually is and what it isn’t.

Author: Ben Goermer  – Ben is a retired counsellor and a person with lived experience. He advocates for people with substance or mental illness.

Note: We may use words or phrases in our articles that are not first person, or the latest best-in-practice language. Sometimes we will use older, non-informed jargon. to clarify and inform people who are learning the new non-stigmatizing language. (linking old language usage to new terms) You can tell when you run into these old or non-inclusive words or phrases. They will be in quotation marks - eg old word “addiction” – When we introduce new inclusive language, words or phrases, they will be in Parenthesis - eg (people with substance disorders).

Families Helping Families is an initiative of the Port Alberni Community Action Team. We regularly send out "Learning Moment" articles to help folks understand substance illness. Knowledge is vital in understanding the disorder of our family members. You may copy, distribute or share our articles as long as you retain the attribution. Add yourself to our distribution list by dropping us a note at - albernihelp@gmail.com