When Boundaries Become Escape: Accountability and the Illusion of Peace
After recent interactions an old friend, but not so much a good one, nothing came to my mind more than Clarissa Pinkola Estes’ Women Who Run with the Wolves, which centers the “Wild Woman” archetype— a woman who is powerful, instinctual, and creative. Although the reason this book rang such a bell was not because of the relation of female character, but rather, the lack thereof. And moreover, as a woman (and let’s not leave out men), we sometimes use boundaries as ways to dictate our life, especially as a form of protection. But that leads me to this question: Are women (again, not just women) really letting their life be dictated through their self proclaimed boundaries instead of facing the harsh realities of their decisions. We often celebrate boundaries as markers of growth, but rarely as what they protect, or the comfort of not having to look closely at what we’ve allowed. This essay explores just that, utilizing real evidence, and my findings and relations to this often overlooked agenda.
In a lot of cases, self-set boundaries are a way to practice and support our own peace. And most times, it does feel necessary if not needed in order to fully grow as humans. What does a healthy boundary actually require of us though? This is when ethics and morals come in— perhaps questioning whether or not this is an act of avoidance instead of grounding it in your own peace. Maybe there has already been growth in this area of life, and in that case, there isn’t as much justification as to why your attention and action is needed. Although sometimes, there is a gap between the internal work you must do in order to indulge in the shield that ‘boundary’ is being used as.
There is also the concept of peace and discomfort. Whether or not your peace depends on this avoidance is most likely always fragile, and in doing so it must constantly be defended. This could look like a short-stopped conversation, one where understanding and accountability are attempted to be achieved by one party, but instead, the other party feels the need to protect their peace, constantly and insistantly, in a matter both parties know is wrong. One’s standard of ethics and morals especially gets revealed here. It becomes obvious that this is not an act of protecting peace, but avoiding discomfort. Looking at it in the form of a conflict— where one person was sexually assaulted by one of her best friend’s boyfriend. Guilt, tension, and lots of emotional unease from the best friend’s perspective while still reclaiming her peace in it through setting a firm boundary and denying any participation, is all still evidence of awareness, but a choice in comfort rather than settling the situation in discomfort, and reclaiming peace in knowing you took responsibility for your role in it. And this doesn’t become a matter of he said she said, because let’s say that the best friend has been aware of her boyfriends aggressive and sexual tendencies previously, which is all relevant here. Then, we can assume that through this minimization of the situation, that the best friend does not want to reinterpret it as her own reality, nor have her friend’s back.
This can also be cross-examined with the subject of accountability, because a boundary that avoids accountability in measures that are morally unjust, only protects the self-image, but not the self. Continuing with the previous example, a common response from someone in denial and unacknowledging of the circumstances of the situation will often look like a messy manipulation— where she will deflect the entire situation as being her friend’s fault for centering the assault around her, as if it has nothing to do with her. When in reality, she was a part of an awful and unwanted situation, and speaking from previous experiences and dangerous patterns, this was the reality of it. There is no reframing of the narrative in order to boundary your own peace. The lack of accountability, the distance without reckoning breaks ethical boundary too, as it stems from complete awareness and understanding of its severity.
Sometimes though, you really must let people suffer it seems. In fact, interference is not always helpful for the immature or close-minded, but the thing that could delay learning or growth. This is particularly true in the case of trusting someone- as most mistakes don’t happen by accident, at least not twice. They choose. This is a choice of ignoring truth, repeated patterns, and most of all, warnings. And mind you, this is most always at the expense of another person. While the immediate reaction might be to help this person and their lack of acknowledgement, it serves as a robbing of their own self growth. Perhaps they are not ready to face the hard truth, and perhaps they are not trusting enough of others to believe them, perhaps they need to experience it first hand to finally understand what is so wrong about that person or that action they keep pursuing. Either way, it is only revealing of maturity and self insecurities belonging to that person. Sometimes, experiencing the direct consequence is the only thing that can appeal to a person’s sense of being and choices. Where, instead of hiding behind confusion, knowing it is wrong, and still going forward with these decisions, they choose it out of comfort and not growth. Thinking this concept, letting someone suffer, or sit with their choices even after harm was proven, because it was indirect, is the only solution. The “Wild Woman” does not preserve herself through denial or distancy, but through instinctual commitment to truth— even when that truth disrupts discomfort. That, is boundary.
