Chapter 4 -
Boundaries (Part 2)
Declaration of Independence
A boundary says, "I am separate and can learn to emotionally take
care of myself". Boundaries are psychological declarations of
independence. A boundary is also a dividing line between the boy's
world of the village and the adult world of the wilderness. By
boundary setting a man states he no longer needs a mother to watch
over him. He also states he no longer is afraid of not pleasing the
mother and is ready to suffer the separation of abandonment.
A
boundary needs two components to be healthy and initiatory. First
the man must be able to willingly separate emotionally and even risk
the end of a relationship. He must stop being a boy trying to keep a
comforting mother object, as in David's case. Or, as in James case,
he must keep from basing his actions on pleasing a mother object who
gives his life structure and direction. The test of a man's
readiness for boundary setting is his ability to risk, and then face
the consequences of his actions. Even though there is often no total
separation when a man sets boundaries, a man must be able to risk
it. As one of my clients put it, "I needed to be able to leave
before I could set boundaries."
The
second step in boundary setting is using the separation to move
toward one's inner life. The adolescent boy was separated during
initiation in order to face his ordeal. He was starting over and
leaving what he no longer needed behind. Separation is always for a
higher purpose. The litmus test of a healthy boundary is the insight
a man finds about himself in the midst of the pain. If separation
isn't for a higher purpose then the boundary is not a boundary but a
wall.
John
Gray portrays some of this idea in his book Men are From Mars And
Women Are From Venus. He talks in this book about men needing
their cave to retreat to, especially after a long day in the
workplace. Men need time alone to unwind and make the transition to
home and family. Men sometimes read the paper or watch the news or
putter in the basement. John Gray makes the point that women often
see this behavior as a man walling himself off from the
relationship. However, Gray sees the cave as a healthy place, a
boundaried place, a final frontier. If a woman will give a man this
space, and he has healthy boundaries, the man will return to the
woman, after a time, ready for relationship and intimacy.
Perhaps
men need these spaces and intervals because of a hardwired
initiatory pattern. This withdrawal may be an unconscious movement
toward an initiatory space of aloneness and personal search. Many in
the women's movement complain that men separate too easily. They
don't necessarily buy the cave idea. They believe that the real
problem for men is joining and relating. They are skeptical of talk
of boundary setting. In some ways this is a restatement of the old
complaint about men not being able to commit. Many feminists feel
there is an overemphasis on personal independence in society and in
the men's movement. They are understandably wary of the rugged
individualist, the man as cowboy, and the competitive society that
evolves from this model. This is why they emphasize relatedness and
the return to the mother, and to the feminine as a fount of
relatedness.
I do
believe that men are taught to build walls as a way of seeming
independent. Men are taught to build walls instead of boundaries as
part of being manly. This teaching is toxic to men as well as women.
This wall building is a pseudo-independent construction with no real
separation and no real hope of joining in a healthy relationship
later. The walls become another obstacle to a man's inner life.
However, returning to the mother is too dangerous for a man at this
stage in his psychic life, too fraught with land mines and ambushes.
Moving toward the world of men is a healthier, safer answer.
Women
should have no fear of healthy boundaries. A separated man will also
be a man who can relate from his inner life. An initiated woman will
easily recognize healthy boundaries, and respect a man who sets
them. However, women have the right to be critical of walls. For
this is often the only kind of boundary they experience from men.
Let me explain.
Walls
A wall is a pseudo-separation where a man withdraws more deeply
into his defenses, usually numbness and addiction. Most men, as I
have mentioned, are taught to be walled off. They learn to act and
feel detached. This is the Boy Code. This is Frank Pittman's
masculine mystique. This is all in the patriarchal training manual.
Men must show no fears, much less abandonment fears, if they want to
be considered manly. In the face of emotional pain men are taught to
retreat behind walls.
This
kind of separation neither separates a boy from a mother nor allows
him to find a separate adulthood. In fact, the boy becomes trapped
behind the walls of the village with the very mother he must
separate from. Walls are purely protective. They insulate from pain.
There is no higher purpose. There is no real separation. There is no
growth. Walled off men never come out from their cave.
It is
not a coincidence that the cowboy is the model of manhood in our
society. The Marlboro man has sold more cigarettes by far than any
other marketing icon. Cowboys are independent, have few loyalties or
connections, and can move on at any time. The best cowboy never
settles down. He seems separated. But for what purpose? The
stereotype is that he goes around selflessly righting wrongs, as a
modern knight errant. Closer to the truth is that he mostly smokes
and wanders through plains and saloons. These men are bunkered
behind their walls unknowingly afraid to take the next steps of
separation. Inside they feel safe. No person can hurt them. No woman
can get to them. They often retreat into an addiction to relieve any
pain they have. The dark mother complex has her in the grips of her
greatest weapon, unconsciousness.
Ed had
a drinking problem and denied it. He spent much of his free time in
bars picking up women who also had drinking problems. During the
week he would cruise the bars and find someone for the night.
However he would always have one woman he would see regularly on
week-ends. This woman, I told him, was home base. She would not know
about the others and would think he was dating her regularly. Every
year or so home base would change, usually after home base found out
about his weekday activities.
Ed was
incapable of being honest with any woman. He lied to cover his
actions. He lied to make himself look better. He was not even honest
with me about some of his abusive drunken behavior. One of the
telltale signs of walls is dishonesty. The truth becomes too
painful, too close to the ordeal. The truth is too much of a risk.
Ed seemed detached and separated from a mother object. He could
easily leave any person he was close to. He did leave whenever a
woman failed to meet his needs. He seemed a modern cowboy, smoking
and wandering.
Ed was
actually overconnected to a mother object, be it alcohol or a
woman's body or home base. He was neither detached nor separated.
Neither was he free to find any meaning in his life beyond the next
pleasurable moment. He was miserable behind his walls. But you
wouldn't know it if you saw him at a bar. He was "the man".
A man
who builds walls is not open to any relationship that calls for the
pain of honesty and compromise. Neither is he open to the pain of
the ordeal where he must face his aloneness to find his direction.
Like all uninitiated men he is caught up in getting his own needs
met. Like most uninitiated men he is obsessed only with how he can
be loved and pleasured.
John
Lee in his book, The Flying Boy, talked of his own experience
in battling with his walls: "I was always leaving, flying away from
women, jobs, commitments and myself. No matter who the woman was, I
was as good as gone the moment we made love. It was at that moment
that I always touched something taboo- perhaps my mother, perhaps my
pain- and I would have to fly away. The woman with me might think
our relationship wonderful. Yet I worried and waited for the most
appropriate moment to take flight. If I didn't fly away I ran them
off. Either way I knew I couldn't be with them."
Boundary as Betrayal
Unfortunately, loved ones will often see a healthy boundary as a
typical male wall. Uninitiated partners will not understand. They
will see the boundary setting as withdrawal or control. An
uninitiated partner will often see boundary setting as a betrayal.
Separation for a man in our culture is invariably misunderstood.
This misunderstanding is most painful when it involves an
uninitiated partner.
Initiation in our modern culture usually means disappointing those
who love us. Setting boundaries for a man regularly brings him face
to face with being called selfish by loved ones. Sometimes it just
means looking at the fear and sadness in a loved one's eyes. Most of
the time it involves facing one's guilt.
Men who
set boundaries find themselves having to disagree with their female
partners about what constitutes love. There is an assumption in
heterosexual society that women know much more about relationships
than men do. Love and relationship is considered the domain of the
woman. Women are assumed to be the authorities in the field. As
Bernie Zilbergeld says, "Today's man is caught in a very peculiar
position because the definition of love has become feminized."
Separation, like having caves, is not the usual part of the female
way of relating. So separation becomes fearful and foreboding for
women as much as men. Some feminists don't help this situation by
overemphasizing heterosexual relatedness as the panacea for all men.
Unfortunately, we live in a modern, uninitiated society where women
are just as much in the dark about a full heterosexual relationship
as men are. Women are as much a victim of the patriarchy as men. And
the Empress has as few clothes as the Emperor. Yet, in our society,
women tend to write the agenda for relationship, and men rarely
question the agenda items. Male boundary setting is rarely part of
that agenda.
The
healthy male mode of relating is not understood. I have experienced
many responses by uninitiated partners to boundary setting. With one
man an uninitiated partner responds that he only sets boundaries for
her, instead of for his friends or family. Other partners react by
calling him "selfish" or "irresponsible". Another calls him "cold".
A man
will usually find himself criticized in one way or another for
boundary setting. An uninitiated partner might also withdraw
emotionally, including sexually, as a response to boundary setting.
This is usually the greatest test of a man's abandonment fears. Sex
to an uninitiated man is often his only connection to anyone. At
this point of conflict any man will be greatly tempted to withdraw
the boundary. If he has gone this far he will be starting to come
alive. Yet he will feel many other feelings, too. He will be
sensitive enough to feel badly about displeasing so many people,
including spouse, extended family. His guilt will tempt him to give
up on his need to separate. His uncertainty, without elders around,
will cause him to waver. His sense of loyalty, as protector, will
kick in. He may then go back.
Going
back does not have to mean defeat. It is often part of the process.
The important thing is that a man has tasted, just a little, the
sense of manhood from the inside out. This cycle often happens
several times before a man will make his boundaries firm enough to
go the next steps of initiation.
The Warrior
One of the archetypes that I bring up in counseling when talking
of boundaries is the warrior archetype. Robert Moore and Douglas
Gillette write about this archetype extensively in their book,
King, Warrior, Magician, Lover. The warrior archetype in every
man gives great guidance if a man can access him. For the warrior
teaches a lot about boundaries and boundary setting. I have found
that men who can get in touch with this archetypal energy learn the
strength and wisdom they need to set boundaries. They can then
relate to their hardwired knowledge in a new way. The warrior is one
archetype a man understands most easily.
Unfortunately, the idea of a healthy warrior has been just about
lost. The idea of warrior that we have in the modern West has become
synonymous with destructive aggression and organized violence. A
warrior is someone who wages war. In the best case, he uses violence
for the higher moral purpose of his society. In the worst case, he
uses violence for the less than noble political and personal
ambitions of the mercenary. Whenever warrior energy is brought up in
the context of the men's movement there is a negative reaction. For
men are seen as primarily violent and the cause of most of the
violence in our society. Women, especially, are afraid of warrior
energy. As Moore and Gillette mention, "Women especially are
uncomfortable with it, because they have often been the most direct
victim of it in its shadow form."
Warriors today have a bad name because of the moral ambiguity of
war, today, as well as the degeneration of the moral code of a
warrior. Warrior energy also has a bad connotation because it is the
manipulation of warrior energy by the leaders in our society that
cause men to sacrifice themselves, and their own true feelings, for
someone else's mission. However, the strength of the warrior, given
the proper values and code, is necessary for every man to cultivate
within himself. Healthy warrior energy is an extremely valuable and
effective energy to connect with. In the context of boundary setting
it is the warrior who guards the boundaries. In every man it is
warrior energy that sets the boundaries and cleaves to them in the
face of any opposition. It is the warrior who then guards the
integrity of the initiatory journey.
One of
the paradigms of the warrior that comes from the East can give us
insight into what healthy warrior energy is all about. The Samurai
of Japan had a code called bushido that laid out the philosophy and
behavior of a warrior. Much in that philosophy can give men insight
regarding healthy boundary setting.
The
primary goal of the ideal samurai was to protect his lord and all
that the lord symbolized. He would lay down his life instantly if
his Lord commanded. He had little need or desire to focus attention
on himself. He also had no desire to show his prowess by overcoming
or intimidating someone not a threat to his lord. He was to protect
his lord and the ethic his lord embodied with the least force
necessary. It was actually a defeat for him if he had to use his
sword. He should be able to understand any dangerous situations far
ahead of time and defuse the danger before violence was needed. A
good samurai needed only to show his sword at the right time and
opposition would dissolve.
A
samurai was not interested in personal revenge nor personal honor
outside his duty. He learned to sacrifice his ego to a higher cause,
represented by the values of his lord and his own ethic of bushido.
There was an ethic here whose purpose was to cure the natural
egotism we all have. A samurai was only justified in disobeying his
lord when his lord no longer followed a royal ethic.
Much of
the great literature of Japan centers around the ronin, the samurai
who had no lord. Because of the social degeneration and chaos of the
time many samurai were downsized. Many of the best had to be let go
because their lord lost his land or his life. Many of the great
Japanese stories revolve around the moral choices that samurai made
when they were tempted to use their impressive skills for baser
purposes. Their greatest literature explored which samurai could
keep to bushido and a higher calling and which samurai merely served
their own ego.
One of
the greatest movies of modern Japan, The Seven Samurai, tells the
story of a chaotic time in Japanese history when there were many
ronin , as well as outlaws, wandering the countryside. This was a
time when greed and opportunism, enabled by widespread violence, was
rampant. The victims were always the poor farming peasant,
unschooled in self defense or the martial arts, who toiled to make a
subsistence living. Outlaws would steal any surplus, leaving the
peasant just enough to survive and plant for the next year. Then the
cycle would repeat.
This
story tells how an extremely poor village sends out "recruiters" to
try to find samurais hungry enough to work for a pittance of rice.
One poor but extremely able samurai, who represents the highest
goals of bushido, has compassion for the poor peasants and agrees to
try to protect the village against a large gang of over 40 outlaws
and ronin. In making his decision he is prepared to die for the
higher values of justice and compassion because of his quiet
adherence to a life of bushido.
The
odds are very much against him. In order to accomplish his task he
goes out to recruit other samurai with similar ideals or purpose. He
finds four other skilled samurai, a samurai impostor, and a young
samurai wannabe. Their stories show different motivations for
service, though none as pure as the leader. All in their own way
show compassion for the peasants, without being maudlin. They strive
only to protect the village. On the way they encounter a number of
other samurai who are more interested in money and status and refuse
the offer of the leader.
The
leader needs many more samurai but ends up with seven, counting
himself. In the end the village is saved at the cost of most of the
seven. There is no reward. They had been paid the agreed upon wage
of daily rice. The leader moves on. The American movie, The
Magnificent Seven, is based on this Japanese classic. Today, there
may be some emerging masculine consciousness of this healthy warrior
energy as seen in this movie, as well as others such as Kung Fu, The
Karate Kid, and a movie I will be talking much more about, Star
Wars.
The Warrior Within
Just as with an ethical samurai, boundary setting using
warrior energy is not aggressively destructive. It should be
compassionate and primarily protective. It doesn't get offensive
just to prove a point or win an argument. Neither does it get
destructively angry as a way of hurt or revenge. It is not used to
prove a man is right. It is used to help him find his right way.
Warrior
energy is used to protect the value and the purpose of a man's life.
It is first used in the intiatory process to separate from the world
of the mother. As such warrior energy is motivating, positively
aggressive. It is the antidote to the passivity and unconsciousness
brought on by the mother complex. Warrior energy is then used to
protect the King, the emerging mature man. Warrior energy protects
and enables the right mission by protecting the initiatory process.
This energy keeps a man focused on the goal of his personal search
for identity and purpose, the true source of his manhood.
As
such, Warrior energy can be seen as impersonal, at times. This is
because boundaries emphasize the personal, private part of a
relationship, instead of the relatedness. Healthy Warrior energy
also speaks to purposes beyond the man's personal relationships,
what Moore and Gillette call transpersonal goals. This is not to
negate relationships but to put them in context. As Moore and
Gillette say, speaking of Warrior energy, "it makes all personal
relationships relative, that is, it makes them less central than the
transpersonal commitment." The King represents this transpersonal
nature in all men.
All
healthy Warriors must be obedient to a King, to the values inherent
in identity. Men alos have to say no before they can say yes. Men
have to set boundaries and experience initiation before they can
truly carry on a healthy relationship. Wives, lovers, and friends
are really looking for this type of initiated man. They are looking
for the King in each man. They need not be afraid of a man with this
seasoned Warrior energy. For the Warrior protects the King.
A man
will need boundary setting at each stage of his growth. Most of
these examples talk of boundary setting from a mother object. Yet a
man will also need to set boundaries in separating from all that the
father represents. Mysteriously he will also need boundaries to
ultimately separate from the elder and all he represents. As such,
boundary setting triggers each next step in a man's initiatory
process. Boundaries ultimately provide the psychological space for a
man to get in touch with his own sense of self. The Warrior within
helps to define and protect a sacred space. As a man separates from
the village he moves closer to the sacred space where he will find
what he needs.
Larry Pesavento and MENSIGHT ask you to
submit suggestions and discuss your opinions on our
Men's Issues Forum.
Larry Pesavento ©2004
