Tariffs As Boundaries

Relationship issues may be the most often cited motivation for individuals seeking psychotherapy. They say, “I want to change how my spouse speaks to or treats me”. They are feeling unfulfilled in their relationship, depressed, anxious, or lonely, and fear their relationship is ending. They don’t want it to, but can’t continue with the way things are going. In short order, the real issue comes down to one very simple to understand concept – people treat us the way we allow them, the way we taught them to treat us.

The term “boundaries” is one of those that is an important and valid principle in psychology that has been diluted to the point of meaninglessness by its overuse and misuse. Simply put, a boundary is deciding what behaviors we will and will not accept from others. The first trick is to understand a boundary is as much about our behavior as it is the other person’s. The second is how to operationalize that to achieve the desired outcome. The third, and most important part is, both sides have to desire the continuation of the relationship.

With those three parts present, a firm, reasonable and healthy boundary placement and defense by one person will change the behavior of the other. Always. The change is immediate, but it may not be in the intended direction initially. Push-back is to common. Ultimately, how quickly it is successful is determined by how much the other side benefits from the continuation of the relationship.

Saying to your significant other, “When we have a conversation with a difference of opinion and volume escalates, or I’m being called names for my opinion, it is no longer a productive discussion, and I will no longer be participating”. This is a statement, delivered calmly. Then, you must, absolutely must, disengage. Period. Full stop.

Don’t hang around for more back-and-forth. You’ve set your boundary, and you are the one who must abide by it first. If you stand there and wait for the other person to agree, you’re not setting a boundary. you’re asking for permission. And that is how you’ve ended up where you are – asking for the other side to agree without abiding by that stance yourself.

When the other person approaches you and tries to re-engage, if the behavior is changed, reengage. The moment things escalate or behavior reverts, you don’t need to say a word. A look, or the holding up of a hand prior to walking away is sufficient to re-communicate that boundary. The other person will learn that their behavior, approach, or word-choice is theirs to control, but you are not.

That bears repeating, you are not under their control. That one factor, control, is what boundary violations are all about. People behave the way they do towards us because it works for them, it gets them what they want, produces the outcome they seek. A boundary is stating that will no longer work with you, and this is where the motivation for change comes into existence for them.

An adage that holds true is, those who most object to your boundaries are the ones who are the reason for the erection of boundaries, and will be the ones who seek to violate them the most.

The simple truth about boundary-setting and enforcement is, it is about you, what you allow, more than being about them or their behavior. Regardless of what they do or how they respond, the immediate benefit is yours to reap.

You will feel better about yourself for having stood your ground, for honoring your feelings, for recognizing your own self-worth. When the response of the other person no longer matters, it is easier to maintain that boundary.

An important point here is understanding what a healthy boundary is, and what it is not. We’ve all seen the pink-haired, chronological adults with more metal on their faces than in the average anglers’ tackle box videoing themselves as they announce their “enforcement of a boundary”. The tearfully cry how they’ve been forced to cut off contact with family because grandma refuses to make Thanksgiving vegan. Let’s say grandma is willing to make or serve some foods for the nose-ringed ostensibly grownup child, but that is refused because there will be other foods present.

No matter how passionate our vegan argues eating anything that once had a pulse is morally wrong, forcing others to acquiesce is not “enforcing a boundary”, it is a demand for capitulation. Worse, it is blaming other’s for your choice to behave badly, with the added benefit of deluding yourself into believing you are an innocent, virtuous victim of the evil actions of others.

In this case, the real, fair and healthy boundary is proffered by grandma. “I will do this much to accommodate you, but you will not dictate to me what I will do, or ridicule or comment on what else is on the table, or what other’s choose to eat. Dinner is at 4, we hope to see you then”.

The interesting thing about describing what boundaries are and how to operationalize them is every parent, or at least those worth the name, used boundaries from the time their kids were toddlers.

Your two-year old is hitting others with a toy? You take away the toy and say, “We don’t hit others”, or “That’s not how we play with toys”. Your eleven-year-old refuses to clean their room and gather their dirty clothes? You don’t do their laundry. Your teenager borrows the car and returns it with an empty tank in spite of having been given the money to replace what they used? They don’t get to borrow the car the next time.

Granted, the initial reaction may not be pleasant. The two-year-old will throw a tantrum, the eleven-year-old will whine they can’t wear their favorite shirt or jeans, and the teenager will sulk and mope. But the message has been delivered and the impetus for a changed outcome is on them. That is the hallmark of a healthy, productive boundary which supports a genuine, mutually beneficial relationship.

This is how the Trump administration is addressing Tariffs. There has been behavior on the other side, whether it is China, Canada, or Mexico, that is unfair and outright harmful to our country. But it has been what we’ve allowed. In these economic relationships, we are the parent. Granted, we may have to put up with a temper tantrum but in the end, we hold the power to change how we are treated. We decide. And seeing as these are mutually beneficial relationships in which they have more to lose than we do, the onus for change is on them.

With all that said, sometimes enforcing a healthy boundary is one designed solely for our own benefit, and the other side would rather end the relationship than change. This is the proof the other side’s actions are intentionally malevolent. If enacting boundaries results in the ending of the relationship, that outcome, however initially scary, is necessary for our well-being. If they try to come back into our life, we do so at our own risk and must keep a firm hand on our boundaries, and only insomuch as it is to our benefit. We’re looking at you, China.

Tags: Psychology

Category: International Affairs, None, Trump!