The Ego Boundary as Problematic
Vision, a Loose End
There is a story of the person whose young life was ruled by
the doctors' opinion that she manifested the underdeveloped ego
condition known as "borderline personality." This young person
has had a Vision, and with it the inspiration and grasp to run
her life coherently and responsibly. But this won't do, for
someone in authority finds her reality principle beyond the
bounds of the possible or acceptable, preferring to jam up her
process, even scheming to hasten her untimely demise. Rather
than blame her for society's excess, moral insight ought to
reflect the problematic of personality fragmentation back onto
social reality, onto an opacity of vision rendering inarticulate
social psychology.
The conjuncture of label and convention, that stereotypes the
person whose process is non-standard as mad, informs, more than
anything else, the distortion of people's standard cognitive
maps. And everyone is potentially non-standard: Human beings
who should be using their minds to perceive the infinite are
humbled to accommodate constricted conceptions of what it is to
be human. People routinely exhibit, if you will, a disconnect of
themselves from their full beings, so that they are stuck on
being less than themselves. Yet, by engaging the social process,
a person could roust up and recover energies and levels of
process, could re-circuit and reconnect.
The ideal should be mental liberation, that to be fully human
is to explore the richness and extent of mind's possibility. In
a world of people nervously maintaining disconnected beings, the
common experience of such exploration is to find yourself in the
peculiar contradiction of seemingly interfering with another's
personal space. People's crossed-up standards have it that you
are acting mad, "acting out," or whatever, so that you are seen
as a burden upon those people's rationality. The social impact
of such attitude is that the competition of psychological space
amounts to a process of the mutual trashings of people's beings.
When society first faced the penetrations of scientific
psychology, the ignorance of and deceits about process were so
extreme that direct discussions of process were generally
dysfunctional. The leaders of society cling with nostalgia to
a culture of corruption, but the time has passed when Vision
serves as a choice target: Today, defenses are more transparent
and personal need is more susceptible to discussion. A person
can, under mental stress or to personal advantage, bug you about
your ego constructs, but better to talk need and responsibility
and not too much mind-business. What naturally arise, to the
foreground of your interpersonal contact, are the conditions of
your social being and the activity you
engage in on its behalf.
Blind-Siding People
You may think that you freely stake out your ego boundaries,
that you manage them like a kind of personal property, but this
is a fictional account. In fact, people establish their ego
boundaries relative to the social dynamics accessible to them,
cutting and trimming to fit the niches available. For example,
one theoretical homily says that if you have a temperament that
inclines you to establish boundaries one way, when your allotted
gender role doesn't mesh, you have a miserable problem. If you
lack input into society's role expectations, you lack control
over the forces that shape patterns of ego boundary structure.
The way you set up your boundaries reflects your personal
history, with old traumas and abusive experiences being exhibited
in softened forms in personal interactions. To recognize that
you are blind-sided by an aspect of reality is to identify a
liability, a vulnerability to intrusion and abuse, in the guise
of a problem. In contacting the personality hole, a person
manifests an etiology of conditioned responses to abuse, going
through denial and self-deprecation and secondary abusive
behavior patterns. In the usual case, where you engage explosive
energies without adequate social sanction, you find that you make
problems for yourself and others as you disrupt and rearrange
your relation to the role expectations of society.
People worry about their boundaries, precisely because they
find themselves detached from Vision: They have to face abuse
and liberate their personal space. Individuals, blind-sided by a
partial and one-sided development, then find that social
boundaries fetter their response to alternative themes of
culture. Society, too, has its blind side, as in our Orientalist
view of Arabs, where boundaries are defined by romantic /
vilifying conceptions of the Oriental that reflect the unfinished
business of the Crusades. While people are told to see a shrink
and enticed to "shrink their problem down to size," they are not
adequately informed as to social confrontation and struggle, as
to the social Vision needed to achieve true growth.
People construe boundary work narrowly as a remedy for being
blind-sided, as a technology for self-actualizing via boundary
demarcation. Personality holes can't be managed by an object
relations approach leaning on schemes for interactive structure
that blithely deny social dynamics, absent reorganizing the
abusive situation, absent questioning authority itself. Social
planning will channel you, mechanical and electronic definitions
encumber you, and, for shame, you won't rebel, you'll succumb,
you'll attune your boundaries to avail the possibilities imposed.
Your imperative is to identify the social dynamics and to relate
your maturation to involvements with the maturation of society.
Self as Violence
A person must invoke self-examination and insight to stake
out her boundaries, but completion of the task devolves upon a
problematic of social control. Lacking a critical handle on
social psychology, the person is left to her own occasional
social position along with the vigorous application of a kind of
rugged individualism, where she hangs tough and manages a sphere
of influence. Nor will conventional social psychology do it, as
that paradigm is constricted in its world view, catering to the
values of the elite and denying the full moral texture of social
conflict. The person is abandoned to, is isolated in a position
of manipulating the behaviors around herself, be it by individual
conditioning methods or those of social conditioning.
The verbal portion of control rests upon sense or metaphor
that is autochthonous, rooted in a person's individual location
in the matrix of experience. A person defines her terms in the
spirit of magic, articulating the truth as she feels it, in order
to create a spell which imposes her business on the world. This
New Age freedom of the imagination, actually, of the exploitation
of imagination, is preeminently a social fact that arises from
the liberation process that empowers the counter-culture. Far
from arising in primordial, mystical truth, these definitions are
gut statements of the new reality that is coming up, and
meaningful precisely when placed in social context.
In a jungle-like world of selves fighting for psychological
turf, a person encounters a corrupt and patriarchal dynamic, a
logic of protection. The necessity of altering the "rules of the
game" calls forth a regime of punishing experience, and is so
burdensome that few would care to take on this task directly.
The actual shape of the battle against abuse takes form within,
and needs the safety of, the activity of reworking the social
dynamics of the ego boundary. You can't make do with changing
yourself, important as this may be, you must change the
habituation patterns of society, must make space for your full
being, by knowing how to change institutions.
When a person is vulnerable and crossed and embittered, a
carnivorous harshness obtains, she develops a hot, mean
negativity, where disorganized irrationality rises to the
surface. Right you may be, but a savage empowerment-by-violence
brings a harsh and melodramatic defense of self, where you are
intemperate, the perpetrator of bad karma. Making your judgments
and solidifications of thinking in such a mode reduces you to a
primitive instrumental level, to a logic that diminishes you, to
an ego that is an excrescence of challenges and reactive process.
The dialectic of destructive negative dynamics, of abrasion, can
only be countered in a social compact for a safe space.
Uneven Development of the Boundary
Ultimately, a person may even take to an imperial mode of
setting her ego boundaries, based on a kind of "territorial
imperative." Flagrant indulgences in ruthless boundary setting
provide for an elite yuppie-ism and the exploitation of others'
spaces and blood. Usual indulgences -- and nobody has a
manual
of boundary regulations -- provide for irregular delineations
deriving from the idiosyncrasies of personal space management.
There is no guarantee, no expectation even, that networks people
create out of social convenience will reflect work programs for
the common good; there is an overhead of fluff.
In the absence of an appropriate social aspect, the function
of a therapy practice is to counsel support systems, to provide
environments for the staking out of ego boundaries in the
usual mode. The form of the therapy product follows the function
of the therapy practice, openings to the creation of boundaries
being only occasionally informed as to social responsibility.
The intent may be excellent, but the person doing therapy and the
person receiving it both subordinate themselves to the mediocrity
of social passivity and accommodation. The best of therapy
practices, emphasizing the most acute and appropriate concerns,
is limited by the lack of coherent or complete networking to the
struggle for social justice.
The divide-and-rule psychology of the establishment is
reflected in the typical therapy situation, where the client's
interests are counterpoised to those of other persons in the
environment. The therapist is empowered by the state licensing
power to a categorical authority not checked or balanced by a
democratic recourse or petition of grievance. She can leverage
her opinions, if she will or, even, if she is heedless, in an
essentially brainwashing mode, foisting changes in the lives of
third parties by indirection. The opportunity for predation is
so great that the CIA has adapted this technology of personality
manipulation for control of its personnel.
The predominant conception of ego boundary work impacts
different aspects of growth and life unevenly. Many internal
processes are handled quite sensibly, but the impact on the
environment is uncontrolled and the transfer of training through
boundary delineations is eclectic and unprincipled. The Vision,
that penetrates this system of rationalization, the linkage to
class struggle, that represents a critique of the boundary
system's marginality, both challenge the coherence and wisdom of
such conception of ego boundary work. You find a systemic
disorder of social psychology, its decalage, or failure of
balanced development, whose remedy demands a rethinking of the
ego boundary idea itself.
Commerce in Abuse