The paradoxical nature of boundaries
BOUNDARIES CREATE CONFLICT
AND OPPOSITES
“Thought of the Week” for August 27, 2001
Two thoughts and a comment (below) from Ken Wilber’s No Boundaries
The particular thing about a boundary is that, however complex and rarefied it might be, it actually marks off nothing but an inside vs. an outside. For example, we can draw the very simplest form of a boundary line as a circle, and see that it discloses an inside versus an outside… But notice that the opposites of inside vs. outside didn’t exist in themselves until we drew the boundary of the circle. It is the boundary line itself, in other words, which creates a pair of opposites. In short, to draw boundaries is to manufacture opposites. Thus…the reason we live in a world of opposites is precisely because life as we know it is a process of drawing boundaries.
…those lines [in nature], such as the shoreline between land and water, don’t merely represent a separation of land and water, as we generally suppose. As Alan Watts pointed out so often, those so-called “dividing lines” equally represent precisely those places where land and water touch each other. That is, those lines join and unite just as much as they divide and distinguish. These lines, in other wards, aren’t boundaries!
Wilber, K. 2001. No Boundaries. Boston: Shambhala. pp. 19-20.
Comment:
Boundaries both unite and divide
by Reg Harris
Copyright © 2001 by Reg Harris. All rights reserved. Revised October 2007. This article may not be copied or used, in part or in whole, without prior written permission from the writer.
Wilber goes on to make the point that “a line, whether mental, natural or logical doesn’t just divide and separate, it also joins and unites.” It occurs to me that the line that is being drawn between school and society is just such a line. For example, George W. Bush is accentuating the “boundary/battle” line between school and society as a means to push his agenda for vouchers and standardized education (which also will benefit certain corporate interests). But is the problem really on the school side of the boundary line?
It is very easy to draw a line, a boundary, between school and society and say that school is not doing its job. The truth of the matter is that the school is a part of society. The sidewalks in front of our schools are not boundaries separating “us” from “them.” They are lines we create to differentiate two different areas of one culture.
To blame the schools exclusively for problems is foolish. In Jungian psychology it is called “projection,” where we project those character attributes we don’t want to acknowledge or admit onto someone or something else. Then we can attack in the other what we don’t like in ourselves. Society has abandoned its children, turned them into a market, into a corporate bottom line. We have stolen their childhood from them by forcing upon them adult decisions, adult challenges and adult duties (such as working). Society has done this, not the schools, but the boundary the politicians have drawn between them (society) and us (teachers or schools) is a very convenient tool to allow the society to deny its own failings. School becomes a scapegoat.
We even draw boundary lines within our schools and our classrooms. The high school where I teach has football “rallies” in with the opponent is mocked and vilified. The boundary line is drawn. The great irony is that without the opponent, there would be no game. Our opponents are not on the other side of the boundary; they are the necessary, complimentary opposite in the game. It is the tension between the opposites which creates the excitement, and the boundary, rather than separating us, is the point where we join in an expression of sport. I have tried, with little luck, to change the nature of the rallies. Unfortunately, our school reflects the culture which creates it: confrontational, punitive, self-centered, proud to a fault, and “number one,” whatever that means.
Of course lines of demarcation are needed. Lines are how we sort and classify different aspects of our world. However, we must realize that, as in the case of Wilber’s circle, the part is still of in the whole. (You can’t even use the word “part” without implying “part of something, a whole”). Draw lines to aid understanding, but remember that the map is not the territory. Erase the lines when the they have helped understand the whole.
Beware of those who tell you that lines/boundaries are permanent. We must be careful is when we are encouraged to draw boundaries — between school and society, between college prep and non college prep, between us and our environment. When someone tries to convince us that the lines are real entities and not just temporary tools for better understanding the whole, we must become suspicious. We are being distracted from the true nature of our world. Lines of demarcation are necessary, but artificial borders are not. Borders are used to separate and contain, to control, to manipulate. When someone draws a border, a line between “us” and “them,” look to your wallet or to your freedoms. Ask yourself what is that person trying to control or manipulate.
And beware of this same tendency in yourself. When you draw a boundary, ask yourself what it is that you are trying to keep out — or in?
Boundaries divide and unite
The paradoxical nature of boundaries
BOUNDARIES CREATE CONFLICT
AND OPPOSITES
“Thought of the Week” for August 27, 2001
Two thoughts and a comment (below) from Ken Wilber’s No Boundaries
The particular thing about a boundary is that, however complex and rarefied it might be, it actually marks off nothing but an inside vs. an outside. For example, we can draw the very simplest form of a boundary line as a circle, and see that it discloses an inside versus an outside… But notice that the opposites of inside vs. outside didn’t exist in themselves until we drew the boundary of the circle. It is the boundary line itself, in other words, which creates a pair of opposites. In short, to draw boundaries is to manufacture opposites. Thus…the reason we live in a world of opposites is precisely because life as we know it is a process of drawing boundaries.
…those lines [in nature], such as the shoreline between land and water, don’t merely represent a separation of land and water, as we generally suppose. As Alan Watts pointed out so often, those so-called “dividing lines” equally represent precisely those places where land and water touch each other. That is, those lines join and unite just as much as they divide and distinguish. These lines, in other wards, aren’t boundaries!
Wilber, K. 2001. No Boundaries. Boston: Shambhala. pp. 19-20.
Comment:
Boundaries both unite and divide
by Reg Harris
Copyright © 2001 by Reg Harris. All rights reserved. Revised October 2007. This article may not be copied or used, in part or in whole, without prior written permission from the writer.
Wilber goes on to make the point that “a line, whether mental, natural or logical doesn’t just divide and separate, it also joins and unites.” It occurs to me that the line that is being drawn between school and society is just such a line. For example, George W. Bush is accentuating the “boundary/battle” line between school and society as a means to push his agenda for vouchers and standardized education (which also will benefit certain corporate interests). But is the problem really on the school side of the boundary line?
It is very easy to draw a line, a boundary, between school and society and say that school is not doing its job. The truth of the matter is that the school is a part of society. The sidewalks in front of our schools are not boundaries separating “us” from “them.” They are lines we create to differentiate two different areas of one culture.
To blame the schools exclusively for problems is foolish. In Jungian psychology it is called “projection,” where we project those character attributes we don’t want to acknowledge or admit onto someone or something else. Then we can attack in the other what we don’t like in ourselves. Society has abandoned its children, turned them into a market, into a corporate bottom line. We have stolen their childhood from them by forcing upon them adult decisions, adult challenges and adult duties (such as working). Society has done this, not the schools, but the boundary the politicians have drawn between them (society) and us (teachers or schools) is a very convenient tool to allow the society to deny its own failings. School becomes a scapegoat.
We even draw boundary lines within our schools and our classrooms. The high school where I teach has football “rallies” in with the opponent is mocked and vilified. The boundary line is drawn. The great irony is that without the opponent, there would be no game. Our opponents are not on the other side of the boundary; they are the necessary, complimentary opposite in the game. It is the tension between the opposites which creates the excitement, and the boundary, rather than separating us, is the point where we join in an expression of sport. I have tried, with little luck, to change the nature of the rallies. Unfortunately, our school reflects the culture which creates it: confrontational, punitive, self-centered, proud to a fault, and “number one,” whatever that means.
Of course lines of demarcation are needed. Lines are how we sort and classify different aspects of our world. However, we must realize that, as in the case of Wilber’s circle, the part is still of in the whole. (You can’t even use the word “part” without implying “part of something, a whole”). Draw lines to aid understanding, but remember that the map is not the territory. Erase the lines when the they have helped understand the whole.
Beware of those who tell you that lines/boundaries are permanent. We must be careful is when we are encouraged to draw boundaries — between school and society, between college prep and non college prep, between us and our environment. When someone tries to convince us that the lines are real entities and not just temporary tools for better understanding the whole, we must become suspicious. We are being distracted from the true nature of our world. Lines of demarcation are necessary, but artificial borders are not. Borders are used to separate and contain, to control, to manipulate. When someone draws a border, a line between “us” and “them,” look to your wallet or to your freedoms. Ask yourself what is that person trying to control or manipulate.
And beware of this same tendency in yourself. When you draw a boundary, ask yourself what it is that you are trying to keep out — or in?