Stupid Boundaries and Uneducated Guesses

This post is about two sociological phenomena commonly discussed in blogging, self-help, and therapeutic contexts. They are popular in lay discussions, on and offline, as well as among experts, and they serve as the foundation of advice given by friends, therapists, and to general audiences. The situations in which advice based on these concepts is given can be high-stakes, dealing with some of the most important problems people face in relationships, like physical and emotional abuse. I argue that both have significant conceptual difficulties and that neither replace moral reasoning, although some of their proponents may desire that they do so. Despite these difficulties, there may be some instrumentally valid uses of these only-partially-true conceptual frameworks. 

(Moldbug recently published an article covering substantially similar ground, namely, social dynamics that he associates with “nerds.” My argument is similar at points, and we even both discuss the mislabelling of functional romantic relationships as codependent. Funnily enough, this post was complete and being edited when I read his.) 

Therapy and advice-blogging circles, especially those offering help for people dealing with abusive family members or relationships, advocate for the setting of “boundaries” to mitigate and prevent interpersonal conflict. There are many ways to explain the concept, but the underlying idea is not that you are setting a rule for another’s conduct but explaining what you will do if they engage in the undesired behavior. So, a boundary is not “you are not allowed to say x to me” but “if you continue to say x to me, I will spend less time with you/leave immediately each time it happens/cut you off forever.” A boundary invokes a consequence; it answers the question of “what if I don’t stop doing x?”. Being honest and open about your boundaries, the theory goes, prevents festering resentment that reveals itself in undesirable ways, like blow-out fights. Expressing anger when a boundary that was never explicitly set is violated can 1.) make the conversation more unpleasant than it needed to be and 2.) shift the focus away from the other person’s problematic behavior and onto your, now large and noticeable, reaction.

In theory, everyone benefits from setting boundaries and from respecting boundaries set by other people. Also in theory, there are no “stupid boundaries.” If you google “stupid boundaries,” you will find many claiming that anyone who suggests that your boundaries are unreasonable is, by that very act, engaging in toxic behavior. But this seems wrong on its face. It is very easy to imagine boundaries to which no reasonable person would assent, e.g., “if you tell me I’m wrong about something, I’ll stop talking to you forever” or “I only engage in friendships where I can ask for favors but you never can.” .

Of course, there are a number of things the proponents of boundary-setting could say in response to these kinds of examples. First, they could say that these boundaries are not actually that unreasonable depending on context. If you have an abusive parent who would use you being wrong about things as a child as a control mechanism (“no, you can’t get a job and have your own money, you don’t even understand anything about the world and could never take care of yourself! Remember when you thought that x when it was actually y?”), it might be completely sane to protect yourself from that kind of criticism. Or if you are ill and think your friend is only asking you for favors, knowing that you are incapable of doing them, to feel superior or feed a martyr complex they have about past good deeds toward you, it may be healthy to request that they simply stop asking.   

The second thing boundary-setters could say in response to these kinds of examples is “so what? If you know you cannot or do not want to comply with someone’s boundaries, or they problematically interact with your own, you can just walk.” This argument has at least two counter-intuitive features. First, it imagines that people have a great deal of control over what other people are in their lives. Many appreciate this problem and encourage people to take more control over exactly this—for example, by not accepting reasons like “but they’re family!” to compel them to stay in relationships that they otherwise would not. It is no wonder that discussion of boundaries comes up frequently among polyamorists and serial monogamists—the concept works best when you do not have any higher, more forceful commitments than “I will remain with you as long as it’s good for both of us.” They must concede, however, that most people are stuck with at least some relationships for at least some period of time. You cannot cut your boss off for stepping on your boundaries too many times and keep your job, even if you would be justified in doing so.

The other strange tension inherent in the boundary concept, as revealed by both the implied threat to walk and the lack of concern about unreasonable boundaries, is that setting boundaries is something one would do primarily when they do not want to walk. If someone bothers you enough that you will leave the relationship if they do not change, you would just do that, unless you do not want the relationship to end. Consider the example of a couple where the husband is putting on weight and the wife has repeatedly expressed concern about this and encouraged him to work out. The husband could decide that he does not want to hear so many comments on his weight, but he loves her, and he wants to be in the marriage. So, instead, he sets a boundary with his wife: “I love you. I don’t want to end this, but please stop telling me I’m fat all the time.” This gives her a chance to say “yes, I can do that” or “I only express concern about your weight because I love you, so no, I won’t stop” or “I’ll stop, but only if you commit to doing something about it.” The advantage of setting a boundary is that it starts a negotiation over the terms of the relationship, which is the exact opposite of what its proponents say should happen. (Although it appears that some proponents distinguish between negotiable and non-negotiable boundaries. I think this is not defeating to the argument I’m making here; “non-negotiable boundaries” will also be negotiated in practice.)  

If the primary way “boundaries” are explained and discussed (or “set”) is via negotiation, then which party has the more reasonable position is extremely important. A proposed boundary being “stupid” matters, especially if no side can or will abandon the deal. Or, at least, we hope that this is what matters and not “whichever side is better at bluffing about leaving gets the other to concede.” We can imagine an abuser using the language of boundary-setting to bully his wife into all kinds of deeply unfair situations e.g., “I’m not saying that you’re not allowed to have sex with other people and I am allowed to have sex with other people. I’m just saying that I will not continue to be with you unless I see other people and you do not.” If you cannot explain why your position makes sense and is fair to your counterparty, if you abandon all attempts at being reasonable and swayable, you are deciding in advance that you are either going to win outright or lose the entire relationship. Under this reductio version of boundary-setting, why would anyone attempt it in a relationship they cared about? More importantly, does this framework give those at risk of abuse any additional power?

A while ago, I attacked the concept of “codependence” on twitter, without providing any justification and significantly exaggerating my views, as one does. I am sure the term has legitimate therapeutic uses in its original AA/NA context. But I have seen people describe completely ordinary marital dynamics as codependence. If you do not like to go out without your partner very often, if you feel empty and weird when away from them, and if you are completely ready and willing to subsume your own desires to the needs of the pair, that is normal and healthy and good. Where this becomes dangerous for people is when the other side is not doing this or where the parties cannot come to agreement on what is actually best for the pair, imagining it to be exactly and only what is best for them as an individual. Maybe boundaries come in here, then. When the one side is either confused about or purposefully rejecting their duties, the other can say “you must fulfill your duty to x, or I will leave.” Maybe it is simply a useful tool, which can and should be used when the circumstances require it. 

Considering again the example of the couple arguing about weight gain, neither party here wants to threaten, even implicitly, to leave over this. So when the husband is told that he needs to watch his weight more closely, he does not want to say “body shaming is a boundary for me.” So how do the two proceed? Well, they can think and talk about what they believe about duty to the other. Is it a duty in a relationship to maintain your physical appearance? Is it a duty to avoid obesity in a more limited sense, only insofar as doing so preserves physical health, decreasing the chances that performance of one’s other duties will become impossible? Or, is it a duty to not insult your spouse’s appearance or cause them emotional pain on that basis? What are the ethics of the situation? If they are trying to sort out what behavior is acceptable, that is the kind of question they should be asking.   

The terms “ask culture” and “guess culture” are a way of explaining differences in people-groups along the dimension of boundary explicitness, among other characteristics associated with honesty. The idea is that in ask culture, you say what you mean explicitly. If you need a favor, you ask for the favor. If someone is making you uncomfortable, you set a boundary. It is okay to ask, and, if asked, it is okay to say no. Guess culture, on the other hand, relies on people to guess whether the favor is reasonable before asking for it. Guess culture’s thought process is “well, it’s rude to say that you won’t do a favor for someone without a really good excuse. Therefore, someone who asks for an out-of-line favor has put me in a position where I either have to be rude or I am forced to accept. Asking for too big of a favor is then, rude, and I can whisper ‘how dare she even ask that?’ behind her back later, even if I accept in the moment or reject with a made up good excuse.”

The people who make this distinction clearly favor ask culture. They speak to the unfairness or dishonesty of a person pretending to be okay with something they are not. They praise ask culture’s ability to invite and encourage people to share their boundaries, and its ability to make people comfortable with hearing and saying no. In ask culture, people get more control over their relationships because it is not seen as aggressive or cruel to say something like “I prefer if we only see each other a few times a month.” It is also, in theory, better for autistic and other neurodivergent people—if they bungle a social interaction, they can ask what went wrong, or people can simply tell them. No harm done. I am going to argue here that the distinction between ask and guess culture is conceptually problematic. All social circles and social interactions rely on assumptions and guesses, and eliminating this feature of social life is not desirable.

What would an extreme ask culture look like? How far could this go? The most extreme example I can think of is asking for sex with a friend without any context (read: assumptions) that indicate the target of the ask is likely to accept. The scenario I am imagining is, out of nowhere during a casual daytime hangout, a man asks a woman “would you like to have sex with me right now?” Now, the ask culture solution to this is that the woman can simply say “no I would not.” And, the great thing about ask culture is she can be even more honest without fear of reprisal: “that question makes me very uncomfortable, and I don’t think we should see each other for a while.” But man, wouldn’t it have been better for both of them if he had “guessed”? I am not saying that in this hypothetical, the man has done something bad enough that he should be publicly shamed or face lasting career repercussions, but he has at least committed a social violation. He did do something rude by asking. My sense is that even the most radical proponents of ask culture would not deny this, but to concede this is to concede that some level of “mind reading” in social contexts is desirable. 

It reminds me of this interaction in the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test:

Kesey starts talking in the old soft Oregon drawl and everybody is quiet. "Here's what I hope will happen on this trip," he says. "What I hope will continue to happen, because it's already starting to happen. All of us are beginning to do our thing, and we're going to keep doing it, right out front, and none of us are going to deny what other people are doing." "Bullshit," says Jane Burton. This brings Kesey up short for a moment, but he just rolls with it. "That's Jane," he says. "And she's doing her thing. Bullshit. That's her thing and she's doing it." "None of us are going to deny what other people are doing. If saying bullshit is somebody's thing, then he says bullshit. If somebody is an ass-kicker, then that's what he's going to do on this trip, kick asses. He's going to do it right out front and nobody is going to have anything to get pissed off about. He can just say, 'I'm sorry I kicked you in the ass, but I'm not sorry I'm an ass-kicker. That's what I do, I kick people in the ass.' Everybody is going to be what they are, and whatever they are, there's not going to be anything to apologize about. What we are, we're going to wail with on this whole trip."

It is not the same scenario. I do not believe that ask/tell culture wants to create a rule of total comfort with “what [people] are,” but it is similar in that it is trying to adopt a norm of “no bullshit.” Post-rationalists and hippies (and I’ve heard they’re connected) both wonder: “why can’t people just be honest with each other? It would be so much simpler!” Well, because you likely do not want that in all cases. If my hypothetical did not sound that bad to you, I am sure you can think of your own “ask” that would find unacceptable, that you would take as a violation in itself, even if the person graciously accepted your “no.” Wolfe grapples with the incoherence of the idea here very well. “I’m sorry I kicked you in the ass/asked an inappropriate question, but I’m not sorry I’m an ass-kicker/a guy who just asks.” “I’m sorry, but I’ll do it again tomorrow.”

Moving away from the extreme example above, there must be social norms in ask culture spaces that people assume and do not openly ask about or discuss. Here is one found in my professional circles that I imagine is common in most ask culture groups as well: do not make racist jokes or comments. This is assumed where I live. If someone were to ask a group “is it alright if I say something racist?”, I do not imagine that question would go over well. The “no” would be sneering. Asking the question would be enough to make people mad. Do people who advocate for ask culture think that a sneering no here is a mistake? Is this question just a question, which people should feel free to ask? Or is it fine and good that there was some level of social punishment (which a sneering no is!) for not making the correct assumption?

One reason it is difficult for me to understand where ask culture is coming from is that being told you made a social mistake is, in itself, unpleasant. If you ask for a favor from someone you think is a friend and they say “sorry, we’re not close enough friends for me to do that for you,” that hurts! People want to guess, and they want their guesses to be accurate, to avoid exactly that scenario, even if the tone of the rejection was completely neutral. People want to do the right thing. (The right thing is, of course, not identical with the socially expected thing, whether guessed at or asked about. But everyone hopes for the situation where the right thing and the socially expedient thing are the same.) And I do not imagine this disappears if the culture gets sufficiently “ask-y.” You would learn more about the differences between social groups by investigating which assumptions people make than by trying to add up the number of things assumed, the number of things made explicit, and then comparing these numbers.  

What these two concepts have in common is that they are ways for people to explain why human behavior bothers them or ask others to put a stop to it without asking moral questions. Boundaries allow a person to accept or not accept particular treatment without having to say “this treatment is morally wrong.” Similarly, ask culture allows you to just ask for what you want, or tell someone they cannot get what they want, reducing all social desires to preferences that either can or cannot be met in the context of a particular relationship. You do not have to “guess” if something is reasonable. You do not have to make an assumption about whether asking someone something is an ethical violation, even if a small one. Your want is permissible if everyone else is cool with it.

That is not to say that neither of these concepts are valuable. Boundaries have helped countless people manage or escape abusive relationships. Sometimes, it is completely rational for a person to specifically threaten to end a relationship over the other party’s behavior. The ask/guess distinction can be highly useful to introduce to rejection-sensitive people, who might need to teach themselves that it is okay to ask for things and hear “no” sometimes, because if they do not learn that this is okay on lower-stakes desires, they might not be able to ask for something reasonable and important. And insofar as “ask culture” means “I will be kind to my friends if they occasionally ask rude questions or say rude things,” I am completely in support of this stance and see how it is valuable for both neurodivergent and neurotypical people. 

If these concepts help people to make sense of their social environments or identify and retreat from bad situations, that is a good and valuable use of a tool. Is it strictly accurate to talk about ask cultures and guess cultures as descriptors that can be straightforwardly applied to existing social groups? Maybe not, but invoking it might assist in resolving certain disputes. (Compare “it was wrong to say x!” and “my culture would’ve left x unexpressed or significantly softened it, but I understand that yours thinks differently.”) I think this is what makes them pop sociology: useful concepts for some people, perhaps most people, some of the time. These types of concepts might not always describe the world or advance ethical arguments, but having them within your arsenal may still improve your life. Analysis of human behavior is going to be incomplete without some ethical reasoning, however, so this will need to be added onto, or running the background of, any sociological analysis. Even moral relativists identify that their culture has an attendant set of ethical assumptions, including about acts as minor as “asking” or “telling.” The virtuous man asks when it is good to ask, but when guessing is virtuous, that is what he does.