Practice: Mapping Edges with Your Conversation Partner

To reduce conflict and deepen intimacy, discover what your partner really likes and wants and map the edges of their comfort zone.

As used in this practice, a "boundary" is the edges of what someone is willing to experience. Behaviors that accept and honor a person's boundaries are acceptable to them — the person will not resist or resent those behaviors. A behavior that disregards a person's boundary, whether consciously or by mistake, will feel to them like an invasion of their sovereignty which they will likely meet with resistance.

An edge is where our comfort zone ends.

Clarifying boundaries — what we call "mapping edges" — is essential in building trust and intimacy. For many of us, our socialization has modeled keeping our boundaries fuzzy. As small children, we didn't have the authority of our own sovereignty (or the language) to say "no" to an adult. As we mature, we discover our boundaries when someone blunders across them.

As our self-awareness and emotional intelligence evolve, we discover the power of making clear to others where our boundaries are. This empowers them to avoid blundering into conflicts with us.

Until we've experienced a boundary-clarification growth process, we don't know precisely where our own edges are until they're crossed. Being unconscious of our edges means we and our partner(s) can be surprised by our resistant reactions.

Mapping Edges is a process that helps us discover our practice partner's edges as well our own. Becoming more conscious about the edges of what is acceptable to us is a powerful way to reduce conflict and deepen connection. Until we have some practice at it, the exposure of our boundaries can feel like a vulnerable experience. (That's why many of us prefer to remain unconscious of our edges.)

Trust is easy to lose and difficult to regain. The purpose of reaching explicit understanding and agreement about our edges is that it builds more comfort and trust into a relationship. A boundary specifies a behavior that ignores our comfort zone and risks undermining our trust. An explicit boundary increases safety by reducing uncertainty and mistakes that undermine trust with our practice partner.

If the idea of agreeing to explicit boundaries with someone feels uncomfortable for you, that's a clear indication of unconscious vulnerabilities in how you manage your relationships. If you resist documenting agreements about your boundaries, that's a further yellow flag that invites the question, “Why?”

Agreements about boundaries are ALWAYS subject to renegotiation. Maturity and growth often result in expanding our comfort zone within a wider embrace. With increasing maturity, we can become more direct and compassionate in how we bring attention to violations of our boundaries, whether as blunders or by intent.

An apology is acknowledging when we've crossed an edge with someone.

Here's the practice:

Agree that your discussion about boundaries will be respectful and that you will not let the practice jeopardize the relationship simply because it may raise vulnerable feelings.

If you grant someone permission to ask you questions about where you stand, you are holding them harmless to ask whatever they want to within the scope of inquiry to which you agree.

Specifying the scope of what topics are in bounds and which are out of bounds is a good boundary to agree upon in the beginning. All topics are in bounds unless you explicitly make them otherwise. In the practice of Mapping Edges, we can't rely on assumptions about the other person to keep us feeling safe.
Agree who will play the role of Explorer and who will play the role of Source.

As Explorer, you will exhibit curiosity by asking yes-or-no questions to discover Source's edges.

As Source, you will exhibit an openness to being known and understood by truthfully clarifying where you stand. You will answer each question with "yes", "no", or "maybe"*.

You may agree at the start to switch roles after a certain amount of time or after a certain number of questions.
* While practicing Mapping Edges, answering "maybe" can lead to a short conversation to clarify the conditions under which Source's answer could become "yes" or "no". If a longer discussion is warranted, it's advisable to schedule a separate conversation later to explore Source's "maybe", then set it aside until then so you can continue in the flow of the practice.
As Source, you're encouraged to specify up front what is out of bounds for you without regard for what you believe are Explorer's interests in the matter. You have the right to decline to answer any question asked. Your answers disclose to Explorer the bounds of your comfort zone.

Agreements about Source's boundaries are ALWAYS subject to change by Source so they represent their present experience truthfully.

Both parties are at risk for exposure to each other's value judgments, emotional reactions, etc. Each of you reveals your interests, whether by a question or by an answer or by a reaction. This is one of the great benefits of the practice. The safer you make this practice for your partner by not holding value judgments, either covert or spoken, the greater the benefit to the well-being of both participants and to your relationship.

Embracing and Managing Vulerability

The practice of Mapping Edges summons from both partners the courage to be clear. A benefit of the practice is owning responsibility for your own experience and not assuming anything that isn't clearly stated. Without clarifying, for some people, "Yes" may imply an invitation. "No" may imply a rejection. These assumptions about our practice partner's values and comfort-zone edges can keep us from discovering and clarifying what is really true for them.

Mapping Edges exercises our comfort around addressing uncertainty with our practice partner in a creative way.

In collaborative conversation, a best practice is to keep your focus on what you DO LIKE and what you DO WANT. In the practice of Mapping Edges, with yes-or-no questions, Explorer focuses on discovering not only what Source DOES like and DOES want but also what they DON'T like and DON'T want.

An edge is where Source's comfort zone ends.

Guidance Examples for Source:

You may like it when they ask you about your day, only if they won't "grab the mic" without your permission while you're talking.
When you're upset, you may like it when they hold you, but you feel disrespected when they try to fix your problems or talk you out of feeling what you feel.
You may like it when they ask you about your feelings and listen with empathy — not so much when they evaluate your feelings or tell you how you should feel.
You may like it when they ask you about what you need to be happy without trying to negotiate solutions before you're clear they understand you from your own perspective.
It may comfort you when they give you a big hug but only when they don't wiggle or talk loudly in your ear.
You may enjoy it when they grab you and wrap their arms around you tightly to give you a hug, but you may feel disrespected when they reach down and grab your ass, especially in public.

(Provide lots more examples)

Respecting the Other Person's Self-Sovereignty vs. Behaving as if You're Entitled

If you want your partner to change a behavior, your responsibility doesn't end by complaining or telling your partner what to do. If you respect their self-sovereignty, you must offer them sufficient motivation to change their behavior.

What's sufficient motivation? That's entirely up to them. So ask them and listen. Negotiation is appropriate. Complaining about what's "fair" is not.

(If any part of you is thinking, "If they loved me, they would ...", please consider another practice for settling into to a peaceful state. See The Work of Byron Katie: Loving What Is.)

(Examples)

Guiding Principles in Respectful Communication

Conflict happens at the level of strategies, not at the level of needs.

If I want my partner's needs to be met in this situation, they're more likely to want my needs to be met. Then, the strategies we adopt together will be win-wins.
Is my intent for this communication 1) to relate or 2) to control?

Unmasking the Intent to Control by Susan Campbell, PhD

"Every communication has an intent behind it. Most of us do not pay enough attention to this hidden intent — in ourselves and in others — especially if the intent has something to do with control — like trying to control an unknown outcome or trying to mask one's anxiety about feeling "not in control". In my research, I discovered that almost 90% of human communication comes from the (usually unconscious) need to control."
—Susan Campbell, PhD
I am 100% responsible for getting my needs met, in partnership.

My conversation partner has sovereignty over their own motivations. If I want to know what it will take for them to make the change I want in their behavior, I will ask them and listen.

"Entitlement" means believing my responsibility ends when I voice a complaint or give my partner instructions. Entitlement is treating my partner as a prepaid resource, not as a self-sovereign person who is fully in charge of their own values and motivations. (Parenting patterns may have set unfortunate, unconscious expectations that surface without warning until we befriend them and retake conscious direction over our relationship dynamics.)

If I respect my partner's sovereignty over their own motivation and I don't pressure them with disapproval or threats, they will more likely feel respected as a separate person. Someone I treat with respect will more likely trust me and want to help me get my needs met. Acting entitled to their compliance ... not so much.
I'm here first to listen to and understand my conversation partner's desired experiences in this challenging situation.

The key that opens the door to me getting my needs met in this situation is for my conversation partner to feel safe from my value judgments and to be graciously heard or held or helped by me, as THEY choose.
Kindness and respect open doors and hearts.
Complaining or venting frustration at the other person closes their ears and their heart.

Behaviors motivated by fear and entitlement are ineffective ways to get my needs met.

If my partner feels safe with me, they can more easily listen from the heart, with vulnerability.

To the extent I come to the conversation with armor on, expecting a conflict, so will they.
I can't bully someone into cooperation.

I'm responsible for meeting my own needs, in partnership.

I can respectfully ask my conversation partner to 1) hear me or 2) hold me or 3) help me.