1

Boundaries – Peace (corr EH 11/ 21 /03) Ernest Hartmann

Paths to Peace

There are two different almost opposite kinds of peace and two corresponding ways for

nations to make peace. There is the “thick-boundary peace,” the paradigm and symbol of which

is the wall. In the extreme case the two parties literally build a wall to separate their territories.

This is the peace which China tried to achieve with its Great Wall, and this is the sort of the

peace which Israel and Palestine are sporadically working on now.

A “thick-boundary peace” need not include physical walls. The boundaries can be

expressed in binding documents as well as in stone. The fundamental belief of thick-boundary

peacemakers is that territory, rights and privileges must all be divided and spelled out with the

utmost clarity. “These areas are ours, these areas are yours. We will have access to 50% of the

water from this river, and 50% will be yours, etc.” This is, of course, reminiscent of divorce

agreements or legal agreements between corporations. Indeed the parties forging an agreement

following a contentious legal divorce are making a “thick-boundary peace.” The guiding

principle is that the more clearly the two sides spell out their territories, interests and concerns,

the more solid the peace will be. Just as a wall must be carefully built if it is to endure, so must

the legal agreement. Every detail is important. Solid lines of demarcation are essential. The wall

still looms in the background.

Totally different is “thin-boundary peace.” In its ultimate form, there are no walls.

Dividing lines may be present but are of little importance. Legal documents may exist, but no

one pays much attention. The essence of the “thin-boundary peace” is similarity rather than

difference — a gradual realization that “We” and “They” are not very different after all. Perhaps

we do not need to be enemies. Perhaps we can tear down the walls and let the frontier guards do
 2

something more productive.” Thin-boundary peace involves the leveling of walls. It may

involve unification, merger, possibly even embrace.

Those working hard at building the walls or forging agreements to institute a “thick-

boundary peace” generally consider what I call here a “thin-boundary peace” to be a utopian

ideal, totally unattainable in the real world. However this is far from the case. The peace that

exists at present between the ancient enemies France and Germany is a “thin-boundary peace.”

Frontiers are still present, but they are permeable, easy to cross. They do not matter

The peace between Massachusetts and Connecticut is a “thin-boundary peace.” There

were many territorial and other disputes in the past, and I’m told there are still border disputes

wending their way through the courts. But for practical purposes it doesn’t matter. An

important distinction between the two kinds of peace is that in thick-boundary peace, everything

matters intensely; every square-inch of territory, every building, every gallon of water flowing

through the river assumes tremendous importance. Patriots on each side are willing to lay down

their lives to make sure that this particular bit of land will be “ours” rather than “theirs.” In a

“thin-boundary peace,” these issues are not of life-and-death importance. There are always

lawyers quibbling about the fine print, but for most of us, the details are only details. The beauty

of thin-boundary peace is exactly this: it really doesn’t matter. No one really cares whether this

little field belongs to Massachusetts or to Connecticut.

The two kinds of peace, as described above, could be considered sequential or

evolutionary phases. The Chinese, after spending several centuries building their Great Wall,

noticed that conditions had changed and that there were enemies as well as friends on both sides

of the wall. Other approaches had to be tried. Obviously, at a time when two peoples actively

hate each other and are at war, differences between “us” and “them” seem enormous and

ubiquitous. Similarities are hard to find. At such times the idea of a thin-boundary peace is

considered farfetched, preposterous, or even traitorous, and the best that can be accomplished is a

carefully delineated thick-boundary peace. Perhaps later, after time has passed and conditions

changed, a thin-boundary peace can be considered..

 3

There are certainly times when a thin-boundary peace is only a distant hope. But being open

at least to a future possibility can lead to a “thinner” style of negotiations. The thick-boundary

stance consists of absolutes: this is ours forever; this is not negotiable; we cannot even talk until

they do such-and-such. The thin boundary position is that one can always talk, one can always try

to negotiate. Whatever differences there are between us and them are minor compared to the

similarities: we are human, we have families, we can suffer.

I believe that even at the worst of times it is worth keeping “thin-boundary peace” in

mind as a possibility. However this is not necessarily easy. The kind of peace one envisions and

plans is in large part a psychological issue. For some people, thin-boundary peace is always

improbable, crazy-sounding, and dangerous. For others, it is a very natural way of thinking.

There are people who always tend to think and behave in terms of thick boundaries in many

different senses, while others think and act in terms of thin boundaries. I have not introduced the

terms “thick boundaries” and “thin boundaries” here ad hoc to help us examine the question of

peace between nations. These terms have a history in psychology as descriptors of personality. In

fact, my collaborators and I have been studying thick and thin boundaries as a personality

dimension for a number of years. To understand this concept, we need to consider briefly the

question of what we have in or on our minds.

When we discuss the content of our minds, most of us use terms such as thoughts,

feelings, memories. Psychoanalysts speak of id, ego, superego, defenses mechanisms,

complexes. Cognitive psychologists think in terms of perceptual processes, semantic processes

etc. Whatever terms we use, we are referring to parts, regions, or processes that are separate from

one another and yet obviously also connected with one another. The boundaries between them are

not absolute separations: they can be relatively thick and solid on the one hand or relatively thin

and permeable on the other.

 4

In our work on psychological boundaries we have considered about 30 types of

boundaries, including boundaries between two thoughts or between two feelings, boundaries

between thought and feeling, boundaries between states of consciousness, between sleep and

waking, between dreaming and waking There are boundaries related to memory, boundaries

around one’s self sometimes called body boundaries, interpersonal boundaries, defense

mechanism as boundaries, boundaries related to sexual or age identity, group boundaries. Also

boundaries related to organizations and ways of organizing the world, and boundaries relating to

our concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness. A questionnaire measuring these types of

boundaries in detail has been taken by over 5000 people.

Although many of us have a mixture of boundaries, the concepts become clearest if we

examine people on the extremes who have very thick or very thin boundaries in all senses. A

person with thick boundaries overall would be a person with a sharp sense of focus, who easily

concentrates on one thing while ignoring others. This person keeps thoughts and feelings entirely

separate (“I don’t let my feelings get in the way of my thinking”). This person is absolutely clear

about being awake, asleep, or dreaming, with no in-between states. Past, present and future are

kept totally separate, (“That was then, this is now”). This person has a very definite sense of

personal, individual space, (“This is my space, this is yours”); and a clear sexual identity. ( “I am

a man, you are a woman. Vive la difference!”) and also a clear group identity. The world is seen

in terms of “black vs. white,” “us vs. them” and “good vs. evil.”

A person with thin boundaries in all senses is very different. This person tends not to

focus on one thing, but lets in a lot of sensory information at once, may experience synesthesia,

will usually be aware of thoughts and feelings together (“ I can’t imagine a thought without a

feeling”), may often experience states of being half awake, and will often be immersed in

daydreaming or reverie so the difference between dreaming and waking life will not always be

clear. There will be a less definite sense of body boundary and personal space. This person’s

sense of the past may “blend” into the present (“I’m an adult but in so many ways I’m still a

child”). Similarly, the person may notice mixtures of sexual identity (“I’m a man, but there’s a lot
 5

of feminine in me too”). He or she will not be solidly a member of one group, but rather an

individual taking part in many groups, or someone who feels like a “citizen of the world.” This

person will tend to think in shades of grey rather than in black and white.

These, of course, are extremes outlined for emphasis. A good deal of research has been

completed on various aspects of boundaries such as what groups of people have relatively thick

or thin boundaries, etc.1 I will mention a few findings that may be of importance for our present

discussion. For instance, naval officers, lawyers and salesmen scored significantly thicker than

average, while several groups of art and music students scored much thinner than average on the

Boundary Questionnaire. Women consistently scored slightly but significantly thinner than men,

even though all the items were carefully written to be gender neutral.

Statistical analyses demonstrate that the different kinds of boundaries are correlated to a

surprising extent. Each of the 138 items on the Boundary Questionnaire has a positive

relationship with the total boundary score, and there are high correlations between items which

appear at on the surface to have little to do with one another. For instance people who strongly

endorse the item “At times I feel happy and sad at once,” are likely also to agree with “I believe

many of the world’s problems could be solved if only people trusted each other more,” They are

highly unlikely to endorse “Good fences make good neighbors” or “Each nation should be clear

about its interests, its own boundaries, as well as the interest and boundaries of other nations”.

In other words, the relationships are not random; people who have thin boundaries in one sense

are very likely to have thin boundaries in other senses as well.

This consistency in boundaries suggests that people who have thick boundaries overall

will also be people who think in terms of thick boundary peace, whereas people who have thin

boundaries overall will think more in terms of thin-boundary peace. This is supported by

interviews with a number of those who scored very thick or very thin.

1
Hartmann, E. “Boundaries in the mind,” Basic Books; 1991. Hartmann, Harris and Zborowski,
“Boundaries in the mind: Past research and Future directions” North American Journal of Psychology. 3:
347-368,2001.
 6

I have spoken so far as if boundaries were a long term immutable feature of our

personalities, something that psychologists call a “trait.” However this is an exaggeration.

Boundaries can change from time to time, so that thin or thick boundaries can also be thought of

as a “state,” rather than a trait. For instance we all tend to have somewhat thicker boundaries

when we are engaged in a focused, waking task, such as doing a mathematical problem. Our

boundaries shift toward the thin end when we are involved in reverie, daydreaming or dreaming.

More important than these small shifts we all undergo is the phenomenon I call “the

Amoeba Principle.” When an amoeba is threatened, when one of its pseudopods encounters

something potentially dangerous, the amoeba pulls itself together and thickens its exterior

membrane or “skin.” In other words its external boundary becomes thicker in response to threat.

I believe that we react similarly, both as individuals and as societies. When threatened, our

boundaries — in all the ways we have described them — tend to become thicker. For instance,

since 9/11/01, we clearly have a tendency to think more in terms of “us vs. them.” However our

boundaries do not thicken in this obvious sense only. We also divide things increasingly into

“black vs. white,” “good vs. evil,” “right vs. wrong.” Our laws become tougher. We find it more

difficult to think in shades of grey.

Following the Amoeba Principle, this should be a temporary shift towards thick

boundaries, that may reverse when life becomes easier and there is less threat. However, people

or societies that constantly feel under threat may shift more permanently towards thicker

boundaries. For example, my impression (based on many interviews but not on research studies),

is that Israelis have developed much thicker boundaries in many senses than their close relatives

living in Boston or New York. Because of the consistency we have discussed among different

sorts of boundaries, it is very difficult for people who have thick boundaries as a trait or are in a

thick boundary mode to think in terms of thin boundaries.

Both thick and thin boundaries are useful. Society requires the work of people with

thick and people with thin boundaries. When there is an emergency, we require policemen,

firemen, and others, who can function rapidly and perform goal-directed tasks reliably without
 7

distraction. These tend to be people with thick boundaries. At other times we need broader

viewpoints, interdisciplinary thinkers, artists to help us look at ourselves and look at our problems

in a new way. Usually these are people with relatively thin boundaries. In the business world, a

new product or process is often introduced by a somewhat “far out,” creative thinker, perhaps

someone with thin boundaries. But once a company is started, and employees are hired, there is

a need for people with thick boundaries to organize the company, keep inventory flowing, do the

book-keeping and so on.

This discussion of boundaries does not provide a solution for the world’s problems, but

introduces a new approach or point of view. It is useful to be aware of boundaries and

differences in boundary styles. The world certainly needs both people with thick boundaries and

people with thin boundaries. At times of stress or war, thick boundaries may be essential, but we

must at least remember and appreciate the importance of thin boundaries in planning for the

future

Ideally, people with one sort of boundary structure should recognize and appreciate those

with different or opposite boundary styles. However this is often surprisingly difficult. I have

found a definite tendency, among people who took the Boundary Questionnaire, to value one’s

own style of boundaries and to devalue the opposite style. Those who score very thick on the

questionnaire describe people who share their type of boundaries as “solid,” “reasonable” and

“reliable,” whereas they consider people with thin boundaries to be “far out,” “unrealistic” or

even “flaky.” On the other hand, those who score very thin themselves characterize people with

thin boundaries as “flexible,” “innovative” and “creative,” whereas they think of people with

thick boundaries as “dull,” “rigid,” or “inflexible.”

I have emphasized especially the need to appreciate thin boundaries because I

believe that thick boundaries are, for a number of reason, already very prominent in

decision makers, especially government and business leaders. Perseverance, single-

mindedness, staying focused on a goal are all thick boundary characteristics. We seldom
 8

elect creative artists or dreamers to high office, nor do they frequently become heads of

large corporations. Although I have not had a chance to study many dictators in detail or

ask them to take the Boundary Questionnaire, I am convinced that autocratic leaders tend

to have even thicker boundaries than democratic leaders.

It is possible that women have been under-represented among national and world

leaders not only because of cultural norms and prejudices, but also because, as

mentioned, women on average have thinner boundaries than men in the many senses we

have discussed. The few women who have become leaders of their nations, for instance

Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi and Golda Meir, have been women with many thick

boundary characteristics. Perhaps it is inevitable that leaders will have some thick

boundaries, but I hope they can learn the importance of boundaries, and remain open to

thin boundary people and thin boundary views.

Thinking in terms of thick and thin boundaries can help us examine relations

between nations even when it is not a question of absolute war and peace. Let us consider one

important case of international relations which quite literally involves boundaries. The United

States and Mexico are at peace, yet there are constant problems at the border. The standard of

living in Mexico is much lower than in the United States, causing many Mexicans to attempt to

cross the border, frequently without the proper documents. What to do? The approach

historically favored by the United States has been the thick boundary approach — building walls

and barriers of various kinds to block or at least reduce and control the flow of immigrants.

People who are used to thinking in thick boundary terms find these approaches necessary and

obvious. What other way could there be? The only question is what sort of walls or controls to

use.

An alternative approach has been championed by the Mexican president Vincente Fox,

and on examination his is clearly a thin boundary approach. His view is that while the huge

discrepancy in living standards remains, there will inevitably be pressure to cross the border,

which will be impossible to stop. Our efforts should rather be directed towards minimizing the
 9

differences in the standard of living. If the United States, instead of pouring billions of dollars

into strengthening the walls, were to make a similar investment on the Mexican side of the

border; helping to build businesses and to strengthen the economic climate, this would eliminate

or at least greatly reduce the pressure of immigration and the walls would become unnecessary.

Again, the thin boundary approach appears preferable in the long run, but it will take time to

develop and some will claim that it is an impossible ideal not worth taking seriously. Obviously

there are numerous practical problems that would have to be addressed.

All I am suggesting is that we be aware of thick and thin boundaries in ourselves and in

others. In our negotiations and our search for peace, this awareness may make us more open to

all possibilities, even those we may consider “unrealistic” and “far out” when we are in a

threatened state of mind.