Critique of Schamess' concept of boundaries

Conclusion

In conclusion, it seems to be clear that the concept of boundaries has been used in multiple ways from a metapsychological and from a clinical perspective. Metapsychologically, it has been used to attempt to clarify in spatial terms the location of the sense of self, and to distinguish what is inner and what is outer to the self. This use of a spatial metaphor has been shown to be vague and at best ambiguous. In addition, the term has been extended to the domain of clinical theory and applied in reference to the parameters that direct the management of the treatment relationship. Saari in her discussion has given a forceful critique of the “frame” which to me is another term for the demarcation of the boundaries of the treatment process. I agree with her critique and consider it to complement my own.

The alternative to the construct that has been suggested is that we substitute the more experience-near mode of description of the process. The terms intimacy and closeness provide less ambiguous ways of conceptualizing what occurs and avoid the pitfall of the metaphorical expression. In fact, I feel they give us greater latitude in our clinical understanding of the phenomena our patients present to us.