When Rigid Boundaries Fail Our Clients
In psychotherapy training, the rules regarding boundaries are drilled into us early: Maintain the frame. Avoid dual relationships. Keep the professional separate from the personal.
These ethics are established for a good reason, to maintain the integrity and safety of the therapeutic relationship. But in the real world, particularly when working with diverse cultures and trauma histories, I have learned that a one-size-fits-all approach to boundaries often fails to capture the complexity of human connection.
A Personal Confession
My perspective on this is shaped heavily by my own history as a client.
Years ago, my own therapist provided emotional support that extended far beyond conventional clinical norms. This included physical touch (such as hugging), mentorship, and even professional guidance after I finished graduate school.
According to a strict textbook definition, these were "dual relationships" blending the role of therapist with the role of mentor. In many circles, these actions would be frowned upon or labeled as boundary crossings. Yet, I cannot deny the reality: those deviations had a profound impact on my healing, resilience, and professional trajectory. They didn't harm me; they saved me.
The Conflict of Values
As a therapist now, I find myself navigating this same gray area. Two of my core values—Benevolence and Growth—strongly influence how I view these boundaries.
Benevolence drives my desire to provide extra care, especially to clients who come from backgrounds similar to my own (former foster youth, mixed heritage). I want them to feel the warmth I felt. However, I have to be careful. If I over-identify with a client, benevolence can blur the lines and lead to burnout.
Growth motivates me to guide others toward empowerment. I want to see my clients succeed in the real world, not just in the therapy room. But this value can tempt me to slip into a "mentor" role, which risks fostering dependency rather than independence.
Advocacy for "Trauma-Informed Flexibility"
So, how do we balance this? I believe we need to move away from rigid enforcement and toward Trauma-Informed Flexibility.
We must critically assess each relationship before engaging in any boundary crossing. I have to ask myself: Am I hugging this client for their benefit, or because I need to feel like a savior? Am I offering career advice to empower them, or to feel important?
Especially with underserved populations, rigid boundaries can feel cold, colonial, or rejecting. A "blank slate" therapist does not work for everyone.
Our goal should be to balance human connection with integrity. This requires constant supervision, self-reflection, and ethical consultation. We can be warm, we can be human, and we can be flexible but only if we remain rigorously honest about who those boundaries are truly serving.
