I’ve noticed a scattering of commentary both here and elsewhere to the effect that this is a fixed or improved version of In Defense of Punch Bug.
And while quite I’m glad that people find it less triggering or more responsibly crafted or less controversial or whatever, and while I agree that the two essays play in overlapping spaces (along with Invalidating Imaginary Injury), it feels pretty important to me that they be understood to be about different things.
The claim of Benign Boundary Violations, in a paragraph:
Society sets cautious/conservative boundaries, relative to most people (but NOT all), which means that for most people (but NOT all) there’s space between society’s boundaries and their own personal boundaries, and playing around in that space is deeply nourishing for many people. It’s important (for many) to feel alive and seen and touched and interacted-with in the space outside of your personal boundaries, and not feel like there’s a ten-foot bubble of cringing caution separating you from all the other monkeys.
The claim of In Defense of Punch Bug, in a paragraph:
There is a level of boundary violation (of your real, actual, personal boundaries, not merely of the social boundary beyond your personal one) that is healthy, and it is greater than zero. Too much boundary violation, and you take real damage and become traumatized, but too little, and you atrophy and get the socio-emotional equivalent of wild autoimmune disorders.
The overlap between the essays is something like:
If someone treats you in a way that is appropriate to treat an average/unremarkable member of society, and thereby accidentally and unknowingly violates some unstated boundary that you have, or triggers some unusual sensitivity, this person has done nothing wrong and is not morally culpable (the first time). Expecting others to pre-guess and preemptively conform to unusual sensitivities is unsustainable on the societal level, and punishing people for failing to do it is approximately as bad as knowingly transgressing an explicit boundary.
I’ve noticed a scattering of commentary both here and elsewhere to the effect that this is a fixed or improved version of In Defense of Punch Bug.
And while quite I’m glad that people find it less triggering or more responsibly crafted or less controversial or whatever, and while I agree that the two essays play in overlapping spaces (along with Invalidating Imaginary Injury), it feels pretty important to me that they be understood to be about different things.
The claim of Benign Boundary Violations, in a paragraph:
The claim of In Defense of Punch Bug, in a paragraph:
The overlap between the essays is something like: