Personal Boundaries: Why “You May Live As You Wish” — the Method’s View on Norm

When people ask the doctor “what is the norm?”, his answer is blunt: there is no single, official norm of mental life. Neither the international classification nor the classic schools — German, Swiss, Russian, Leningrad — offers a definition of psychic norm as such. “There are no norms” is the starting point for talking about personal boundaries: if there is no shared yardstick, no one may casually measure another person’s life by it.

Why there is no “98.6°” in psychiatry

The doctor admits it honestly: even specialists get confused, and many schools simply declare one term through another — tautology instead of definition. From this grows the practical question of boundaries: if there is no firm norm, who, and on what grounds, has the right to intrude into another’s life? That is why he had to formulate his own working norm — not as “truth,” but as a clear tool for people.

Three criteria — and where the boundary runs

The doctor’s working norm rests on three points. First: a person meets their own needs by their own efforts. Second: they are not in a helpless state and cause no harm to themselves or others. Third: they do not violate the social norms of their environment.

The key to boundaries is precisely the third criterion. As long as someone breaks none of the first two and stays within social norms outwardly, inside they may live as they wish. That is the marked-out space of private life.

“You must not intrude into their private life”

The doctor repeats this as a principle: when a person steps out of their private life, the common criteria apply; but inside it the boundary must not be crossed. Social norms can differ, and what one society calls a deviation, another may treat as the majority. So the criterion is not “I like it / I don’t,” but real, factual harm to others.

When intervention is justified

The boundary is not absolute. The method shows clearly where it opens: real helplessness (“the house is in ruins, nothing to eat, yet he keeps drafting how he’ll plough the heavenly expanse”) or a real threat — not cursing, but a concrete act, a knife, a stick, an axe. Then it is a marker of a mental disorder, and the person needs competent help. The doctor reminds us: historically, intervention was devised for the sake of the patient — so that he wouldn’t sit in prison — though “there’s nothing that can’t be distorted.”

Practice: a checklist for respecting boundaries

1. Ask about the norm. Remember: there is no single “norm” — don’t measure another’s life by your personal yardstick.
2. Check the first criterion. Does the person meet their needs by their own efforts? If not — that’s helplessness, not “their choice.”
3. Check the second criterion. Is there real, factual harm to self or others? Not words, but a concrete act.
4. Check the third criterion. Do they violate social norms outwardly? If it stays within private life — the boundary is closed.
5. Conclude. No helplessness and no real threat, no outward norm-breaking — no one has the right to intrude. If present — help is needed, not condemnation.