Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life: Life-Changing Tools for Healthy Relationships (Nonviolent Communication Guides)

by Marshall B. Rosenberg

flourish. I call this approach Nonviolent Communication, using the term nonviolence as Gandhi used it—to refer to our natural state of compassion when violence has subsided from the heart. While we may not consider the way we talk to be “violent,” words often lead to hurt and pain, whether for others or ourselves. In some communities, the process I am describing is known as Compassionate Communication; the abbreviation NVC is used throughout this book to refer to Nonviolent or Compassionate Communication.

Moralistic Judgments One kind of life-alienating communication is the use of moralistic judgments that imply wrongness or badness on the part of people who don’t act in harmony with our values.

Long before I reached adulthood, I learned to communicate in an impersonal way that did not require me to reveal what was going on inside myself. When I encountered people or behaviors I either didn’t like or didn’t understand, I would react in terms of their wrongness.

Analyses of others are actually expressions of our own needs and values. It is my belief that all such analyses of other human beings are tragic expressions of our own values and needs. They are tragic because when we express our values and needs in this form, we increase defensiveness and resistance among the very people whose behaviors are of concern to us. Or, if people do agree to act in harmony with our values, they will likely do so out of fear, guilt, or shame because they concur with our analysis of their wrongness.

Our leaders viewed the U.S.S.R. as an “evil empire” bent on destroying the American way of life. Soviet leaders referred to the people of the United States as “imperialist oppressors” who were trying to subjugate them. Neither side acknowledged the fear lurking behind such labels.

Acknowledging our emotions is so key. And we're raised so much to focus on right and wrongness instead of our own feelings. And adults don't discuss their own feelings and needs, especially teachers.

Our language obscures awareness of personal responsibility. In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, which documents the war crimes trial of Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt quotes Eichmann saying that he and his fellow officers had their own name for the responsibility-denying language they used. They called it Amtssprache, loosely translated into English as “office talk” or “bureaucratese.” For example, if asked why they took a certain action, the response would be, “I had to.” If asked why they “had to,” the answer would be, “Superiors’ orders.” “Company policy.” “It was the law.”

In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, which documents the war crimes trial of Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt quotes Eichmann saying that he and his fellow officers had their own name for the responsibility-denying language they used. They called it Amtssprache, loosely translated into English as “office talk” or “bureaucratese.” For example, if asked why they took a certain action, the response would be, “I had to.” If asked why they “had to,” the answer would be, “Superiors’ orders.” “Company policy.” “It was the law.”

Amtssprache!

In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, which documents the war crimes trial of Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt quotes Eichmann saying that he and his fellow officers had their own name for the responsibility-denying language they used. They called it Amtssprache, loosely translated into English as “office talk” or “bureaucratese.” For example, if asked why they took a certain action, the response would be, “I had ...

Amtssprache

Yeah... These are all common, and they're often somewhat true... Yet they're such a small part of the real "because" possible reasons space. Marshall's point really resonates with what I don't like about how many people complain about others, and vibes well with my worldview that ascribing causality to one thing or another is pretty arbitrary. (And race is the most overused in the US Left.)

Yes. And it's strange that Marshall doesn't address how the term "Needs" can make desires seem like demand... I find that if someone says they need something, I get the idea that if I say they can't have that, I'm denying their reality. (Because it turns out these things are Desires... I should probably commit to memory OFDR)

This is key, I see that "Life-alienating Communication" is the opposite of nonviolent communication in NVC. So he's not actually equating words with violence. And, further evidence that this interpretation of him is right, the book says earlier that NVC is referring to Gandhi's description of a state of nonviolence as ~natural compassion And NVC can be called CC, Compassionate Communication. I think in today's world of microaggressions etc., he would have switched the whole thing to CC.

Yeah I love this. It doesn't say you don't judge... And when people say like, you can't judge, I think that stops all authentic communication. Here, asking for the separation, yes I wish so much that people would do that. As I read all this I'm struck by the beauty of it, as I saw in the workshop video, and I so think if everyone truly got to using this, so many interpersonal conflicts would heal.

In this sense it's a perfect antidote to the fundamental attribution error.

hears himself criticized for behaving like a wall; he is hurt and discouraged

"hurt and discouraged" is a great replacement for "criticized"

Distinguish between what we feel and what we think we are. In NVC, we distinguish between words that express actual feelings and those that describe what we think we are. Description of what we think we are: “I feel inadequate as a guitar player.” In this statement, I am assessing my ability as a guitar player, rather than clearly expressing my feelings. Expressions of actual feelings: “I feel disappointed in myself as a guitar player.” “I feel impatient with myself as a guitar player.” “I feel frustrated with myself as a guitar player.” The actual feeling behind my assessment of myself as “inadequate” could therefore be disappointment, impatience, frustration, or some other emotion.

Petty subtle but important

Distinguish between what we feel and how we think others react or behave toward us. “I feel unimportant to the people with whom I work.” The word unimportant describes how I think others are evaluating me, rather than an actual feeling, which in this situation might be “I feel sad” or “I feel discouraged.” “I feel misunderstood.” Here the word misunderstood indicates my assessment of the other person’s level of understanding rather than an actual feeling. In this situation, I may be feeling anxious or annoyed or some other emotion. “I feel ignored.” Again, this is more of an interpretation of the actions of others than a clear statement of how we are feeling. No doubt there have been times we thought we were being ignored and our feeling was relief, because we wanted to be left to ourselves. No doubt there were other times, however, when we felt hurt when we thought we were being ignored, because we had wanted to be involved.

Great point about the jackal "I feel ignored", that it's a perception/belief not a feeling. Similarly, I could be "inadequate as a Nazi" and not be disappointed in that, but rather have an opposite feeling of pride.

Words like ignored express how we interpret others, rather than how we feel. Here is a sampling of such words: abandoned abused attacked

Many of these jackal feeling words are quite challenging to replace with giraffe. So I could make a doc or spreadsheet to translate these (or even a lookup webpage backed by a gSheet), Jochen might help. Could also make a variant of the emotion wheel with these jackal-feeling words removed or replaced, although actually I would just have an indented list hierarchy instead of a wheel which would be so hard to create and edit (unless there's a data tool to do this). Perhaps via https://www.streamlit.io/

NVC heightens our awareness that what others say and do may be the stimulus, but never the cause, of our feelings.

This is a rather more understandable way to convey the most relevant aspect of the bigger philosophical point that I feel drawn toward making about the arbitrariness of assigning causality.

Example 1 A: “You disappointed me by not coming over last evening.” B: “I was disappointed when you didn’t come over, because I wanted to talk over some things that were bothering me.” Speaker A attributes responsibility for his disappointment solely to another person’s action. Speaker B traces his feeling of disappointment to his own unfulfilled desire. Example 2 A: “Their cancelling the contract really irritated me!” B: “When they cancelled the contract, I felt really irritated because I was thinking to myself that it was an awfully irresponsible thing to do.” Speaker A attributes her irritation solely to the behavior of the other party, whereas Speaker B accepts responsibility for her feeling by acknowledging the thought behind it. She recognizes that her blaming way of thinking has generated her irritation. In NVC, however, we would urge this speaker to go a step further by identifying what she is wanting: what need, desire, expectation, hope, or value of hers has not been fulfilled?

In each of these instances, we can deepen our awareness of our own responsibility by substituting the phrase, “I feel … because I … ”

This is a great technique, to own the feeling with the stem "I feel", and to own the causality with "because I". Having Dana do these replacements is a request I'd like to make of her/us (maybe with a printout of these examples standing by)

In addition to using positive language, we also want to word our requests in the form of concrete actions that others can undertake and to avoid vague, abstract, or ambiguous phrasing. A cartoon depicts a man who has fallen into a lake. As he struggles to swim, he shouts to his dog on shore, “Lassie, get help!” In the next frame, the dog is lying on a psychiatrist’s couch.

Lol

Like this father, we often use vague and abstract language to indicate how we want other people to feel or be without naming a concrete action they could take to reach that state. For example, an employer makes a genuine effort to invite feedback, telling the employees, “I want you to feel free to express yourself around me.” The statement communicates the employer’s desire for the employees to “feel free,” but not what they could do in order to feel this way. Instead, the employer could use positive action language to make a request: “I’d like you to tell me what I might do to make it easier for you to feel free to express yourselves around me.”

we may express our discomfort and incorrectly assume that the listener has understood the underlying request. For example, a woman might say to her husband, “I’m annoyed you forgot the butter and onions I asked you to pick up for dinner.” While it may be obvious to her that she is asking him to go back to the store, the husband may think that her words were uttered solely to make him feel guilty. When we simply express our feelings, it may not be clear to the listener what we want them to do.

It is more common, however, for people to talk without being conscious of what they are asking for. “I’m not requesting anything,” they might remark. “I just felt like saying what I said.” My belief is that, whenever we say something to another person, we are requesting something in return. It may simply be an empathic connection—a verbal or nonverbal acknowledgment, as with the man on the train, that our words have been understood. Or we may be requesting honesty: we wish to know the listener’s honest reaction to our words. Or we may be requesting an action that we hope would fulfill our needs. The clearer we are on what we want back from the other person, the more likely it is that our needs will be met.

The idea that we are always requesting something from another whenever we speak is a fascinating one. I think it's true far more than people think about. I often think about it when a homeless person is muttering to themselves in the street.

On some occasions, a simple question like, “Is that clear?” will suffice. At other times, we need more than “Yes, I understood you,” to feel confident that we’ve been truly understood. At such times, we might ask others to reflect back in their own words what they heard us say. We then have the opportunity to restate parts of our message to address any discrepancy or omission we might have noticed in their reflection. To make sure the message we sent is the message that’s received, ask the listener to reflect it back.

For example, a teacher approaches a student and says, “Peter, I got concerned when I checked my record book yesterday. I want to make sure you’re aware of the homework I’m missing from you. Will you drop by my office after school?” Peter mumbles, “Okay, I know,” and then turns away, leaving the teacher uneasy as to whether her message had been accurately received. She asks for a reflection—“Could you tell me what you just heard me say?”—to which Peter replies, “You said I gotta miss soccer to stay after school because you didn’t like my homework.” Confirmed in her suspicion that Peter had not heard her intended message, the teacher tries to restate it, but first she is careful of her next remark. An assertion like “You didn’t hear me,” “That’s not what I said,” or “You’re misunderstanding me,” may easily lead Peter to think that he is being chastised. Since the teacher perceives Peter as having sincerely responded to her request for a reflection, she might say, “I’m grateful to you for telling me what you heard. I can see that I didn’t make myself as clear as I’d have liked, so let me try again.” Express appreciation when your listener tries to meet your request for a reflection.

This is a great one, reminding me that NVC has a lot more specific techniques in it than OFNR.

When we first begin asking others to reflect back what they hear us say, it may feel awkward and strange because such requests are rarely made. When I emphasize the importance of our ability to ask for reflections, people often express reservations. They are worried about reactions like, “What do you think I am—deaf?” or, “Quit playing your psychological games.” To prevent such responses, we can explain to people ahead of time why we may sometimes ask them to reflect back our words. We make clear that we’re not testing their listening skills, but checking out whether we’ve expressed ourselves clearly. However, should the listener retort, “I heard what you said; I’m not stupid!” we have the option to focus on the listener’s feelings and needs and ask—either aloud or silently—“Are you saying you’re feeling annoyed because you want respect for your ability to understand things?” Empathize with the listener who doesn’t want to reflect back.

Requesting Honesty After we’ve openly expressed ourselves and received the understanding we want, we’re often eager to know the other person’s reaction to what we’ve said. Usually the honesty we would like to receive takes one of three directions: Sometimes we’d like to know the feelings that are stimulated by what we said, and the reasons for those feelings. We might request this by asking, “I would like you to tell me how you feel about what I just said, and your reasons for feeling as you do.”

it’s important to specify which thoughts we’d like them to share. For example, we might say, “I’d like you to tell me if you predict that my proposal would be successful, and if not, what you believe would prevent its success,” rather than simply saying, “I’d like you to tell me what you think about what I’ve said.”

when this particular speaker didn’t define what response he wanted, a member of the group might have said, “I’m confused about how you’d like us to respond to your story. Would you be willing to say what response you’d like from us?” Such interventions can prevent the waste of precious group time. In a group, much time is wasted when speakers aren’t certain what response they’re wanting.

Let’s look at two variations of a situation. Jack says to his friend Jane, “I’m lonely and would like you to spend the evening with me.” Is that a request or a demand? The answer is that we don’t know until we observe how Jack treats Jane if she doesn’t comply. Suppose she replies, “Jack, I’m really tired. If you’d like some company, how about finding someone else to be with you this evening?” If Jack then remarks, “How typical of you to be so selfish!” his request was in fact a demand. Instead of empathizing with her need to rest, he has blamed her. It’s a demand if the speaker then criticizes or judges.

Great illustration of a lot of dating interactions... So shaped by priors about what reactions will be. Like I have to deal with women ghosting out of early convos on dating apps/texting because asshole guys have called them bitches just for saying they're no longer interested.

Jack: You know how lonely I’m feeling. If you really loved me, you’d spend the evening with me. Again, instead of empathizing, Jack now interprets Jane’s response to mean that she doesn’t love him and that she has rejected him. The more we interpret noncompliance as rejection, the more likely our requests will be heard as demands. This leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy, for the more people hear demands, the less they enjoy being around us. It’s a demand if the speaker then lays a guilt trip.

We can help others trust that we are requesting, not demanding, by indicating that we would only want them to comply if they can do so willingly. Thus we might ask, “Would you be willing to set the table?” rather than “I would like you to set the table.” However, the most powerful way to communicate that we are making a genuine request is to empathize with people when they don’t agree to the request. It’s a request if the speaker then shows empathy toward the other person’s needs. We demonstrate that we are making a request rather than a demand by how we respond when others don’t comply. If we are prepared to show an empathic understanding of what prevents someone from doing as we asked, then by my definition, we have made a request, not a demand.

I love how he recognizes and conveys that you can't fix interactions with just words, as so much relies on patterns of past interactions that have shaped expectations. Like if someone were to try and distinguish between what happened to Breonna Taylor and the definition of murder, and talk about what that mislabeling does to police's feelings/psychology /culture, people would assume that person will ultimately show a lot of prejudice and lack of empathy and lack of willingness to try and reduce racism in society.

Choosing to request rather than demand does not mean we give up when someone says no to our request. It does mean that we don’t engage in persuasion until we have empathized with what’s preventing the other person from saying yes.

The process is designed for those of us who would like others to change and respond, but only if they choose to do so willingly and compassionately. The objective of NVC is to establish a relationship based on honesty and empathy. When others trust that our primary commitment is to the quality of the relationship, and that we expect this process to fulfill everyone’s needs, then they can trust that our requests are true requests and not camouflaged demands. Our objective is a relationship based on honesty and empathy.

Amazing, beautiful statement of the limitation of NVC combined with what makes it so powerful: It's not just what you say, it's the intent that becomes clear if you authentically apply the techniques.

When making a request, it is also helpful to scan our minds for the sort of thoughts that automatically transform requests into demands: He should be cleaning up after himself. She’s supposed to do what I ask. I deserve to get a raise. I’m justified in having them stay later.

When we frame our needs with these thoughts, we are bound to judge others when they don’t do as we request.

Interesting, he's implying that being judgmental to someone is a kind of punishment to someone that is harsh enough that it reveals that an ask was a demand. Interesting reminder of how much humans hate being looked down upon.

Summary The fourth component of NVC addresses the question of what we would like to request of each other to enrich each of our lives. We try to avoid vague, abstract, or ambiguous phrasing, and remember to use positive action language by stating what we are requesting rather than what we are not. Each time we speak, the clearer we are about what we want back, the more likely we are to get it. Since the message we send is not always the message that’s received, we need to learn how to find out if our message has been accurately heard. Especially when we are expressing ourselves in a group, we need to be clear about the nature of the response we are wanting. Otherwise we may be initiating unproductive conversations that waste considerable group time. Requests are received as demands when listeners believe that they will be blamed or punished if they do not comply. We can help others trust that we are requesting, not demanding, by indicating our desire for them to comply only if they can do so willingly. The objective of NVC is not to change people and their behavior in order to get our way; it is to establish relationships based on honesty and empathy that will eventually fulfill everyone’s needs.

To me, the word understand does not clearly express a request for a specific action. A request for a specific action might be: “I want you to tell me what you heard me say.”

the words stop drinking do not express what the speaker wants, but rather what he or she doesn’t want. A request for a specific action might be: “I want you to tell me what needs of yours are met by drinking, and to discuss with me other ways of meeting those needs.”

The presence that empathy requires is not easy to maintain. “The capacity to give one’s attention to a sufferer is a very rare and difficult thing; it is almost a miracle; it is a miracle,” asserts French philosopher Simone Weil. “Nearly all those who think they have the capacity do not possess it.” Instead of offering empathy, we tend instead to give advice or reassurance and to explain our own position or feeling. Empathy, on the other hand, requires us to focus full attention on the other person’s message. We give to others the time and space they need to express themselves fully and to feel understood.

Interrogating: “When did this begin?”

Probably my biggest problematic habit ... And it's trickier to prevent than advice-giving and direct problem-solving because empathy also needs inquiring but more lijstening to their heart not establishing the facts. I can remind myself that it's ok to sit in confusion about the facts in service of hearing their heart.

Questions such as, “When did this begin?” constituted the most frequent response; they give the appearance that the professional is obtaining the information necessary to diagnose and then treat the problem. In fact, such intellectual understanding of a problem blocks the kind of presence that empathy requires. When we are thinking about people’s words and listening to how they connect to our theories, we are looking at people—we are not with them. The key ingredient of empathy is presence: we are wholly present with the other party and what they are experiencing. This quality of presence distinguishes empathy from either mental understanding or sympathy. While we may choose at times to sympathize with others by feeling their feelings, it’s helpful to be aware that during the moment we are offering sympathy, we are not empathizing.

I guess the difference between sympathy and empathy, to Marshall, is sympathy means you're in your own feelings (resonating from theirs) instead of in presence with theirs .... I wish he would spell this out more clearly as i think there's something profound here

Are you feeling unhappy with me? MBR: When you say “with me,” you imply that his feelings are the result of what you did. I would prefer for you to say, “Are you unhappy because you were needing … ?” and not “Are you unhappy with me?” It would put your attention on what’s going on within him and decrease the likelihood of your taking the message personally.

Are you feeling unhappy because you feel like I don’t understand you? MBR: Notice that you are focusing on what he’s thinking, and not on what he’s needing. I think you’ll find people to be less threatening if you hear what they’re needing rather than what they’re thinking about you. Instead of hearing that he’s unhappy because he thinks you don’t listen, focus on what he’s needing by saying, “Are you unhappy because you are needing …

NVC suggests that our paraphrasing take the form of questions that reveal our understanding while eliciting any necessary corrections from the speaker.

I love the practical technical description here... Very specific and actionable

what others are observing: “Are you reacting to how many evenings I was gone last week?” how others are feeling and the needs generating their feelings: “Are you feeling hurt because you would have liked more appreciation of your efforts than you received?” what others are requesting: “Are you wanting me to tell you my reasons for saying what I did?”

Great ways to inquire empathically and avoid the following highlight

Notice the difference between these questions and the ones below: “What did I do that you are referring to?” “How are you feeling?” “Why are you feeling that way?” “What are you wanting me to do about it?” This second set of questions asks for information without first sensing the speaker’s reality. Though they may appear to be the most direct way to connect with what’s going on within the other person, I’ve found that questions like these are not the safest route to obtain the information we seek. Many such questions may give speakers the impression that we’re a schoolteacher examining them or a psychotherapist working on a case. If we do decide to ask for information in this way, however, I’ve found that people feel safer if we first reveal the feelings and needs within ourselves that are generating the question. Thus, instead of asking someone, “What did I do?” we might say, “I’m frustrated because I’d like to be clearer about what you are referring to. Would you be willing to tell me what I’ve done that leads you to see me in this way?” While this step may not be necessary—or even helpful—in situations where our feelings and needs are clearly conveyed by the context or tone of voice, I would recommend it particularly during moments when the questions we ask are accompanied by strong emotions.

Fantastic. I especially love the point he makes that people feel safer when you first convey what's going on in you before their asking what's going on with you. That super resonates with my experience, especially with girlfriend. I'd also note (in something mental health people tend not to talk about) that it takes some of cognitive work off the upset person's plate, so that just makes it easier for them. It's also a signal that you're going to be making time and emotional space to hear them, which is naturally what they want to know BEFORE sharing something that feels socially/emotionally risky.

When asking for information, first express our own feelings and needs.

There are no infallible guidelines regarding when to paraphrase, but as a rule of thumb, it is safe to assume that speakers expressing intensely emotional messages would appreciate our reflecting these back to them.