Love & Social Change discussion
Our Response to the World
>
Nonviolent/needs based communication
date
newest »
newest »
Jerry wrote: "Hi everyone, I am new to the group and so glad to be here !I wish to share, unless others have done so already, the works, in general, of the late Marshall Rosenberg who, with his work, has profou..."
I would like you to Say more about NVC.
Its important work, i think.
mark
---
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. ”
― Paulo Freire
---
“...the fact that certain members of the oppressor class join the oppressed in their struggle for liberation, thus moving from one pole of the contradiction to the other... Theirs is a fundamental role, and has been throughout the history of this struggle. It happens, however, that as they cease to be exploiters or indifferent spectators or simply the heirs of exploitation and move to the side of the exploited, they almost always bring with them the marks of their origin: their prejudices and their deformations, which include a lack of confidence in the people's ability to think, to want, and to know. Accordingly, these adherents to the people's cause constantly run the risk of falling into a type of generosity as malefic as that of the oppressors. The generosity of the oppressors is nourished by an unjust order, which must be maintained in order to justify that generosity. Our converts, on the other hand, truly desire to transform the unjust order; but because of their background they believe that they must be the executors of the transformation. They talk about the people, but they do not trust them; and trusting the people is the indispensable precondition for revolutionary change. A real humanist can be identified more by his trust in the people, which engages him in their struggle, than by a thousand actions in their favor without that trust.”
― Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Hi Mark and everybody else,You [Mark...:-) ] kindly asked for more information on Nonviolent, or compassionate, or Needs-based communication and NVC for short.
As I mentioned in my previous message, it is the “heart-child” of the late Marshall Rosenberg, who, unhappy with the workings of modern-day psychology, and its application to the public, went on to see if there was a different way of doing things, to help people connect with themselves and, as a consequence, with the world around them.
Marshall was heavily influenced by both Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, two pioneers in the person-centered approach to well-being in general, and, probably, mental well-being in particular.
All these men have one characteristic in common:
They all believed in a person's ability to health themselves, through the power of emphatic listening (by someone else, and themselves. Not enough room in this short essay to go into this).
These men were convinced that - when embraced by an emphatic ear (the listener) - we can find answers within ourselves to our most poignant problems and that the best psychologist is in our heads.
Marshall got involved with so many people and political situations in the world, that there is proof enough for NVC to be the next, urgent stage in human development, from my perspective.
Now, briefly, how does this all work?
NVC is based on several premises, most importantly in my estimate though, the desire of all parties to connect at the level of the heart, with deep understanding for each other.
Motivated by this desire, Marshall came up with a 4-step procedure:
A) Make an observation of what you just heard/saw (note: observation is a really tricky thing: it means stripping the situation of any emotional connotation. Eg, instead of saying: “you left the bed in a mess”, focus on what it is that triggers/annoys you in the situation, and state it: “when I see you leave the computer and your books on top of the bed...” is an observation (for more detail don't hesitate to contact me. This part is absolutely crucial, incredibly huge and needs lots of careful work...:-) ! )
B)after having expressed the observation, state how you feel (annoyed, happy, disgruntled, etc...)
C)after having expressed the feeling, state your basic human need (order, harmony, peace,etc...this is way, way too ample a subject to discuss in these few lines. Again, for more information, feel free to contact me. This phase is also too important to let ourselves loose into the world without having properly mastered it)
D)State a request [careful! It's a request, not an order...;-). People can say yes or no ] “Would you be willing to...?”
NVC requires that we change the way we interact with the world; that we come from a paradigm of peace – inner peace – vis-à-vis the planet. For more information you can visit one of the many web sites dedicated to this subject, or refer back to the center for Nonviolent communication www.cnvc.org or, of course, send me an email. My contact details are also to be found through my web page www.caring-for.eu
Look forward to answering any question, or sharing anything you would like on the subject ! Thanks for reading this !!!
Warmly Jerry
Jerry wrote: "Hi Mark and everybody else,You [Mark...:-) ] kindly asked for more information on Nonviolent, or compassionate, or Needs-based communication and NVC for short.
As I mentioned in my previous messag..."
I am familiar with Rosenberg's work, Jerry :)
I just wanted you to share it so others who might not be familiar with it, would have a chance to learn about it. I'm a fan of Rosenberg's ideas. I also like Dan Wile and his ideas about conversation ("After the Fight" Dan Wile)
What Rosenberg does in "political conversations",
Dan Wile does in "personal conversations." I find both approaches to be very similar, though they are usually used in different contexts...blah blah blah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgaeH...
NVC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcBbk...
Dan Wile
m
I watched a couple of his videos and they were amazing. Thank you so much! As a teacher mentoring children toward peace I use many resources and this one is excellent.
I have yet to finish Rosenberg's book. I think it is definitely a hugely important book, which extols many of the ideas that I learned as a teen from a book that I read on Transactional Analysis (TA). After learning about TA in my youth, I became convinced that if people could simply talk about what they really wanted and needed that they would understand that conflict was irrational and unnecessary.
However, having since studied political science, I see that conciliation is not always as simple as it might seem to be when approaching communication from a purely emotional basis. I think that the book, The Blue Sweater, sheds light on the fact that although people may have good intentions when wanting to help others that they often fail, or worse, do more harm than good. Of course, listening is still the problem in this context, however, the barriers to listening properly are not necessarily always emotional. Some of the difficulties that arise in overseas charity work come from entrenched belief systems, political instability, and the difficulty of being able to fully and appropriately understand problems without living through them one's self for a period of time sufficient to appreciate all of the implications.
There are also other asymmetries that serve as barriers to communication, such as asymmetries of power, and asymmetries of knowledge, and even asymmetries of the capacity to understand. Even different personality types can perceive the world in such different ways as to impede productive communication.
So, while I am a fan of NVC, I am not yet convinced that it is the one-stop solution to resolving conflicts. Mark's quotation above certainly holds weight. So while NVC is a great tool for building conciliation, other models for communication are also of importance.
Here is a quote from John F. Nash Jr. that is thought provoking when considering the problem of the desire of different parties to meet their wants and needs:
"One proceeds by constructing a model of the preplay negotiation so that the steps of negotiation become moves in a larger non-cooperative game [which will have an infinity of pure strategies] describing the total situation. This larger game is then treated in terms of the theory of this paper [extended to infinite games] and if values are obtained they are taken as the values of the cooperative game. Thus the problem of analyzing a cooperative game becomes the problem of obtaining a suitable, and convincing, non-cooperative model for the negotiation."
However, having since studied political science, I see that conciliation is not always as simple as it might seem to be when approaching communication from a purely emotional basis. I think that the book, The Blue Sweater, sheds light on the fact that although people may have good intentions when wanting to help others that they often fail, or worse, do more harm than good. Of course, listening is still the problem in this context, however, the barriers to listening properly are not necessarily always emotional. Some of the difficulties that arise in overseas charity work come from entrenched belief systems, political instability, and the difficulty of being able to fully and appropriately understand problems without living through them one's self for a period of time sufficient to appreciate all of the implications.
There are also other asymmetries that serve as barriers to communication, such as asymmetries of power, and asymmetries of knowledge, and even asymmetries of the capacity to understand. Even different personality types can perceive the world in such different ways as to impede productive communication.
So, while I am a fan of NVC, I am not yet convinced that it is the one-stop solution to resolving conflicts. Mark's quotation above certainly holds weight. So while NVC is a great tool for building conciliation, other models for communication are also of importance.
Here is a quote from John F. Nash Jr. that is thought provoking when considering the problem of the desire of different parties to meet their wants and needs:
"One proceeds by constructing a model of the preplay negotiation so that the steps of negotiation become moves in a larger non-cooperative game [which will have an infinity of pure strategies] describing the total situation. This larger game is then treated in terms of the theory of this paper [extended to infinite games] and if values are obtained they are taken as the values of the cooperative game. Thus the problem of analyzing a cooperative game becomes the problem of obtaining a suitable, and convincing, non-cooperative model for the negotiation."
As a teacher who incorporates peace curriculum, I need as many resources as I can find. Thank you for the suggestions.
Thank you, Boradicus. Truly the crux of human foibles: "... although people may have good intentions when wanting to help others that they often fail, or worse, do more harm than good." It starts in the home. I love the way Rosenberg's book alerts us to the ways we communicate in our close circles. Many do not realize how typical communication with loved ones can be dismissive and destructive to the soul.
Actually, as I stated above, implicitly by use of examples, there is no "crux" of human foibles.
Hmm. I suppose I did not see that. It looks to me as if you are saying that "good intentions" are part of the problem, as are the other examples. Sorry.
Hi Boradicus, how are you?I did read with great interest what you say and, as both author of books on Needs based communication yet, more prominently, counselor/coach in humanistic counseling I would like to add to your comments that communication has many elements. Personally I like to distinguish in terms of listener and speaker and reasons why each party has joined the conversation, which is where NBC comes in very handy, regardless of cultural setting and way folks express themselves. Most of my clients come from different cultures and therefore express themselves in substantially different ways, and have, because of their different backgrounds, been socialized in different ways. To put it jokingly, what is seen as delicacy by one of my clients, is seen as revolting by another. How do you look upon fried crickets? The difference is in the way we have been socialized by the societies we lived/live in and, of course, personal preference.
Coming back to a fictitious get-together, I might be joining a conversation to fulfill my needs for contribution and being heard, while you might come in to fulfill your need for understanding. We both come to the conference room with different needs to be satisfied so, if we know how to establish which needs we all are trying to fulfill, we can create strategies that work for all, in that moment, on that day, in that particular part of the world, regardless of our provenance. In practice, I find that when we hear each other at this level, strategies (the way we connect and speak with each other) show themselves every time.
Hi Jerry.
Thanks for the optimism - the world is surely in need a continual dose! Certainly, if people are able (and willing) to "come to the table" so that negotiations can be initiated, there is significant cause for hope. Obviously, there are numerable situations in the world that never progress to such a level of willingness or accessibility to communicate.
I have seen Rosenberg's idea that emotions should be be processed first corroborated not only in other counseling literature, but also in scripture. It really is essential to resolve these issues - in my opinion - in order for all parties to engage as fully as possible in a cooperative spirit. I have also seen good lawyers accomplish much by proxy, but in such cases it is more or less a matter of the lawyers cooperating on behalf of those whom they represent.
I like how you frame in your example how one party might be attempting to fulfill a need to contributing something while another might have a need to be understood. Needs can be emotional, yet they can also be functional. My point is more that emotional needs may at times be superseded by the functional needs, which in your example would be either the functionality of contributing or the functionality of being understood.
Perhaps the need to contribute comes from a corporation's need for a tax right-off in combination with a marketing related plug for the corporate image (such things are frequently practiced these days due to the fact that business have discovered that clients are more likely to do business with a company that supports good causes). If such is the case, the party to be contributed to might not be a sufficient functional fit. Albeit a successful meeting could occur, however, a successful, cooperative interchange may not.
Likewise, in the case of the functional need to be understood, a contribution might be requested that for some reason (e.g. a technological or cultural gap) cannot be grasped, and therefore justified by the contributing party. The result could easily be the same.
In both of these extensions to your example, NVC would be deemed to have "worked," yet the negotiation may not have worked. In the first case, depending on the hypothetical corporation's requirements, negotiation of any sort might not have worked. In the second case, if, *perhaps*, say a trusted expert were brought into the negotiations, a successful negotiation could have potentially occurred.
Yet in some cases, the abstraction of the second example (the need to be functionally understood) cannot be resolved. Let's say a family has a gifted child and that they live in a rural community where there are no other gifted children, and where the parents and other members of the adult community are absorbed in their work. The gifted child might have a need to be understood by his/her peers at school, but feels isolated because he/she is not understood. He/she might be accepted, yet the need to be understood might never be fulfilled by any of his/her peers no matter how much negotiation might take place.
Now, let's look at international politics. After WWII, Western democracy addressed the threat of international communism by forming NATO and pointing nuclear missiles at the Soviets (and other communists) and by engaging in various wars and covert operations around the globe. Now, the international relations people will tell you that this was the wrong approach and that everything was hunky dory before the world wars because of the strong ties that countries had with each other due to trade agreements. But a realist (e.g. Henry Kissinger) will tell you that successful trade agreements were only made possible through the military standoff that we know as The Cold War. Now, would NVC have worked in negotiations between the forces of Western democracy and those of the commies? I don't think so, and the reason that I don't think that NVC would have worked is that not only were two very different ideologies involved, but especially because any ideological shift made by the communists toward democracy would have necessitated grave political dangers and upheavals. In a sense, China has been suffering from the same difficulty even under present circumstances: China wants to be democratic, but being forced to compete internationally, they are sort of stuck with what they have in order to keep their political and economic engine going, and thus, changes have to be very gradually and very carefully introduced. So, in this kind of a situation, NVC, while it might help to smooth over things like nuclear deescalation talks, would still need to take a back seat to strategies more akin to that of the game theory that Nash spoke about in my quotation above.
So, to sum up: yes, I believe NVC to be of some value in nearly any situation; however, its value may need to take a back seat to other more functional or even structural considerations.
Ciao,
Boradicus
Thanks for the optimism - the world is surely in need a continual dose! Certainly, if people are able (and willing) to "come to the table" so that negotiations can be initiated, there is significant cause for hope. Obviously, there are numerable situations in the world that never progress to such a level of willingness or accessibility to communicate.
I have seen Rosenberg's idea that emotions should be be processed first corroborated not only in other counseling literature, but also in scripture. It really is essential to resolve these issues - in my opinion - in order for all parties to engage as fully as possible in a cooperative spirit. I have also seen good lawyers accomplish much by proxy, but in such cases it is more or less a matter of the lawyers cooperating on behalf of those whom they represent.
I like how you frame in your example how one party might be attempting to fulfill a need to contributing something while another might have a need to be understood. Needs can be emotional, yet they can also be functional. My point is more that emotional needs may at times be superseded by the functional needs, which in your example would be either the functionality of contributing or the functionality of being understood.
Perhaps the need to contribute comes from a corporation's need for a tax right-off in combination with a marketing related plug for the corporate image (such things are frequently practiced these days due to the fact that business have discovered that clients are more likely to do business with a company that supports good causes). If such is the case, the party to be contributed to might not be a sufficient functional fit. Albeit a successful meeting could occur, however, a successful, cooperative interchange may not.
Likewise, in the case of the functional need to be understood, a contribution might be requested that for some reason (e.g. a technological or cultural gap) cannot be grasped, and therefore justified by the contributing party. The result could easily be the same.
In both of these extensions to your example, NVC would be deemed to have "worked," yet the negotiation may not have worked. In the first case, depending on the hypothetical corporation's requirements, negotiation of any sort might not have worked. In the second case, if, *perhaps*, say a trusted expert were brought into the negotiations, a successful negotiation could have potentially occurred.
Yet in some cases, the abstraction of the second example (the need to be functionally understood) cannot be resolved. Let's say a family has a gifted child and that they live in a rural community where there are no other gifted children, and where the parents and other members of the adult community are absorbed in their work. The gifted child might have a need to be understood by his/her peers at school, but feels isolated because he/she is not understood. He/she might be accepted, yet the need to be understood might never be fulfilled by any of his/her peers no matter how much negotiation might take place.
Now, let's look at international politics. After WWII, Western democracy addressed the threat of international communism by forming NATO and pointing nuclear missiles at the Soviets (and other communists) and by engaging in various wars and covert operations around the globe. Now, the international relations people will tell you that this was the wrong approach and that everything was hunky dory before the world wars because of the strong ties that countries had with each other due to trade agreements. But a realist (e.g. Henry Kissinger) will tell you that successful trade agreements were only made possible through the military standoff that we know as The Cold War. Now, would NVC have worked in negotiations between the forces of Western democracy and those of the commies? I don't think so, and the reason that I don't think that NVC would have worked is that not only were two very different ideologies involved, but especially because any ideological shift made by the communists toward democracy would have necessitated grave political dangers and upheavals. In a sense, China has been suffering from the same difficulty even under present circumstances: China wants to be democratic, but being forced to compete internationally, they are sort of stuck with what they have in order to keep their political and economic engine going, and thus, changes have to be very gradually and very carefully introduced. So, in this kind of a situation, NVC, while it might help to smooth over things like nuclear deescalation talks, would still need to take a back seat to strategies more akin to that of the game theory that Nash spoke about in my quotation above.
So, to sum up: yes, I believe NVC to be of some value in nearly any situation; however, its value may need to take a back seat to other more functional or even structural considerations.
Ciao,
Boradicus
I wish to share, unless others have done so already, the works, in general, of the late Marshall Rosenberg who, with his work, has profoundly helped dis-united communities in Rwanda, in Ex-Yugoslavia, etc... find a dialogue, based on basic human needs (in fact, as a counselor and writer myself, most of my work is heavily influenced by his help. I was lucky enough to meet him, and train with him. Thank you Marshall). I suggest starting with his book "nonviolent communication: a language of life".
NVC (for short) can deeply change our lives, and our ability to receive others emphatically, with compassion and love