| EQI.org Home | Interview
with Marshall Rosenberg Excerpts ...the language of life is basically the language of feelings and needs. --- ... when you get people out of their heads in these enemy images, and you get them connected to what everybody's needing, it's amazing how people who earlier were wanting to hurt one another now want to contribute to each other's well-being --- I've never had anybody tell me they can find anything more enjoyable to do than to willingly contribute to people's well-being. --- These terrorists are not just something that popped up today. It's by not listening to the needs of the people who are doing itthirty years in the case of Sept. 11. For thirty years people in the Arab world have been trying to express deep pain that they feel when the government uses sacred land for military bases to protect its oil interests. That's enormously painful to people who are seriously trying to live in harmony with their religion. When thirty years ago they expressed it in a kind of mild way we didn't listen, and its been increasing every since. -- I'm not so worried about street gangs, but there are other ones that call themselves governments or multinational corporations and they cooperate. The corporations and governments gang up together and cause much of the violence we have. |
Respect | Empathy
Emotional Literacy |
| Michael Bertrand: You emphasize
a language of compassion. I gather you mean compassion
for others as human beings rather than as enemies or
adversaries. Marshall Rosenberg: Exactly. We could say it's a language of compassion, but it's really a language of life in which compassion comes naturally when we connect with it. The mechanics show how to express what's alive in us and other people. Once we get clear what's alive we look at what we can do to enrich that life. By alive you mean what is really at the bottom of what a person is saying? In a sense, yes. What's alive is basically two things: what the person is feeling and how their feelings are connected to their needs. What's the status of a person's needs right now? If their needs are being met which ones are met and how do they feel, and if their needs are not being met, which ones are not being met and how do they feel? So the language of life is basically the language of feelings and needs. It seems that when you pursue that line of communication, reflecting back what is then said, your examples indicate that people seem to become less angry or less violent. I would say it's even more powerful than that. When you get people connected to with what's alive in each other and you transform enemy images that imply wrongness, when you get people out of their heads in these enemy images, and you get them connected to what everybody's needing, it's amazing how people who earlier were wanting to hurt one another now want to contribute to each other's well-being In our training I try to help both sides see the humanness of each other and the needs. All human beings have the same needs, so when people can see the needs of the other person they don't see an enemy. We haven't been taught how to communicate that. We've been taught how to be in touch with life. We've been taught a language of domination for about eight thousand years that's designed to get people to obey authority. It's quite a shift for people to move away from enemy images that define badness in the other person and to instead just express what's alive in you - what are your needs that aren't being met? It's a radical paradigm shift. I read a quote from you that "We have to learn to communicate because nothing else will protect us from terrorism in this world." I don't remember saying exactly that, but I do talk a lot about terrorism. These terrorists are not just something that popped up today. It's by not listening to the needs of the people who are doing itthirty years in the case of Sept. 11. For thirty years people in the Arab world have been trying to express deep pain that they feel when the government uses sacred land for military bases to protect its oil interests. That's enormously painful to people who are seriously trying to live in harmony with their religion. When thirty years ago they expressed it in a kind of mild way we didn't listen, and its been increasing every since. You mean the bases in Saudi Arabia? Yes. And there's many examples of our using areas in those regions for our economic interests and not really listening to the pain that creates for people in terms of their spirituality. The idea, then, is that non-violent communication can work to defuse a lot of political hot-spots, if they're allowed to? Yes, if we have enough time we hope to really contribute. I was brought into Rwanda by a gentleman who studied with me in a peace studies program in Austria and he told me exactly what was going to happen in his country if he didn't do something quickly. So I went there four months before the genocide there started and we had a two year plan to train people in the hope of preventing the violence. We started off with about seventy human rights workers, but we were there four months before it got started. It was too late to prevent what happened, but now we have a sustainable program that's now trying to use our training in reconciliation and to build for the future. We're also working in other war-torn areas. Do you also find that looking at the needs that people invariably works or do you find that with some people it just cannot? I've never found anybody we cannot connect with if we have time and patience and courage. For example, I was working in the prisons in Sweden. The administrators were very impressed with what I was doing with the prisoners, because these were pretty tough guys long-termers - but they wanted to test it. So they said to me, "We put a new man in your group today. We know he's killed five people, some say eight. We want to see how you're going to work with a guy like this.". I walked in the room and this guy was big. He had tattoos all over him and he stared at me in a way that would scare anybody and knowing that he'd killed these people I was pretty scared. So, I didn't live our process. I didn't confront him and tell him how scared I was and try to understand how he felt. He glared at me for two days without saying anything and I was just inside getting angry at the officials wondering why they put this monster in my group. You could say I wasn't successful with him for two days because I wasn't living the process. I wasn't telling him what was going on in me and I wasn't trying to connect with what was going on in him. Finally, I saw that going on at the end of the second day and the next day got my courage up and confronted him. I told him how scared I was and that I needed to know what was going on with him when he didn't say anything and when I heard what got him into prison. It made it easy for me to want to avoid him. Well, he started to open up and be a real person. Once I started to do my share things started to shift. Whenever I've had the time and the courage I've yet to see that I'm not going to like where it ends up. Patience, time and courage, yes. For example, in Nigeria I started off with the twelve chiefs from the Christian side on one side of the table and twelve from the Muslim tribe on the other. I asked them a question that's central to our training about needs which was, "I'd like whoever wants to tell me what needs of yours are not being met in this conflict." I said I was confident that if everyone could hear one another's needs that we would find strategies for meeting everyone's needs. A chief from the Christian tribe screamed, "You people are murderers", and they other side replied, "You've been trying to dominate us." So, I asked for needs and not surprisingly got a diagnosis of pathology, which is why we have violence on the planet. We haven't been educated in that way. I had to work hard to help them to translate these enemy images into unmet needs. Our training is based on the assumption that all criticism and blame is a tragic expression of the needs of the speaker. So, beneath this murderer, it wasn't too hard to guess that his need was for safety. I said, "Chief, are you saying your need for safety isn't met by how things are being dealt with?" He was shocked because he's not used to talking from inside where his needs are - he's used to calling people names - but after reflection he said, "You're damn right." Then I asked if someone from the Muslim tribe would please reflect back what the chief said his needs were, so they could see another human being like them. Of course, they were in too much pain to do that, so one of the Muslim chiefs screamed, "Then why did you kill my son." (I'd been told that three people there knew that someone who'd killed their child was in the room.) Well, it's not easy to get people not only to say their needs but to hear each other's needs, but after working hard at this for about an hour one of the chiefs said to me, when he saw the change in the atmosphere in the room when we went from calling names to seeing what everybody's needs were, "If we know how to communicate this way we don't have to kill each other." That must have been quite a gratifying moment. I get a lot of those. I see people who initially want nothing more than to kill the other person when they come into a room and I have no doubt that given enough time they'll walk out caring about each other's well-being. I do this in restorative justice work, where I might be working with a woman who's been raped by a man. I have them both in the same room and in the beginning she'd like to see him killed, but I know that if we can connect them with each other's needs and understand each other at a certain level we'll end up with restorative justice. That means harmony restored - both people will be concerned with each other's well-being. Unfortunately that's not how our judicial system is set up. It's set up to punish people and make them suffer for what they've done. That's why our network is very strongly supportive of restorative justice and we work with different groups around the world to transform our present system. Would you call the listening and the compassion that it requires the spiritual component of non-violent communication? The spiritual component is that we believe it's our nature as human beings to enjoy contributing to one another's well-being. There's nothing we love more than that. However, as much as we love to do that, if we hear a demand to do something it takes all the joy out of it. If there's any criticism or punishment used to try to get us to do something it takes all the joy out of it. So, the spiritual component is that we human beings enjoy nothing more than contributing to one another's well-being. Of course, when you say that it can look very naive in the face of all the violence around the planet, but, as theologian and anthropologist Walter Wink explains in his writings, that violence is created by the kind of social structures we've been creating for about eight thousand years which required us to be educated in tools of domination. We're living in a society where some people call themselves superiors and claim to have the right to use punishment and reward on people to get them to behave properly. Then we're trying to live in this time in a way that will counteract an awful lot of societal programming. An awful lot. It's been going on a long time. For example, in our schools we use a radically different language. We don't like teachers to use words like 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', 'have to', 'should'. When you first suggest this to teachers their eyes widen and they can't imagine going through a day without using such language. We then show them how that language is part of the language of domination and that there are cultures around the world that do not have such language and have almost no violence. Just to change the language itself is a big thing, but it's more than that. It's the consciousness that your objective is to get people to do what you want them to do. Parents, teachers and managers see it as their job to make people behave. That's quite a radically different objective than we're suggesting: create a connection that will allow everyone's needs to get met. So, it's not an easy paradigm shift to get people to go through. Of course it isn't. In schools I suppose people are also coming from the perspective that we have to do things a certain way because that's the way things get done. Except we have some pretty good statistics now that things get done when people see each other's needs and see how they can contribute to one another's needs. Children are much more likely to get the basics in our schools and there's much less violence. Things get done more willingly out of a natural motivation of enriching life, which is different than doing things to get rewards in the form of grades in schools or salaries later on, or in order to avoid punishment. It's a different world when you see how it's going to enrich life than to operate from a reward and punishment motivation. You're really indicating that our natural nature is to be compassionate and caring about others, that this is where we really want to function from and we have this layer over top which is preventing us from functioning that way. We don't even know, in a way, that we want to function in the right way. For about the last ninety years the theory has been that we're basically animalistic - selfish, violent, like tigers and such - and therefore have to be controlled by more evolved people who call themselves superiors. That's where we get into punishment and reward. We have this belief that human beings are basically selfish and dangerous. I work in about forty-five countries and in every one I often ask to start with this question, just to introduce the group to our process and its purpose: "I'd like you all to think of something you did in the last day or so that in some way, little or big, did kind of enrich someone's life and made them feel better. Maybe you cooked a meal for someone or just touched someone. Whatever it was think of something you've done in the last twenty-four hours or so." Everybody can usually think of something pretty quickly. It's hard for them often because so many things we do like this we don't even think of it, but I get everybody to think of that. Then I say, "Now, just focus for a second on how you think that behavior enriched the person? How do you think it made them feel? What needs got met? " They focus on that. You can already see just a shift in their eyes just thinking of that. Then I say, "Now you have that in focus, how do you feel when you see how your actions enrich the life of other people?" They usually say they feel wonderful and joyful. Then I ask them if anybody knows anything that's more fun to do and in the forty-five countries I've never had anybody tell me they can find anything more enjoyable to do than to willingly contribute to people's well-being. So, it's not that I'm basing my belief that this is natural on some political statement that we should all be loving. I think it's in our nature. I think our species depends for its survival on our getting more joy out of contributing to one another's well-being than domination, punishment and so forth. As Gandhi says, to change the world outside you have to live the change you want to see. So, we usually start with that in training and then we show people how to do it with their children, their life partners and people at work. Then we extend to social change. We get people to see it's a good start to change ourselves, but we also have to transform the gangs that are creating the violence on the planet. I'm not so worried about street gangs, but there are other ones that call themselves governments or multinational corporations and they cooperate. The corporations and governments gang up together and cause much of the violence we have. So, we include the level of social change in our training, of how to transform organizations at all levels so they support compassionate giving. We all know that compassion is how we're meant to live but our structures don't support it. That's a whole other topic, to start with individuals but then move into the greater community. Can you go into the CEO's and managing directors' offices and start from that level? We show people how to start at all three levels at the same time, because most of us in this incarnation are not ever going to be fully liberate ourselves from what we've incorporated in childhood up to the present moment. So, if we're going to wait until we're fully evolved we're not going to be able to contribute much to transforming the structures. On the other hand, if we go after the structures out of the old consciousness we're just going to create more of this. So we show people how to work at all three of these levels at the same time. |
|
| Marshall Rosenberg, author of Nonviolent
Communication: A Language of Life provides tools for
reviving "The lost language of humankind, the
language of a people who care about one another and long
to live in harmony." Raised in a turbulent Detroit
neighborhood, he developed a keen interest in conflict
resolution and new forms of communication as peaceful
alternatives to the violence he encountered. He gained a
Ph.D. in clinical psychology, but was dissatisfied with
the focus on pathology he found there. His subsequent
study of comparative religions, and his own varied life
experience convinced him that human beings are not
inherently violent, and motivated him to develop the
communication process he calls Nonviolent Communication
(NVC). He has provided training and initiated peace programs in a number of war-torn areas, including Rwanda, Burundi, Nigeria, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, The Middle East, Columbia, Serbia, Croatia and Northern Ireland. I talked with him last month (March, 2004) over the telephone during his recent teaching stay in Quebec City. - Michael Bertrand |
|
| Quotes from this interview www.cnvc.org/what-nvc/interviews/dian-killian/beyond-good-and-evil Our survival as a species depends on our ability to recognize that our well-being and the well-being of others are, in fact, one and the same. DK: If violence is learned, when did it start? It seems to have always been a part of human existence. MBR: Theologian Walter Wink estimates that violence has been the social norm for about eight thousand years. Thats when a myth evolved that the world was created by a heroic, virtuous male god who defeated an evil female goddess. From that point on, weve had the image of the heroic good guys killing the bad guys. And that has evolved into retributive justice, which says that there are those who deserve to be punished and those who deserve to be rewarded Research indicates that perpetrators who go through restorative justice are less likely to repeat the behaviors that led to their incarceration. And its far more healing for the victim to have peace restored than simply to see the other person punished. These are just a few ..... I want to get more |
|
| "What others do may be a stimulus of our feelings, but not the cause." This goes a bit too far. If a mother abandons her baby, I would say she is the cause of her baby's feelings, and possible death. |
wiki page - august 2012
Jump to: navigation, search
Nonviolent Communication (NVC) (also called Compassionate
Communication or Collaborative Communication[1][2]) is a
communication process developed by Marshall Rosenberg beginning
in the 1960s.[3] NVC often functions as a conflict resolution
process. It focuses on three aspects of communication:
self-empathy (defined as a deep and compassionate awareness of
one's own inner experience), empathy (defined as listening to
another with deep compassion), and honest self-expression
(defined as expressing oneself authentically in a way that is
likely to inspire compassion in others).
NVC is based on the idea that all human beings have the capacity
for compassion and only resort to violence or behavior that harms
others when they don't recognize more effective strategies for
meeting needs.[4] Habits of thinking and speaking that lead to
the use of violence (psychological and physical) are learned
through culture. NVC theory supposes all human behavior stems
from attempts to meet universal human needs and that these needs
are never in conflict. Rather, conflict arises when strategies
for meeting needs clash. NVC proposes that if people can identify
their needs, the needs of others, and the feelings that surround
these needs, harmony can be achieved.[5]
While NVC is ostensibly taught as a process of communication
designed to improve compassionate connection to others, it has
also been interpreted as a spiritual practice, a set of values, a
parenting technique, an educational method and a worldview.
Contents
1 Applications
2 History and development
3 NVC Theory
3.1 Overview
3.2 Assumptions
3.3 Intentions
3.4 Communication that blocks compassion
3.5 Four components
3.6 Modes
4 Research
5 Relationship to spirituality
6 Relationship to other models
7 Responses
8 Organizations
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links
Applications
NVC has been applied in organizational and business settings, [6]
[7] in parenting, [8] [9] [10] in education, [11] [12] [13] [14]
in mediation, [15] in psychotherapy, [16] in healthcare, [17] in
addressing eating issues, [18] in prisons, [19] [20] [21] and as
a basis for a children's book ,[22] among other contexts.
Rosenberg has used Nonviolent Communication in peace programs in
conflict zones including Rwanda, Burundi, Nigeria, Malaysia,
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Serbia, Croatia, Ireland, and the
Middle East including the Occupied Palestinian Territories. ([23]
p. 212) The approach also has been used in projects of
restorative justice, bringing prisoners, victims of crime, police
and other interested parties together for healing and
reconciliation.[citation needed]
NVC has been combined with HeartMath[24] meditation to form a
practice called BePeace which serves as a peace building and
social and emotional skill building curriculum being taught in
public schools throughout Costa Rica,[25] in the U.S. and in
other countries.[26]
History and development
Nonviolent Communication training evolved from Rosenbergs
search for a way to rapidly disseminate peacemaking skills. NVC
emerged out of work he was doing with civil rights activists in
the early 1960s. During this period he also mediated between
rioting students and college administrators and worked to
peacefully desegregate public schools in long-segregated
regions.[27]
According to Marion Little (2008), the roots of the NVC model
developed in the late 1960s, when Rosenberg was working on racial
integration in schools and organizations in the Southern United
States. The earliest version of the model (observations,
feelings, and action-oriented wants) was part of a training
manual Rosenberg prepared in 1972. The model had evolved to its
present form (observations, feelings, needs and requests) by
1999. The dialog between Rosenberg and NVC colleagues and
trainers continues to influence the model, which by the late
2000s, placed more importance on self-empathy as a key to the
model's effectiveness. Another shift in emphasis, since 2000, has
been the reference to the model as a process. The focus is thus
less on the "steps" themselves and more on the
practitioner's intentions in speaking ("is the intent to get
others to do what one wants, or to foster more meaningful
relationships and mutual satisfaction?") in listening
("is the intent to prepare for what one has to say, or to
extend heartfelt, respectful attentiveness to another?") and
the quality of connection experienced with others.[28]
Rosenberg's work with Carl Rogers on research to investigate the
components of a helping relationship was, according to Little,
central to the development of NVC. Rogers emphasized: 1)
experiential learning, 2) "frankness about ones
emotional state," 3) the satisfaction of hearing others
"in a way that resonates for them," 4) the enriching
and encouraging experience of "creative, active, sensitive,
accurate, empathic listening," 5) the "deep value of
congruence between ones own inner experience, ones
conscious awareness, and ones communication," and,
subsequently, 6) the enlivening experience of unconditionally
receiving love or appreciation and extending the same.[28]
Influenced by Erich Fromm, George Albee, and George Miller,
Rosenberg adopted a community focus in his work, moving away from
clinical psychological practice. The central ideas influencing
this shift by Rosenberg were that: (1) individual mental health
depends on the social structure of a community (Fromm), (2)
therapists alone are unable to meet the psychological needs of a
community (Albee), and (3) knowledge about human behavior will
increase if psychology is freely given to the community
(Miller).[28]
Rosenbergs early work with children with learning
disabilities is noted as showing evidence of his interest in
psycholinguistics and the power of language, as well as his
emphasis on collaboration. In its initial development, the NVC
model re-structured the pupil-teacher relationship to give
students greater responsibility for, and decision-making related
to, their own learning. The model has evolved over the years to
incorporate institutional power relationships (i.e.,
police-citizen, boss-employee) and informal ones (i.e. man-woman,
rich-poor, adult-youth, parent-child). The ultimate aim is to
develop societal relationships based on a restorative,
"partnership" paradigm and mutual respect, rather than
a retributive, fear-based, "domination" paradigm.[28]
Rosenberg has identified Mahatma Gandhi as an inspiration for the
NVC model. Rosenbergs goal has been to develop a practical
process for interaction rooted in Gandhis philosophy of
"ahimsa" which translates as "the overflowing love
that arises when all ill-will, anger, and hate have subsided from
the heart."[28]
NVC Theory
Overview
Nonviolent Communication holds that most conflicts between
individuals or groups arise from miscommunication about their
human needs, due to coercive or manipulative language that aims
to induce fear, guilt, shame, etc. These "violent"
modes of communication, when used during a conflict, divert the
attention of the participants away from clarifying their needs,
their feelings, their perceptions, and their requests, thus
perpetuating the conflict. The aim of Nonviolent Communication is
then to steer the conversation back towards the needs, feelings,
and perceptions, until the discovery of strategies that allow
everyone's needs to be met.[citation needed] The reasoning is
that from a position of mutual understanding and empathy, the
participants will be able to find ways to meet their needs in a
way that works for everybody.[citation needed]
Assumptions
NVC trainers Inbal and Miki Kashtan characterize the assumptions
underlying NVC as:[4]
All human beings share the same needs
Our world offers sufficient resources for meeting everyone's
basic needs
All actions are attempts to meet needs
Feelings point to needs being met or unmet
All human beings have the capacity for compassion
Human beings enjoy giving
Human beings meet needs through interdependent relationships
Human beings change
Choice is internal
The most direct path to peace is through self-connection
Intentions
The Kashtans further offer that practicing NVC involves holding
these intentions:[4]
Open-Hearted Living
Self-compassion
Expressing from the heart
Receiving with compassion
Prioritizing connection
Moving beyond "right" and "wrong" to using
needs-based assessments
Choice, Responsibility, Peace
Taking responsibility for our feelings
Taking responsibility for our actions
Living in peace with unmet needs
Increasing capacity for meeting needs
Increasing capacity for meeting the present moment
Sharing Power (Partnership)
Caring equally for everyones needs
Using force minimally and to protect rather than to educate,
punish, or get what we want without agreement
Communication that blocks compassion
NVC suggests that certain ways of communicating tend to alienate
people from the experience of compassion: ([29] ch.2)
Moralistic judgments implying wrongness or badness on the part of
people who don't act in harmony with our values. Blame, insults,
put-downs, labels, criticisms, comparisons, and diagnoses are all
said to be forms of judgment. (Moralistic judgments are not to be
confused with value judgments as to the qualities we value.) The
use of moralistic judgments is characterized as an impersonal way
of expressing oneself that does not require one to reveal what is
going on inside of oneself. This way of speaking is said to have
the result that "Our attention is focused on classifying,
analyzing, and determining levels of wrongness rather than on
what we and others need and are not getting."
Demands that implicitly or explicitly threaten listeners with
blame or punishment if they fail to comply.
Denial of responsibility via language that obscures awareness of
personal responsibility. It is said that we deny responsibility
for our actions when we attribute their cause to: vague
impersonal forces ("I had to"); our condition,
diagnosis, personal or psychological history; the actions of
others; the dictates of authority; group pressure; institutional
policy, rules, and regulations; gender roles, social roles, or
age roles; or uncontrollable impulses.
Making comparisons between people.
A premise of deserving, that certain actions merit reward while
others merit punishment.
Four components
NVC invites practitioners to focus attention on four components:
Observation: the facts (what we are seeing, hearing, or touching)
as distinct from our evaluation of meaning and significance. NVC
discourages static generalizations. It is said that "When we
combine observation with evaluation others are apt to hear
criticism and resist what we are saying." Instead, a focus
on observations specific to time and context is recommended.
([29] ch.3)
Feelings: emotions or sensations, free of thought and story.
These are to be distinguished from thoughts (e.g., "I feel I
didn't get a fair deal") and from words colloquially used as
feelings but which convey what we think we are (e.g.,
"inadequate"), how we think others are evaluating us
(e.g., "unimportant"), or what we think others are
doing to us (e.g., "misunderstood",
"ignored"). Feelings are said to reflect whether we are
experiencing our needs as met or unmet. Identifying feelings is
said to allow us to more easily connect with one another, and
"Allowing ourselves to be vulnerable by expressing our
feelings can help resolve conflicts." ([29] ch.4)
Needs: universal human needs, as distinct from particular
strategies for meeting needs. It is posited that "Everything
we do is in service of our needs."[30]
Request: request for a specific action, free of demand. Requests
are distinguished from demands in that one is open to hearing a
response of "no" without this triggering an attempt to
force the matter. If one makes a request and receives a
"no" it is recommended not that one give up, but that
one empathize with what is preventing the other person from
saying "yes," before deciding how to continue the
conversation. It is recommended that requests use clear,
positive, concrete action language. ([29] ch.6)
Modes
There are three primary modes of application of NVC:
Self-empathy involves compassionately connecting with what is
going on inside us. This may involve, without blame, noticing the
thoughts and judgments we are having, noticing our feelings, and
most critically, connecting to the needs that are affecting us.
([30] ch.4)
Receiving empathically, in NVC, involves "connection with
what's alive in the other person and what would make life
wonderful for them... It's not an understanding of the head where
we just mentally understand what another person says... Empathic
connection is an understanding of the heart in which we see the
beauty in the other person, the divine energy in the other
person, the life that's alive in them.. It doesn't mean we have
to feel the same feelings as the other person. That's sympathy,
when we feel sad that another person is upset. It doesn't mean we
have the same feelings; it means we are with the other person...
If you're mentally trying to understand the other person, you're
not present with them." ([30] ch.5) Empathy involves
"emptying the mind and listening with our whole being."
NVC suggests that however the other person expresses themselves,
we focus on listening for the underlying observations, feelings,
needs, and requests. It is suggested that it can be useful to
reflect a paraphrase of what another person has said,
highlighting the NVC components implicit in their message, such
as the feelings and needs you guess they may be expressing. ([29]
ch.7)
Expressing honestly, in NVC, is likely to involve expressing an
observation, feeling, need, and request. An observation may be
omitted if the context of the conversation is clear. A feeling
might be omitted if there is sufficient connection already, or
the context is one where naming a feeling isnt likely to
contribute to connection. It is said that naming a need in
addition to a feeling makes it less likely that people will think
you are making them responsible for your feeling. Similarly, it
is said that making a request in addition to naming a need makes
it less likely that people will infer a vague demand that they
address your need. The components are thought to work together
synergistically. According to NVC trainer Bob Wentworth, "an
observation sets the context, feelings support connection and
getting out of our heads, needs support connection and identify
what is important, and a request clarifies what sort of response
you might enjoy. Using these components together minimizes the
chances of people getting lost in potentially disconnecting
speculation about what you want from them and why."[31]
Research
NVC lacks significant "longitudinal analytical
research" [5] and few studies have evaluated the
effectiveness of NVC training programs.[28] To date, there has
been little discussion of NVC in academic contexts. Most evidence
for effectiveness of NVC has been anecdotal or based on
theoretical support.
As of 2011, six Master's theses and Doctoral dissertations are
known to have tested the model on sample sizes of 108 or smaller
and generally have found the model to be
effective.[2][28][32][33]
Allan Rohlfs, who first met Rosenberg in 1972 and was a founder
of the Center for Nonviolent Communication, explains a paucity of
academic literature as follows:
Virtually all conflict resolution programs have an academic
setting as their foundation and therefore have empirical studies
by graduate students assessing their efficacy. NVC is remarkable
for its roots. Marshall Rosenberg, Ph.D. (clinical psychology, U
of Wisconsin) comes from a full time private practice in clinical
psychology and consultation, never an academic post. NVC, his
creation, is entirely a grassroots organization and never had
until recently any foundation nor grant monies, on the contrary
funded 100% from trainings which were offered in public workshops
around the world. ... Empirical data is now coming slowly as
independent researchers find their own funding to conduct and
publish empirical studies with peer review.[34]
NVC has reportedly been involved in producing dramatic changes in
forensic psychiatric nursing settings in which a high level of
violence is the norm. NVC was adopted, in combination with other
interventions, in an effort to reduce violence. The interventions
were said to reduce key violence indicators by 90 percent over a
three year period in a medium security unit,[35] and by around 50
percent in a single year in a maximum security unit.[36]
Recent research appears to validate the existence of universal
human needs. [37] [38]
Relationship to spirituality
As Theresa Latini notes, "Rosenberg understands NVC to be a
fundamentally spiritual practice."[39] Marshall Rosenberg
has, in fact, described the influence of his spiritual life on
the development and practice of NVC:
"I think it is important that people see that spirituality
is at the base of Nonviolent Communication, and that they learn
the mechanics of the process with that in mind. Its really
a spiritual practice that I am trying to show as a way of life.
Even though we dont mention this, people get seduced by the
practice. Even if they practice this as a mechanical technique,
they start to experience things between themselves and other
people they werent able to experience before. So eventually
they come to the spirituality of the process. They begin to see
that its more than a communication process and realize
its really an attempt to manifest a certain
spirituality."[40]
Rosenberg further states that he developed NVC as a way to
"get conscious of" what he calls the "Beloved
Divine Energy".[40]
Some Christians have found NVC to be complementary to their
Christian faith.[39][41][42][43] Many people have found
Nonviolent Communication to be very complementary to Buddhism,
both in theory and in manifesting Buddhist ideals in
practice.[44][45][46]
Relationship to other models
Marion Little examines theoretical frameworks related to NVC. The
influential interest-based model for conflict resolution,
negotiation, and mediation developed by Fisher, Ury, and Patton
at the Harvard Negotiation Project in the 1980s appears to have
some conceptual overlap with NVC, although neither model
references the other. Little suggests The Gordon Model for
Effective Relationships (1970) as a likely precursor to both NVC
and interest-based negotiation, based on conceptual similarities,
if not any direct evidence of a connection. Like Rosenberg,
Gordon had worked with Carl Rogers, so the models' similarities
may reflect common influences.[28]
Suzanne Jones sees a substantive difference between active
listening as originated by Gordon and empathic listening as
recommended by Rosenberg, insofar as active listening involves a
specific step of reflecting what a speaker said to let them know
you are listening, whereas empathic listening involves an ongoing
process of listening with both heart and mind and being fully
present to the other's experience, with an aim of comprehending
and empathizing with the needs of the other, the meaning of the
experience for that person.[47]
Havva Kök notes an overlap between the premises of NVC and those
of Human Needs Theory (HNT), an academic model for understanding
the sources of conflict and designing conflict resolution
processes, with the idea that "Violence occurs when certain
individuals or groups do not see any other way to meet their
need, or when they need understanding, respect and consideration
for their needs."[48][49]
Chapman Flack sees an overlap between what Rosenberg advocates
and critical thinking, especially Bertrand Russell's formulation
uniting kindness and clear thinking.[50]
Martha Lasley sees similarities with the Focused Conversation
Method developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA), with
NVC's observations, feelings, needs, and requests components
relating to FCM's objective, reflective, interpretive, and
decisional stages.[51][52]
Responses
There is little published critique of NVC. However, researchers
have noted that NVC lacks an evidence base beyond the copious
anecdotal claims of effectiveness and similarly lacks discussion
in the literature of the theoretical basis of the
model.[3][5][28]
Chapman Flack, in reviewing a training video by Rosenberg, finds
the presentation of key ideas "spell-binding" and the
anecdotes "humbling and inspiring," notes the
"beauty of his work," and his "adroitly doing fine
attentive thinking" when interacting with his audience. Yet
Flack wonders what to make of aspects of Rosenberg's
presentation, such as his apparent "dim view of the place
for thinking" and his building on Walter Wink's account of
the origins of our way of thinking. To Flack, some elements of
what Rosenberg says seem like pat answers at odds with the
challenging and complex picture of human nature history,
literature and art offer. [50]
Flack notes a distinction between the "strong sense" of
nonviolent communication as a virtue that is possible with care
and attention, and the "weak sense," a mimicry of this
born of ego and haste. The strong sense offers a language to
examine one's thinking and actions, support understanding, bring
one's best to the community, and honor one's emotions. In the
weak sense, one may take the language as rules and use these to
score debating points, label others for political gain, or insist
that others express themselves in this way. Though concerned that
some of what Rosenberg says could lead to the weak sense, Flack
sees evidence confirming that Rosenberg understands the strong
sense in practice. Rosenberg's work with workshop attendees
demonstrates "the real thing." Yet Flack warns that
"the temptation of the weak sense will not be absent."
As an antidote, Flack advises, "Be conservative in what you
do, be liberal in what you accept from others," and guard
against the "metamorphosis of nonviolent communication into
subtle violence done in its name."[50]
Prof. Ellen Gorsevski, in assessing Rosenberg's book,
"Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Compassion"
(1999), in the context of geopolitical rhetoric states that
"the relative strength of the individual is vastly
overestimated while the key issue of structural violence is
almost completely ignored."[53]
PuddleDancer Press reports that NVC has been endorsed by a
variety of public figures.[54]
Organizations
The Center for Nonviolent Communication (CNVC), founded by
Marshall Rosenberg, has trademarked the terms NVC, Nonviolent
Communication and Compassionate Communication, among other terms,
for clarity and branding purposes.[55] CNVC certifies trainers
who wish to teach NVC in a manner aligned with CNVC's
understanding of the NVC process.[56]
While CNVC offers some trainings,[57] most Nonviolent
Communication trainings are offered by trainers either acting
independently or sponsored by NVC organizations which are allied
with but with no formal relationship to CNVC.[58] Some of these
trainings are announced through CNVC.[59] There are numerous NVC
organizations around the world, many with regional
focuses.[60][61]
my temp file