Nonviolent Communication
Yesterday, commenter Christine Stanley linked to websites about ‘nonviolent communication’, wondering what commenter Chuck and yours truly (and everyone else of course) thought of the concept.
For those interested, here are the links as provided by Christine:
nonviolent communication website
Wikipedia on nonviolent communication
Wikipedia article on the creater of this concept: Marshall Rosenberg.
I encourage all of you who are interested in debating / communication techniques to check these website out.
The concept for nonviolent communication is, in my opinion, very interesting. Even if one doesn’t agree with Rosenberg on everything, the concept seems to be a good tool (theoretically at least) to communicate more effectively and with more understanding for each other(‘s feelings / needs).
8 Responses to “Nonviolent Communication”
Thanks for posting this, Michael (though I understand from your e-mail that you probably aren’t around right now to respond.) Love the picture, BTW
You mentioned that this might be of interest to people in regard to debating/communication techniques, and I agree (that is largely why I was interested in the seminar that I attended.)
But also, many readers might also find this of interest because Marshall Rosenberg is using this technique to help promote a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Israel. On an interpersonal level, he’s having some success and I hold out hope that the movement will catch on to help overcome the historical hostilities there.
Does this mean I can’t keep calling MvdG a ____ity ____ ____ anymore? I guess I’ll just have to resort to implication.
Seriously though we can all benefit from nonviolent communication or as my mother would call it Respect. It is something that seems to be hard to find and though I like to think that I try to show it, it is something I struggle with. Now if we can only get those radio talk show hosts to practice it.
But the point of this is that we can’t wait for the extremists to “discover” this. It’s up to us to begin practicing it even on those who don’t deserve it (the principle is that we have to stop blaming, and start seeing the needs and emotions that are under the words- for example, radio talk show hosts are driven by ratings but also to the degree that they are ideological extremists, that type of ideology is driven by fear–and the audience is receptive due to their need for conformity, safety, etc.)
Remember, this is being used to mediate between families who’ve had relatives killed by members of another family, to bring the two sides together. Surely we can consider showing the same respect for people who’ve used harsh words.
The only way the Hannitys and O’Reilly’s of the world will start practicing it is if people stop tuning in to their shows and the ratings drop through the floor. Our media thrives on and perpetuates the opposite of nonviolent communication, because people tune in. Sigh.
OK, you guys are totally missing the point. We are supposed to practice this type of communication with the people that we feel aren’t communicating in a nonviolent way. Our communication involves both listening and hearing. We can choose to hear the venomous stuff that the radio talk show hosts spew out (as well as other sources like some bloggers, some politicians, etc) and react in kind, or we can hear what is really behind their words and that will affect the way we respond; that’s the only way to break the cycle.
Soft fuzzy bunnyland.
No, I think I got the point CS. But what I hear behind the words of the spewing types is mostly fear and ignorance. My response is generally to turn them off because it’s usually not the kind of situation where I can tell them in my best sympathetic therapist voice, “I sense that you’re feeling angry and scared.”
Most of the people I talk with are not the spewing types, with a few small exceptions. Sometimes I can steer us to common enough ground that I can sympathize with their position while suggesting there might be other ways of looking at the issue. Usually that’s about as far as it goes, because most people don’t want to hear anything that challenges their worldview.
I suppose that qualifies as nonviolent communication (I’ve never, ever been in any kind of raised-voice argument over politics), but my points are that 1) there are some people who it will probably not work with, and 2) our current cultural/media climate definitely does not encourage it, and in fact thrives on and drums up conflict.
All the same, I’ll continue to practice it, even though I wasn’t aware that what I was doing had a name.
OK, I see your point, but I think there’s a general feeling that the radio talk show type of rhetoric is out of control and poisoning the environment, so there’s blame placed on those types. That’s justifiable, but the situation won’t improve unless we ARE willing to look beyond that, stop blaming, and start seeing as you said, the fear and ignorance that underlies that kind of discourse.
That’s not to say that I’m going to call Limbaugh’s show and ask him what needs and feelings of his are not being met LOL. In fact, what I learned about the application of this principle is that you have to determine whether or not it’s appropriate to try to talk to the other person that way or not, but either way, if you go through the mental exercise of it then it will change the way YOU react to what the person is saying.
Look at it this way…how has the left reacted to talk radio? With Air America, some blogs that are vitriolic, and some comedy and semi-serious commentary like the MSNBC shows. Does that help either side convince the other? If the focus is on “Well, Rush Limbaugh started it” or “the left has to respond this way in order to be heard over the right wing nuts”, then everything just keeps getting ratcheted up a notch. And really, although most on the left are not as prone to the kind of fears that we attribute to extremists on the right, many left wingers have a fear of right wing extremism. So again, that is the underlying motivator of their response.
I agree with you about the ratings issue for shows that practice and perpetuate the opposite of nonviolent communication, but it goes for the left wing shows as well as the right. That’s why it would matter if people would have a different response to people like Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly; instead of putting blame there, look at the motivators of people who listen to them. The ratings are there because these people are saying things that resonate with people, often because of their fears. If those on the left want those people to stop listening to right wing shows, the best approach would be to figure out what is driving their fears and speak in a way that resonates with them too. Giving them more liberal boogeymen to fear on top of everything else, only perpetuates the cycle.