"Non-Violent" Communication / Collaborative Communication

Words can kill.

Not necessarily as a result of some magickal ritual (although I don't know enough to discount that), but directly, through the response they cause in the listener, and indirectly, through the actions they cause people to take.

• as an example of the first aspect, the direct response, I come from a small community in which I have seen half a dozen people driven to suicide in a quarter of a century by discrimination. To illustrate that, see here, and here (this is also an example of a situation where words have led to the speaker's death: the murderer claimed - unsuccessfully, I am glad - that he was provoked: he is a murderer, and committed an act of murder, nothing else. Maybe the techniques discussed below would have worked to defuse the situation, but that would have been momentary at best: there were deeper issues to resolve, including control);
• as examples of the latter, consider the violence engendered by the words of the Nazi leaders in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, and the xenophobia being exacerbated by Australian politicians this millennia, which has led to the deaths of hundreds of people (try looking back where they are trying to flee from if you want to argue about people dying at sea - and look at the response last year of the Italian navy to the same situation: the Italians, unlike Australia, complied with international law) and immense social dislocation and violence in Australia.

 Therefore, it is right for people to attempt to communicate in ways that do not foster, encourage or increase violence.

I support that - I've been on the receiving end of such violence, and not only in LGBTIQ contexts.

The problem is:

having enough life experience and/or insight to be TRULY aware of what constitutes violence.

As an example of the shortcomings which can occur, refer to my article on the Charter for Compassion, which has the serious flaw of failing to recognise that enforced invisibility is one of the forms of violence that actively harms LGBTIQ people.

This is where I have major concerns over the form of communication which generally calls itself Non-Violent Communication (see here and here). It is a major step forward, but:

• the assumption that openness will trigger compassion is not universal, as it will not always do so. Gandhi was the greatest exponent of this, but he did not trigger a compassionate response in everyone. Some people are too damaged for this to work - or necessarily even to be appropriate: healing may be what they need first;
• people have the right to privacy. Some people have suffered abuse in the form of invasive experiences, and for them, such communication is a gross invasion. For other people and situations, such ways of communicating are very inappropriate - I would not be at all accepting of some of my colleagues at work trying to delve into my inner thoughts and feelings, for instance, and I've come across many other people who have asked inappropriate questions; 
• just as people respond differently to counselling or forms of healing or styles of teaching, so too do they respond differently to various styles of communicating. This form of communication can come across as aggressive (particularly amongst some of the blue collar workers I have lived with at times). Assuming that it won't is an indication of a particular academic level/inclination, and basically a naivety/lack of life experience; 
• there is a presumption that verbal skills are something ANYONE can master and use, and that is just utter rubbish - and it doesn't by any means apply only or necessarily even predominantly to men: I know many women (cisgendered, in case any bigots wonder about that) who struggle with verbal dexterity. Again, such an assumption may be an academic/ideological bias;
• finally, there are times when swearing to relieve stress is beneficial: it is time for those who advocate this form of communication to learn that, and leave people some space when it is appropriate. If you want to educate people about the associations and implications of swear words that is OK, but don't do it when it is actually harmful.

Personally, I find some of the examples on the website highly questionable - for instance, leaving rubbish on the floor of a teenager's room does make the room more prone to insect pests: there is a health implication from such inaction. Also, others in the house have rights, one of which is to not be forced to live a lifestyle they do not willingly choose - such as living in a pig sty (the teenager can always close their door - they do NOT have a right to force others to see their pig sty).

Overall, however, the technique is worth having in one's repertoire - but it is just one of man techniques to be used. I also consider the term "Collaborative Communication" far more accurate and useful.

*****

I've written on this before. For convenience, here is that prior article (and see here, here, here, here, and here [written before I had come across Collaborative Communication, incidentally] for some of my other posts on the topic of communication - and this post and this post are also relevant):


The principle of nonviolence [1] (which I will abbreviate to NV for the rest of this post) is good. Why? Because
(a) the importance of free will (violence is imposition of one person's will on another, which can be done by words as well as deeds), and
(b) most people grow better with NV - not necessarily peace, though, as they may need a challenge (and some people CHOOSE to learn the hard way: if they do, that is their right, and you have no right to be upset on their behalf).

A form of communication has been developed which is aimed at honesty, avoiding judgements and looking after oneself and, as a result of doing so, being able to look after others more effectively. The communication style is called "Non-violent Communication" (which I am going to abbreviate to NVC for the rest of this post). Before you go further, please go to the website at http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/index.htm, and have a browse.

* plays elevator "musak" for a few minutes while you browse *

Back? Good-oh!

Overall, I think NVC is quite good (well, brilliant, in many ways) - and it has been around for something like half a century, so I think it has stood the test of time, although it clearly hasn't taken off in a mainstream way (hasn't taken off in a mainstream way "yet", perhaps?). 

Despite my ranking of it overall as being "good", I have a few concerns about it that I wish to touch on in this blog post.

1. Firstly, and this is a trigger reaction of mine, this is similar in style to past experience of mine with a manipulative drama queen who believed in something that was, in effect, akin to radical honesty (and on that, I always note the character on the TV series "Lie to Me" who began as someone being radically honest but eventually learned that white lies have a purpose in some cases). Whilst it may be my past reaction coming out, I am concerned NVC could be - or could too easily used to be - selfish. Having made that point, however, I must acknowledge that NVC has an element of seeking intimacy that wasn't present in my previous ... "encounters". This concern leads me to also ask (and I am not far enough through their material to answer this):
    - Will adherents to NVC respect people's possible desire not to be intimate (e.g., for workplace applications of these techniques)?
    - Do the needs listed include solitude, and the need for physical exhilaration - which is also a valid need for some? (On that, I recall a young boy who apparently thrived when playing footy despite his mother being paranoid about "competition" and thus keeping him out of that for some years - and it was the mother who told me about that, by the way)
    - Do the NVC people make the fundamental and fatal mistake of trying to claim some things are universal? (I think yes on this count, sadly - and I write "sadly" because NVC has an enormous amount of potential.
   
   Now, as a digression and a sweeping generalisation all in one, it seems to me that the first people to introduce something have to be fairly fanatical in order to jolt most others out of their lethargy, and but then, after the first generation of practitioners/adherents, a more realistic version of whatever the philosophy is evolves. As an example, consider the struggle for equal rights of women in the mid-20th Century, where some women (yes, they called themselves by the "F" word - Feminists) campaigned for equal power sharing - half for men, half for women, and were met by the response of some men "well, we think around 1/3 of power could go to women, but we'll keep 2/3". In response, they campaigned for "all power to women", and then the retards (my pejorative and judgemental label) said "whoa! well, half and half is better than that so OK." (Of course, that struggle still has to happen in too many places of the world ... and currently Australia seems, to me, to be in a backlash phase to the gains of the late-20th Century for women's rights, so we haven't reached the final stage of that particular issue yet ... maybe in another 50 years ... ).
2. Secondly, emotions are a great tool for the soul to learn and evolve, but they are not the purpose of existence (I've added a new saying on this to the "provoke a reaction" section of my signature block to express this). I consider that NVC inherently acknowledges this, in that it pursues a goal of NV - which is a mental concept, not an emotion.
   
   On that, in my world view love is more than "just" (note the emotive qualifier? :) ) an emotion: it is a way of living, a way of expressing the self, and includes honouring one's duty to those one loves. That may mean at times doing things one doesn't like - such as working to pay the bills, rather than pursuing one's heart's desires. (On that point, I am thinking of situation where one has young children - and they are NOT such a joy that it "makes it all worthwhile" ... anyone who claims that is naive and lacking in life experience! If the situation involves only adults, well, that's a different kettle of fish, and NVC type principles deserve to be applied by all.)
    
3. Thirdly, NVC seems to assume expressing emotions (including identifying what part of the body an emotion is affecting) is the "only" (perhaps "best" is a better word) way to resolve things. Now, when I was bullied as a child, the bullies made it very clear they knew what they were doing, so I have long considered the current fashion of getting victims to talk to bullies about how the victims are feeling a complete and utter waste of time - and, in fact, it is something that FEEDS the bullies and therefore is extremely irresponsible. Working on solely verbally expressing emotions is, in my experience (I first started doing work like this over two decades ago, by the way), at times, unsatisfying and downright useless - it is good for people who are verbal, but useless for those who are physical or mental. Physical people may need, for instance, to run out their emotions, and mental people to meditate on their emotions. The concept of dealing with emotions through talking doesn't cater for all people - which is a criticism of other counselling techniques as well. Still, I think that, over time - particularly if more people speak up as I have just done, better versions of these tools may be developed.
4. Next we come to the issue of unevenness of skills. Someone with good verbal skills using techniques like this on someone who isn't equally as skilled is AS VIOLENT as someone who punches another person - I've buried people who were driven to commit suicide because of words, and have long considered the statement that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will only hurt me to be an absolute nonsense - in fact, criminally stupid. Sadly, I have seen a lot of this, and strongly consider that there needs to be a "level playing field". It goes just as much for those who are fighting against discrimination, who tend to be more gifted with words (such as myself - and I feel comfortable enough with words to have a blog), as for those who are discriminatory.
   
   On that, one story I read in some NVC material concerns me. The author is laying in a room when a friend comes in and says she wants to speak to him; he comments on her tone of voice and says he feels fear and wants to lay looking at the ceiling as a result. I actually consider the person concerned could have expressed their feelings better, much better. And, looking at it from the point of view of the friend, if someone came to me after speaking that way, I would quite possibly have had my trust in them damaged to the extent that I wouldn't talk to them until they had - over some time - re-established their position of trust.
   
   The story reminds me of a situation where someone wanted to get a "be heard" group going about problems in a group, to facilitate healing. I haven't replied as I have no need to express myself to most of the people in that group (I have to one already): I've already talked about it to the people I trust and want. Furthermore, I felt there was a bit of a bias towards expecting that attendees of that little group would choose to continue to be involved in that community afterwards. I had already decided to leave that community, so that bias - and I may have been wrong - was off-putting.
5. An issue I will have to grapple with as I work through the materials (and I am just beginning) is how selfish/spiritually immature some of this approach may be. That's largely my personal button, but I may post more if I think it is relevant ...
6. Finally, we have the issue of reality. People need to pay the bills, rent and buy food, etc. This is not as imperative as when we were gatherer-hunters, but there are still some basic survival things, and those needs can overwhelm this. If one looks at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow [1], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs [1], http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/changes.html and http://gnwmythr.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/maturity.html), I consider the tools of NVC range from Social up to Self-Actualising, but there are still the basic physical needs for food, water and shelter that need to be met, and for millions (probably billions?) of people in the world, aren't being met. If I had a starving child, I really wouldn't give a hoot about how I talked to people, I would do whatever was needed to give my child a chance of survival.

So, overall, I consider NVC is good - in fact, brilliant. However, despite 50 years of development, this may not be the final version we see of this: I think there may be better (more matured, and more mature) versions of it yet. In fact, when I was discussing this topic with my partner, she summed up my concerns and a possible response with a comment to the effect that NVC needs to be adapted by each person in order to be authentic - otherwise, it risked being a script, a very verbose script.

So, what is my suggestion? Go for it - use it, study it, seek to improve it on the basis of your experience. It's possibly one of our next major steps forward.