Nonviolent Communication

Nonviolent, or compassionate, communication (NVC) is a communication process that can function as a conflict resolution process developed by Marshall Rosenberg in the 1960s and 70s. It focuses on two aspects of communication: honest self-expression — (defined as expressing oneself in a way that's likely to inspire compassion in others) and empathy — (defined as listening with deep compassion).

NVC is based on the idea that humans are innately compassionate, while violence (verbal and physical) are learned through culture. NVC supposes all human behavior stems from attempts to meet a small set of human needs. Needs are believed to never be in conflict. Rather conflict arises when strategies for meeting needs clash. NVC proposes that if people can identify the needs of others, and the feelings that surround the needs, harmony can be achieved.

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, and a worldview.

NVC today is promoted by a network of over 200 certified trainers throughout the world, coordinated through the Center for Nonviolent Communication in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Many people who have been exposed to NVC believe its usefulness is self-evident, and anecdotal reports of NVC's efficacy are voluminous. In contrast to this testimonial evidence, there currently exists a dearth of discussion, analysis and critique of NVC in the academic community. There are few published studies supporting the claims of effectiveness. While some people consider the development of an evidence base a high priority, NVC currently lacks any longitudinal research program, or significant research and analysis of the practice and its theoretical basis.

History and Development

Rosenberg's NVC was developed by Rosenberg and initially applied to violent situations among socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities in the United States. By the 1980s, a large number of certified trainers in many countries continued the practice of bringing NVC to places of conflict around the world.

NVC Theory

Nonviolent communication holds that most conflict between individuals or groups arises from miscommunication about their human needs, because of coercive or manipulative language that aim 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. The reasoning is that from a position of mutual understanding and empathy, the participants will be able to find ways to meet their needs without compromising their opponent's. This aspects distinguishes NVC from zero-sum conflict resolutions approaches, such as negotiation or compromise.

NVC advocates that, in order to cultivate a deeper understanding of each other, the parties should express themselves in objective and neutral terms, (preferring factual observations about feelings and needs) rather than in judgmental terms (such as good versus bad, right versus wrong, or fair versus unfair). Formal NVC self-expression follows four steps: making neutral observations devoid of interpretations or judgement (e.g. "I see two balls of soiled socks under the coffee table, and three next to the TV."), expressing feelings without justification or interpretation (e.g. "I feel irritated"), expressing needs drawing from a list of fundamental human needs (e.g. "I need more order in the rooms we share.") and making clear, concrete, feasible requests (e.g. "Would you be willing to put your socks in the washing machine?"). In response, the listener may build empathy with the speaker by responding with reworded versions of the speaker's own statements ("I hear you saying that...."), thus confirming for them that they have been heard and understood. NVC requires listening carefully and patiently to others, even when speaker and listener are in conflict.

Focuses

NVC gives priority to creating a high quality of connection to oneself and between people. NVC advocates claim that without connection, effective communication cannot occur.

Maintaining a focus on needs is a central premise. Needs, as the term is used in NVC, are universal and experienced by all people at different times and to different degrees. They serve as a basis for understanding and more easily sympathizing with motivations.

NVC distinguishes needs from strategies, which are specific plans to try to meet needs. NVC advocates claim that if people interact only with an awareness of strategies, it is easy for people's strategies to come into conflict. NVC advocates claim that operating from an awareness of needs increases flexibility, insofar as there are typically many strategies that could lead to a given need being met. NVC practitioners report that awareness of needs leads to deep satisfaction.

NVC processes and attitudes are strategies intended to "serve life" — to increase the joy and well-being of all. NVC advocates claim quality connections and a focus on meeting everyone's needs serve these ends.

OFNR process model

The NVC model has three or four steps depending on the mode of use.

1. Observation
2. Feelings
3. Needs
4. Request (optional, depending on mode)

The two modes of use of the NVC model are

1. empathy, including both self-empathy, and empathy for another, and
2. honest self-expression, including "please" (request) and "thank you" (gratitude)

OFNR model in more detail

The four steps, when used in "self-expression" mode, work like this:

1. To observe without evaluation, judgment, or analysis,
2. To express feelings which these observations evoke,
3. To express needs connected with these feelings,
4. (optional) To make a specific request of another person to help meet an unmet need, and to enrich life of everyone involved. Essential in this is that the other person is to be left free to honour or decline the request.

In this recipe, offering an observation serves to give the listener a reference as to the subject. Offering a feeling (uncontaminated by interpretation and blame) tends to increase connection. Expressing needs, either met or unmet, provides connection and meaning. Finally, a request offers clarity as to what the speaker wants.

Demands (for which there is only one acceptable response) do not meet the recipient's need for autonomy and tend to produce either submission or rebellion. Typically, neither of these responses is enjoyable for both parties. Both responses foster resentment and strain the relationship. In contrast, it is felt that the consistent use of requests (for which no answer will trigger retaliation of any kind) leads to people experiencing the joy of giving. People will often say "yes" to a request out of the desire to contribute to one another, which NVC practitioners maintain is a stronger and more universal motivation than is commonly recognized.

If a request yields a "no," the suggestion is to interpret that response as information that a need exists that the requester was not aware of and may want to investigate. The need that originally motivated the request is more likely to be met through a strategy that respects all needs.

Empathy

The Empathy process practiced in NVC is sometimes called "deep listening". It involves the listener connecting with the essential core of an individual's experience and offering a kindly energy of presence. The empathy process offered by NVC is often referred to as "giving empathy." It is more accurately a procedure that supports the development of true empathy.

This process involves listening for, and sometimes guiding the other person towards describing:

1. Observations as to what happened,
2. Feelings evoked, sometimes guessing what feelings might be, if the other is (for example) in blame mode,
3. Needs both met and unmet, although the unmet needs are most likely to be provoking the feelings involved

(Note: in Empathy mode, the "Request" step for the OFNR model is omitted.)

The empathy process for another may be conducted out loud, as an interaction with that person, or silently, as an inner approach to awareness of that person's experience.

Empathy brings about understanding of the needs of the one "receiving" empathy, and also relieves emotional charge. Emotional charge is often uncomfortable and is a barrier to being able to hear others clearly and respond in a flexible fashion. Thus, empathy may be used to relieve distress and increase understanding and readiness for hearing.

Formal vs. colloquial

To communicate using NVC, one can choose to speak either "formal" or "colloquial" NVC. In formal NVC, following the OFNR steps to provide empathy and express oneself, one tends to use standard NVC expressions and NVC words such as "feel" and "need." Formal NVC can be well-received and effective, but it is sometimes perceived as odd and stilted by the receiving party. In colloquial (or "street") NVC, on the other hand, one seeks to use natural language that fits seamlessly in the exchange. So long as it springs from an awareness of needs and an intention to connect, such natural language may be considered NVC.

Formal NVC is used mainly to teach NVC and among NVC practitioners. To speak colloquial NVC effectively, mastering formal NVC first is recommended.

Nonviolence

The name "nonviolent communication" refers to Mohandas Gandhi's philosophy of ahimsa or nonviolence. Unlike Gandhi, Rosenberg endorses the use of protective force—the use of force to keep injury from occurring, so long as it is not punitive, i.e., force applied with the intention to punish or harm someone for a past deed. Rosenberg says the desire to punish and the use of punitive measures only exist in cultures that have moralistic good/evil worldviews. He points out that anthropologists have discovered cultures in many parts of the world in which the idea of someone being "bad" makes no sense. He says such cultures tend to be peaceful and do not rely on punitive force to correct maladaptive or harmful behaviors. One example of such a culture is the Semai people in Malaysia.

Applications

Rosenberg has used the concept of 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. 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. NVC is recognized by the government of Israel and several NVC training schools have been founded there. The theory has much in common with concepts used in mediation and conflict resolution and is used by some mediators in their work.

Relationship to Other Practices and Philosophies

Many people have found Nonviolent Communication to be very complementary to Buddhism, both in theory and in manifesting Buddhist ideals in practice. Christians have discussed NVC and while some have rejected it, others have found it compatible with their Christian faith

Criticisms

Marshall Rosenberg's NVC technique has been criticized on a number of grounds, although there has been little formal critique or discussion in the literature. This may be due in part to the fact that NVC lacks "significant longitudinal research that specifically tests the theoretical basis of the model." The paucity of research itself is a concern, although anecdotal claims for its effectiveness are legion.

Some organizations have tried to adopt NVC and have found it problematic. For example, Sharon Sarles of the Southwest Facilitators Network (SFN) attended an NVC training and reviewed NVC (and Rosenberg’s book Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Compassion) for possible use within the SFN. She found the method unsuitable for SFN and expressed a number of concerns.

She notes that while NVC ostensibly encourages active listening, it rather may encourage repetitive attempts to diagnosis the feelings and needs of the speaker. This may result in "apparent listening" which is in fact a deflection of responsibility for action and a lack of authentic presence.

Sarles claims NVC is not ethically, philosophically or spiritually grounded. She believes Rosenberg is clearly aligned with Gandhi, Ram Dass and other practitioners of compassionate and non-violent communication, but that Rosenberg gives no indication of familiarity with their work. Nor does he address the potential concerns of Christians, especially conservative Christians, by distinguishing judgmental evaluation from any sort of moral evaluation or consideration. Sarles acknowledges that Rosenberg does make this distinction, and while it is reasonable to her that evaluations might cloud objective observation, she still avers that evaluations necessarily arise for everyone and are not perforce negative. She maintains other methods (in particular, Sherod Miller’s Straight Talk) explicitly include interpretation as a part of technique. Failure to allow interpretation may, in Sarles' estimation, have the effect of disallowing understanding.

One of Sarles strongest critiques of NVC is that it can be easily misinterpreted as, “enforcing a situation of no thinking, of one-up-manship, using pop-psychologizing diagnosis, and a deflection or refusal of responsibility for action by the person versed in the method.” She believes NVC can be used for manipulation and often creates rancor rather than healing it. She suggests, based on her reading of Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Compassion that even Rosenberg himself occasionally slips into using NVC for manipulation. She believes that one reason NVC is liable to misuse is that it is inadequate in ethics, philosophy and procedure such that expressions of respect, empathy and authenticity are lacking. However, she believes these flaws are not necessarily insurmountable.

She concludes her critique with the the following summary:

“I have seen a method with flaws used with possibly opposite intent in ways and times and places it was never intended to be used. The result is predictably opposite to that intended. It is violent, harmful, disrespectful, especially because it refuses to listen to those who are expressing, need, pain, or contribution.

I am saddened by the friendships and relationships that being harmed by well-meaning attempts to apply NVC [sic]. I am saddened by the confusion I saw when NVC was taught. I am fearful that with bad result, that the whole project of studying, learning, and applying steps toward non-violent communication may be given up.”

Sarles includes in her critique ten suggestions for improvement of NVC. Some of these suggestions simply emphasize elements that are already present within NVC. Others could prevent misuse of NVC better than in its present form.

1. "Intend to listen. This intention, more than all the technique in the world, is the key to communication and compassion and understanding."
2. "Do not let others tell you how you feel. You are the only judge of that. Also do not attempt to tell others how they feel. If you are guessing [as suggested by the NVC process], be sure it comes across as a question. And be sure it fits into the conversation, as a substitute for active listening."
3. "Notice when people are not letting you speak. Disallowing expression is contrary to Rosenberg’s method. Do not start this method by disallowing some one else’s expression. If you are starting with “No!” or “Stop!” you are not following Rosenberg’s method."
4. "Separate moralistic judgments and delete them, but do not permit the rule of contentlessness. This is subsidiary to not letting another speak. Rosenberg did not train, talk, and enforce at the same time. Instead, he focused on others’ feelings AND THEIR NEEDS. Enforcing contentlessness is either a misunderstanding or a thoroughness of Rosenberg’s “heart not head” that even Rosenberg cannot accomplish."
5. "Once you have listened well, intend to make clear, concise, positive requests. Keep your eye on this ball. Reflect on what it is you want. You may discover much violence within your request that you can root out before you even open your mouth. You may discover how to more effectively word your requests. In this way you will more likely fill your needs and offer your contributions."
6. "Notice if people do not allow you to make requests. This is the goal of someone who wishes to deflect responsibility from him or herself. If they can keep you talking about your feelings, then they do not have to participate authentically, and never have to hear your requests. Like Rosenberg suggests, focus on your need, and make requests that meet your need. If you focus on your anger, you will make yourself miserable. However, if you allow someone else to force you to continue you talking interminably, especially if they are pop-psychoanalzying you, you are not getting to requests. If you are not getting to requests, you are not getting to agreements, and without agreements there will be no going forward on a basis that is more peaceful, useful, and right relationshiped."
7. "Do not judge something non-violent simply because there is no raising of voice. Put-downs, ruination of reputation, and emotional torture are violent also [and do not belong into NVC]. Gandhi’s word himsa means harm; ahimsa means harmlessness. The Scripture that Gandhi harks to is Patanjali 2:35: When one is established in harmlessness, all living things are devoid of enmity (hatred, dislike) in one’s presence."
8. "If your dear ones are more upset by your use of new techniques, study again to see if you have it right; if your friendships are damaged by the use of these new techniques, stop until you understand nonviolence or communication or their feelings better. If you are going into a room of contented people, teaching NVC, and leaving them angry, feeling disrespected, defrauded, and upset, something is wrong."
9. "Contrary to what some might read into Rosenberg, I do not think right procedure will be enough. Work not just on your tongue, nor yet on your total communication, but also on your heart/soul/inner life. Procedures cannot work optimally without right intention. Right intention is not strong and pure without purified heart. It is hardly enough to master verbal techniques to deal with insane aggressors and difficult people on your work team. Only radically changed personality structures will result in the peaceful garden for which poets have longed through the centuries. I was surprised to see Rosenberg’s confession of his own internal violence in ways that seem normalized. I wonder if procedures of any kind are deep enough."
10. "Consider the fact that not all emotions are based in need. Although many are based in bare need, some are based in ego, others in egoless giving. Refusal to admit this is the refusal to observe but instead to interpose a priori judgments."

Members of OpenCouchSurfing.org also proposed using NVC to structure organizational discussions. Thomas Goorden, a longstanding member, comments in the group's open discussion that NVC is antithetical to critical thinking, is based on an inaccurate picture of human nature and has no research to support its claims.

Chapman Flack has published a critique of NVC in the journal Cross Currents inspired by a 200 minute NVC training video he watched. .

Flack identifies what he sees as Rosenberg's relinquishment of thinking and failure to acknowledge that NVC requires cognitive work. (He quotes Rosenberg as averring that, "any time you're thinking, your chance of getting what you need is greatly decreased.") Flack is struck by the realization that Rosenberg is actually demonstrating a process of critical thinking even as he abjures it. He sees this inconsistency as, “a sign of the life in his learning and his teaching," but also suggests that disparagement of thinking in NVC is a serious problem and advances Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence as an example of a similar method that expresses, “much of the essence of Rosenberg's nonviolent communication, free of the impatience with thinking that colors Rosenberg's approach.”

Flack finds Rosenberg’s conception of human nature suspect. Rosenberg, following the work of Walter Wink, claims that humans are essentially good, but have been burdened by the imposition, 5000 years ago, of a belief system in which we are deemed innately evil. This belief system has driven us to create domination systems, Rosenberg and Wink assert, which have had the result of fostering cultures with poor communication and widespread unhappiness. Flack instead believes that a look at our close cousin, the chimpanzee, suggests we are rather more a “mixed bag” capable of both cruelty and of compassion. Our power of reason gives us hope of overcoming our phylogenetic history as Rosenberg, ironically, demonstrates in the execution of his technique.

A more serious concern of Flack's is that Rosenberg’s understanding of the human condition is reductionist. Flack quotes Rosenberg as proclaiming that, "[a]ll needs are universal; every human being in the world has the same needs." This means for Rosenberg that, "the only thing human beings are ever saying [is] 'please' and 'thank you.’” Any apparent more nuanced expressions amount to, "tragic, suicidal expressions of 'please.'" Flack deems the list of needs recognized by NVC as too broad and inclusive to be meaningful, and he laments that,

“Something in me is not fed by the notion of people in monotonous search of a few unchanging needs…The picture of ourselves that we get from history, literature, and art is challenging and complex. It will not meet a need for pat answers, and it's just what's missing when Rosenberg casts jackals and giraffes to play our parts, or writes that we need to be as smart as bees and dogs. ‘Better to be guessing wrong about what a person's need is,’ he maintains in his workshop, than ‘hearing what they think.’ I am not sure that is a recipe for nonviolence, when what so many desperately need is that their fully human minds be fairly heard.”

Perhaps the most encompassing critique of NVC by Flack concerns the use of language, especially the peculiar language unique to the practice of NVC. The title of his critique, “The subtle violence of nonviolent language” summarizes the substance of his charge. He comments that, while Rosenberg clearly evinces an acute sense of selfless compassion and connection when he uses NVC, the misuse of the language of NVC remains an ineluctable challenge for others who might adopt it. NVC language injects a violence into speech insofar as, “it establishes a speech rule under which matters of concern or dispute common and important among serious people may be inexpressible, dismissed, and unheard. A person who steps outside the speech rule to try to explain the trouble may, in the trap Goffman called 'looping,' find that effort itself dismissed for the same reason.” Flack maintains that what might prove a bulwark against the use of NVC language as a vehicle for violence would be to present one’s feelings and concerns carefully in whatever language seems best to express them, and to extend to others due attention and compassion when they do the same. Guided by this more general notion of communication, people might listen to each other, not only with the giraffe-ears of NVC, but with, “a generous and fully engaged human intelligence.”

Other concerns about the NVC model include that it is dogmatic, based on a belief system that might be at odds with modern educational practice.

Some people are particularly off-put by NVC's hidden emphasis on the supernatural. As Theresa Latini notes, "Rosenberg understands NVC to be a fundamentally spiritual practice." 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. It’s really a spiritual practice that I am trying to show as a way of life. Even though we don’t 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 weren’t able to experience before. So eventually they come to the spirituality of the process. They begin to see that it’s more than a communication process and realize it’s really an attempt to manifest a certain spirituality."

Rosenberg further states that he developed NVC as a way to "get conscious of" what he calls the "Beloved Divine Energy".

The emphasis on spirituality is potentially troubling for both atheists/agnostics and people who adhere to particular religions (e.g. Christianity, although some Christians believe that NVC is compatible with their faith).

Other people focus their objection to NVC on the perception that it ignores or suppresses moral consideration.

Yen Duen Hsi, in a discussion of Domination Systems as conceived by Rosenberg, ascribes to him the claim that "All [psychiatric] diagnoses are tragic expressions of an unmet need." Yen states that this and other NVC claims or assumptions have little or no scientific support. Some of these claims are that:

• all people are inherently compassionate, but most have been trained in ways that interfere with it;
• connection and self-actualization are fundamental human needs, and both involve other people;
• feelings stem from needs;
• domination cultures are at odds with our true nature.