Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life by Marshall B. RosenbergMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
I honestly loved this book. I think I might have gained 10 emotional IQ points just from reading it–this week whenever I interact with people I keep thinking about what they must be feeling and what need they were trying to express when they said that thing. (I think I still have a way to go before actually putting all of this into practice.) I’m also finding it quite helpful in thinking about myself, my self-image, my decisions and mistakes, etc.
I’d recommend it if you’re interested in relating more authentically to people, resolving disagreements, making people feel loved and valued, practicing compassion for others and yourself … basically normal human things tbh.
I’m still unsure about some stuff. There were a lot of really impressive stories about NVC healing decades-old rifts, preventing murders, etc. Maybe they’re all true, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t literally a superpower and I would feel better if there were some stories about “one time I tried to use NVC to stop this gang war, and it totally failed, and they kept murdering people, and we had to just put them in jail or something.”
I’m also confused about people having needs that conflict with each other. He kind of casually implies that everyone’s needs can always be satisfied and that seems fake. Maybe I missed him justifying this more.
View all my reviews
I’ve taken an interest in NVC as a part of a larger processof virtue-cultivation, the first virtue of which is non-violence.I’ve wrestled with it and attempted to cultivate it as well -though not as systematically as I’d like, alas – and I may haveanswers to some of your questions, I’ve been engaging with it for awhile now (more than a year); so this post is much more of aclarification and noting down of what came up in response to yourpost, one that I didn’t realise until now I’d been wanting toexpress. I’ve peppered my response to what you wrote throughout.
My understanding is that the hard operational coreof NVC is a shift of salience and attention enabled by areconceptualisation of human behaviour. More simply - it meansredirecting your attention, at the moment of interaction, from theexplicit content of what someone said to your direct perception ofwhere it’s coming from. This ‘where it’s coming from’ isalways the needs/values, feelings, and strategies that theother person is employing.
Even in extreme cases of character disturbance(a term I’ll come to later), where the other person’s strategiesare extremely dysfunctional, immoral, antisocial, or harmful, that’sstill where it’s coming from (at least, if the speech orbehaviour in question is volitional and not involuntary or a reflex).I’ll deal with the problem of bad-faith interactions later; rightnow, to simplify the discussion, I’ll focus just on the case whereboth people are basically well-meaning though perhapsvariously imperfect.
One possible way this attempt can fail isredirecting your attention from what they’re saying to yourtheory about where they’re coming from instead of to what youdirectly perceive (however dimly or hazily); this is why feedback isimportant here; that’s why the template interactions have youspecify that you’re offering your best guess when you say thingslike “So if I hear you correctly, you said/did <foo> becauseyou felt <bar> because you needed <baz>, as mediated bycontext <qux>, right?”. If you’re not careful about this,then you can end up BETA-MEALRing others, and irritate them evenmore.
As this attentional shift proceeds to solidify andbecome more and more natural, and as your powers of perception growand become subtler, more sensitive, and more precise, you often findyourself responding directly to where you can see someone’s wordscoming from, instead of merely their content. When someone is reallygood at this, it can look to those whose attention is stuck at thelevel of the symbolic content of words like some combination ofmind-reading and arcane interpersonal wizardry. I have personally hadthe experience of perceiving so clearly in the aftermath of ameditation retreat (or occasionally, a meditation sit) that it feltlike mind-reading, compared to back when I naively responded muchmore to people’s words and what I thought they meant; this abilityhas also slowly grown as I continue to practice (both NVC andmeditative cultivation).
Without this, if you just attempt to use thetemplate as presented but without trying to shift your attentiondirectly and in the moment and be present with with other person, itcan come across as inauthentic, artificial, or formulaic (because,well, if you do it like that, it is…), and gets old reallyfast; such sterile attempts at application are where a lot ofpeople’s frustrating experiences with others behaving like‘NVC-bots’ come from. I’m not really worried about this being afailure mode for you specifically, though, insofar as I know you.
This shift in attention and salience comes aboutin daily life through practice, and this is made possible by aclearer understanding of the why people do what they do – thereconceptualisation I mentioned above. This model – that everythingpeople do and say (volitionally, anyway) is a result of themattempting to use some strategyto meet a particular needthat lies behind the feelingsthat they experience, and that feelings and their underlying needsare the drivers of human behaviour and thus also naturally the thingsto focus on – is the foundation of practice, and what guides it inthe right direction. The interaction templates the book gives areboth a gateway to and a scaffolding for this practice, which firsthelps you shift your attention day-by-dayand in-the-moment by theirvery structure, and thus seedirectly and for yourself what Marshall did, and so make his insighttruly your own. Once that’s done, you don’t need them any more,and your style of speaking reverts to being more natural andcolloquial, though what’s actually happening underneath isprofoundly different – andothers can tell, too.(Eventually, even the labeling of what you perceive as ‘feeling’and ‘need’ drops away, as you exist in direct, deep immediateintimacy with the totality ofthe other person’s being asit presents to you in all its coruscating beauty.)
Howdoes this model help you do this? Followingthe Tantrik theory of the ‘purification’ of beliefsand belief-structures, thegeneral pattern is that first, you replace a belief misaligned withthe nature of things with one that isaligned with the way things are; and then, when you encounter thereality that the words are pointing to, the well-aligned beliefdissolves into it falls away too, because you don’t need it anymore, and now inhabit realityas it is, raw and intimate (which is the point).For example, if you have a bunch of mistaken ideas about what a mangois – say, it’s cubical, slate coloured, and tastes like limestone– then the first thing to do is give you a correct description ofwhat a mango is, maybe show you a few pictures, anddescribe the taste as well as possible.Then, when you encounter one in the worldand touch it, smell it, bite into it andsavor its taste and texture and juiciness,you’ll be able to recognise it as a mango. But you’re stilltasting and experiencingthe mango, not the pictures or descriptions.
Here, the NVCmodel first refactors yourperception of humans and their behaviour to be much more closelyaligned with what’s actually happening. Then, the interactiontemplates and other exercises help you turn your attention towardswhat the model is talking about, and verify it for yourself, in yourown life; see clearly what Marshall saw. Finally, as you begin toperceive more clearly and directly, the explicit model and theinteraction templates fall away, since they’re not needed any more– because you have grokkedthe insight, the same way you savoured mangoes in the example above.
This refactoringhas two parts – first, pulverisingthe old patterns of thinking that hijacked your attention awayfrom what was in front of you,such as theories about people that actually obscure theimmediacy of what’s happening with them(say, the blue or red pills, just to name twothat perhaps have some juice for you); andsecond, equipping youwith a model that’s actually descriptive of what’s happening. Howdo you know that the latter is more correct than the former? Well, ifit is, then it should dissolve into the reality it’s trying topoint you to when you encounter it; and that’s what the interactiontemplates (and a variety of other practices people have developed forthis) are for. Both theoryand practice are a way of cutting throughwords and concepts and belief-structures and other mental filters tothe sparkling, vibrant aliveness of reality.
You said youthink you still have a way to go before putting all of this intoaction. I’ll freely borrowfrom two models of the progress of practice that I find useful fromthe Tantrik tradition.
First, it seemsthat you’ve probably had what I call a transmissionexperience when reading thebook; as you said, you felt in the aftermath of reading it that you’dgained 10 emotional IQ points just as a result of doing so. This isabsolutely wonderful, and you’re fortunate that you could get thatfrom the book (for some people, it simply does notclick). Traditionally, it’s said that in the vast majority ofcases, the transmission just opens up the possibility of certaintypes of practice to you, maybepoints out something that you would have missed without it, but doesnot actualise the shift that’s being pointed to permanently; onlypractice on your part can do that. In my personal experience, thebook, though powerful, is still not a complete transmission; and ifyou want to get what I can best describe as a direct ‘pointing out’instruction of NVC,I’d highly recommend thisworkshop by Marshall. I can testify to its potential – a friend ofmine was able to save herdeeply-valued marriage, andcome to a place of deeper and healthier relating than even before thedifficulties due to which she looked to NVC,after getting her NVC transmission through it,and I am grateful that I gotthe opportunity to share it with her.
Second, there isthe matter of practice. I don’t want to presume how committed youare, so I’m not going to suggest specifics, contenting myselfmerely with sharing resources you may use if you are so inclined. Themost basic practice is, of course, the interaction templates given inthe book, and the attentional shift they imply and conceptualrefactoring that undergirds them. The book also has specificquestions and possible jumping-off points for further inquiry inquite a few of its chapters. Additionally, there are a few otherbooks I can suggest: the NVC workbook, which contains an actionableplan and exercises, for both individualand group practice; ‘Being Genuine: Stop Being Nice, Start BeingReal’ by Thomas d’Ansembourg (yes, it’s an NVC-style book, nomatter the name), ‘Say What You Mean: A Mindful Approach toNonviolent Communication’ by Oren Jay Sofer, which includespractices and exercises that integrate mindful awareness and NVC(which, to be entirely honest, I don’t consider actually separateexcept perhaps as a pedagogical convenience we sometimes employ –bringing mindful awareness to human relating is quite likely toresult in the insights behind NVC, if the model is pointing tosomething real), and ‘AHelping Hand: Mediation with Nonviolent Communication’ by LivLarsson, which is one of the few books on NVC-style mediation I havefound so far. I’ve startedto develop a taste for the juice of life, to be honest, after myexperiences this past year – instead of flinching away from chargedsituations, I am now much more capable of enjoying and navigatingthem, and even somewhat attracted to them due to their undeniablealiveness.
As you’ve alsofound, the shift happens internally as well, to the little fragmentsof internal monologue that constitute our mindstream. NVC is afantastic thing to internalise for internal inquiry (a big part of which is ‘interrogatingmy desires’, as you called it), because you come to notice thatbehind every self-judgement and desire for some external thing is theenergy of feelings and needs, and the attachments and aversions wehave developed around connected strategies and self-images. One ofthe more interesting things to notice is that there is often internalviolence that we often use as astrategy; the very words ‘I’ll make myselfdo X’ implies an internal division of you into little parts, wherethe one that’s currently broadcasting through the verbal loop istrying to find a way to ram through something in the face of internalopposition it has come to expect. Bringing the same attention shiftto your internal dialogue means that tons of self-judgementsfall away, as does the attendant shame andinhibitions, and it becomesclearer what strategies are misaligned with their goals, and perhapsmore importantly, what goals are misaligned with the needs andvalues and feelings drivingthem.
I will note that NVC, though it sounds very nice,is also an extraordinarily ruthless process. An honest application ofthe insight and practice usually leads to a profound cutting throughof falsehood, and that cutting through is absolutely ruthless. It’sgentle and profoundly loving, but lacks all mercy for untruth. I saythis as a fair warning, because getting in touch with the needs andvalues underlying your feelings, and seeing your strategies as theyare, is very often a profoundlydisillusioning process, and unless you’re some kind of spontaneoussaint already, is likely to involve the cutting through of a varietyof self-images as well, both positive and negative; I’m reminded ofthe skinning knives some Tantrik deities hold, symbolising that theirpractices free you from self-images (usually without bothering toomuch about how gentle the process is). I hasten to add that anNVC-style inquiryis generally much, muchgentler. It’s equallyruthless interpersonally, too. Which brings me to my next point.
Applying NVC often results in a clarificationfollowed by a catalysis of the process of expressing the potentialinherent in a situation. Though a much greater degree of choice isoffered to both participants in a situation where the kind of clarityNVC can bring is available, and so the range of possible positiveoutcomes and options expands, clear seeing can also include seeingthings that both parties were denying, such as that perhaps arelationship or mode of engagement is past its natural expiry date.In such a situation, there is no guarantee that NVC is going to leadto a culturally-conditioned idea of what the ‘happy ending’ is,because if may become abundantly clear to both participants that fortheir situation, it isn’t actually happy at all. The process cancut through denial as well as enemy images. And this answers anotherof your questions – no, it’s not a conventional superpower, inthat it can’t forcibly change people or force a happy outcome. Itis a minor superpower, inthat it can unravel the knotsof a tricky situations andfind a way around impasses hithertothought insurmountably difficult simply by shifting attention awayfrom the layer of strategies and blame(where such conceptual stalemates generally occur) and towards theactual roots of thesituation in question. Since these are non-specific (needs andvalues), the range of possible choices is tremendously widened, afterwhich finding a workable solution is usually something a reasonablybright 12-15 year old can do within 10-20 minutes, as Marshall says.
Yes,I want to acknowledge that sometimes (though exceedinglyrarely), people’s needs cannotbe satisfied even in themain; or, at least, notnecessarily by the other person in the conversation. For example, ifboth of us are very hungry and there’s just enough food to take theedge off the appetites of one of us, well, tough luck forone us. Normally, though,it’s very rare in the modern world, due both to the abundantprosperity of modernity inwhich most of us are drenchedand with which we overflow,and also because of the non-specific nature of actual baseline humanneeds and values. Sometimesit happens that the other person simply feels no spontaneous drive tomeet your needs (sexuality and human connection generally is a goodur-example of this, and one of the few that’s actually juicy evenin the modern world), and the situation is resolved by recalibratingyour strategies to get your needs met elsewhere, in a way notinvolving the specific other person you’re talking to. Andsometimes, it happens that some of your needs don’t get met,because they may require strategies completely out of human reach sofar. It’s unlikely, but definitely possible. Andin general, not all of your needs are going to get met anyway; Idoubt there is a human being allof whose needs have always been met. Theinsight behind NVC doesn’t deny the possibility of tragedy inherentto the human condition, much as some may want to use it to prop uptheir own such denial.
At this point, I want to note that one of thecultural trends that has become far, far more prevalent today than inthe time in which Marshall grew up is the almost religious insistenceof many that all those who commit acts of harm are motivated solelyby ‘wounding’ or traumas or experiences of abuse or pain in theirpast, and that these acts are never reallycoldly calculated or predatorily intentional. This is anunderstandable illusion to fall into – the vast majority of peopleengaging with each other on Tumblr are, after all, much more likelyto be on the higher neuroticism end of the spectrum – and for suchpeople, generally, most aggression is reactive aggression (a responseto a perception of threat or triggering of past painful feelings).The problem is, this model is woefully and dangerously incomplete;there do exist people who have fallen down an incentivegradient that rewardspredatory aggression, and whoroute all feedback (up to and including being imprisoned) into their‘strategy’ module, and don’t really ever actuallyturn back on themselves and ask, ‘What the hell, man?’, and arecomfortable with themselves as they are. The temptation for peopleunder this illusion is to try to use NVC as a way of propping uptheir denial of the existence of predatory aggression – they mayoften interpret the statement NVC makes about all speech andbehaviour arising as a result of needs and values to narrowly meanwhat they want it to mean – which is to say, that the people who dosuch things are doing it out of some pain or darkness in their past.As I said before, this is dangerously misguided; and perhaps moreimportantly for this post, is a total non sequitur.Nowhere in the model will you find a statement to the effect thateveryone’s strategiesare of the kind that do not harm others; hell, if they were, would weeven need the method to begin with? Though he doesn’t emphasise it,Marshall straightforwardly notes that in cases where it’snecessary, force hasto be used protectively. I am not in agreement with him on somepoints, though; I do think that there exist individuals whose harmfulstrategies are sufficiently ‘baked’ or fixed by the time weencounter them that they are unlikely to be able to be reached withinthe span of a single human life, at least with the tools available tous today. (For more on this, I’d highlyrecommend Dr. George Simon’s books, starting perhaps with “InSheep’s Clothing”; his oeuvre of work is, suggestively enough forsomeone who has probablynot worked with it, oddly compatible with the insights underlying NVCat the level of practical recommendations. I should probably do ashort summary of his work at some point, honestly.)
Whatthe NVC model doesinvite is to not get lost in analysing the other person (exceptperhaps instrumentally, which is something that requires quite a bitof skill, given our habitual patterns of doing it prettyunskillfully), and instead focus on our own needs and values, and tosee how to use force protectively (say, protecting civilians againstthe murderous gangs you mentioned) in circumstances that warrant itwithout necessarily condemning the other person. This can beexceptionally difficult, and indeed is NVC on hard mode – but notruth worth its salt should break down just because things got moreintense. My own take is that character disturbance is the result of acombination (in different proportions for different people) oftendencies inherent in a person’s blood, with gettingincreasing habituated to and shaped by incentivegradients, perhaps during aperson’s formative times,that allow for and even reward the person’s continued use ofharmful strategies. Indeed, I’d say that the study and recognitionof character disturbance is atroot a way of identifying aparticular set of situations where protective force orboundaries is called for, andhow to deploy itskillfully. Additionally, this study gives us the ability torecognise much better what strategies will actually be effective inthose situations where someone’s character is disturbed (ie, theirstrategies are both deep-rooted and harmful, and resistant to eventheir own attempts to changethem), and how to help them (if we so choose, of course).
I also want to note that the insight behind NVC isactually morally neutral, in that the model and attentional shift Idescribed do not actually require you to subscribe to some fixedmorality; and can, indeed, allow you to be an evenbigger and more effective jerk if you want to. I don’t want tosay much about this publicly, because Dark NVC (as I call it) issomething I’d rather not have floating around, since it’sactually effective, being rooted in truth,instead of being kind of pathetic, like most wannabe-’Dark’things.
I want to end bybringing attention back to the point of all this – which is theobservation that when we find ourselves in the stateof being fully present with that which is truly alive in ourselvesand another person, there is a natural flow of what is best describedas ‘love’ (only because we lack a better term – non-reactiveunconditional loving acceptance points to the thing better, butdoesn’t exactly roll off the tongue) and compassion, and the blazingvividness of being fully here and fully human.
I really appreciate the thorough response.
Though I didn’t quite get to the level of articulating it (either in my post or in my brain), I think one of my main concerns with NVC was how it deals with “bad people” (manipulators, abusers, etc.) and whether it requires people to be kind of basically good and acting in good faith (and whether it promotes engaging with “bad people” in unhealthy ways).
Thanks for helping me articulate that, and for helping answer it. And for the other thoughts and resources!