5 ms·

I overall agree with what you have to say. However, I strongly object to using "violent" do describe any form of verbal communication. We need a hierarchy of

I overall agree with what you have to say. However, I strongly object to using "violent" do describe any form of verbal communication. We need a hierarchy of what we as a society agree upon as wrong, and violence needs to be clearly at the top of that list, for good reason. Using the word "violence" to describe ways of speaking has the positive effect of making it clear that those ways of speaking are harmful, but it also has the negative effect of diluting the potency of the word "violence". To call shaming someone "violence" is to place it in the same category as murder, rape, and assault, and shaming someone simply does not belong in that category of actions. Ironically, equating shaming with violence has the effect of shaming people into not shaming each other, by placing their action in the same category of the most horrific actions humans inflict on one another. I suspect this wasn't intended, but it's one of the ways in which attempts to control language, even one's own language, are ineffective. If you really want to shame someone you can find a way to do it, even with the frameworks set forth in Non-violent Communication. I've observed similar problems when experimenting with E Prime[1]: I found when using it that I quickly was able to find ways around expressing identity and predication, which I began to employ subconsciously (against my conscious will: I was honestly trying very hard to conform to the spirit, rather than the letter of the law of E Prime). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

dleslie 7y ago
Further, at what point does honest and valuable criticism become shame? It seems to me that this is predicated upon the subjective response of the individual. If shame is violence, and criticism can induce shame, then any criticism could be violent; no matter how valid, sincere and thoughtful.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Yeah, I avoided my larger complaints about Non-violent Communication in my previous post. I think a lot of Rosenberg's advice is geared toward abdicating the listener's responsibility for managing their own emotions. Kind speech is certainly something to aspire to, but trying to manage the emotions of everyone you speak to is both unrealistic and ill-advised. Careful, well-intentioned honesty is much healthier, in my opinion. Some people won't react positively, but getting positive reactions from everyone wouldn't be a good all-consuming goal even if it weren't unrealistic. I have to temper this opinion by saying: It's hard to say how this plays out with people who are actually proficient with the techniques in the book, however. A lot of my criticism of the book comes from seeing people use the techniques, but perhaps the reason people pick up the book to begin with is to address harmful patterns in their communication, which might bias my experience toward the techniques being used by people with poor communication skills and confounding psychological issues.

dleslie 7y ago

Further, at what point does honest and valuable criticism become shame? It seems to me that this is predicated upon the subjective response of the individual. If shame is violence, and criticism can induce shame, then any criticism could be violent; no matter how valid, sincere and thoughtful.

kerkeslager 7y ago
Yeah, I avoided my larger complaints about Non-violent Communication in my previous post. I think a lot of Rosenberg's advice is geared toward abdicating the listener's responsibility for managing their own emotions. Kind speech is certainly something to aspire to, but trying to manage the emotions of everyone you speak to is both unrealistic and ill-advised. Careful, well-intentioned honesty is much healthier, in my opinion. Some people won't react positively, but getting positive reactions from everyone wouldn't be a good all-consuming goal even if it weren't unrealistic. I have to temper this opinion by saying: It's hard to say how this plays out with people who are actually proficient with the techniques in the book, however. A lot of my criticism of the book comes from seeing people use the techniques, but perhaps the reason people pick up the book to begin with is to address harmful patterns in their communication, which might bias my experience toward the techniques being used by people with poor communication skills and confounding psychological issues.