6 ms·

In therapy that's one thing. But I often see NVC abused as passive aggressive manipulation as opposed to open communication. This is almost always used after so

In therapy that's one thing. But I often see NVC abused as passive aggressive manipulation as opposed to open communication. This is almost always used after some alleged harm has been done. As in "let's talk about how I feel and somehow blame you for it" in some public forum with social pressures. It's about coercing people into changing their behavior and is the polar opposite of acceptance. It is a means of social control and should raise red flags whenever it's seen.

altcognito 5y ago
What you described is not NVC communication. NVC communication requires at a bare minimum first listening to both sides needs.
- sombremesa 5y ago
  I agree with GP here, it's much better to simply commit to transparent and candid communication, without forcing people into some preset paradigm that may not fit at all with their communication style. If a pre-requisite for NVC communication is trust and the application of hanlon's razor in any case, I don't see how adding it to the equation improves upon just letting people hash it out in the way that jives best with their personalities. Even calling it "non-violent communication" implies that more direct styles of communication are "violent", and veers towards manipulative exclusion of your peers. The reason NVC is "a hard skill to cultivate" is because it's an unnatural method designed to suppress candor and transparency in favor of feel-good vibes, the interpersonal equivalent of corporate "synergy".
  - potatoman22 5y ago
    I agree that NVC isn't best for all scenarios and it can feel unnatural, but I don't understand how it's not transparent. To me, I think telling someone about your feelings and needs requires a great deal of transparency and vulnerability. I see it as very directly conveying what the issue is, why it's an issue, and how one can help solve that issue. One issue with "candid conversation" that NVC tries to address is that the language we use can often imply blame or thrust the onus of your emotions onto someone else, even when not intended. NVC provides a more standard framework for working out issues while reducing the likelihood that your intentions are misinterpreted.
  - ScoobleDoodle 5y ago
    The method being called "non-violent communication" is a self referential intention for people practicing it to hopefully commit to communicate in a non-violent way. It is not making an interpretation or judgment on other communication styles which may or may not be violent. By calling itself "non-violent communication" it is in no way saying that all other communication styles are violent. I have seen and felt NVC is a hard skill to cultivate because it takes good will, patience, and a lot of introspection to learn. From the speakers side they have to be aware of their feelings in the first place, and then additionally what needs are prompting those feelings, to even start to be able to communicate that. Even learning the gamut of feeling words and types of needs is an eye opener. And then on top of that is when listening to others, the practice of hearing their feelings and needs even when they might not communicate it in a clearly non-violent way. It seems the key is valuing the relationship between the people communicating and having an intention of openness, honesty, and genuineness even if you might in the end agree to disagree. If one party does not want to participate then there isn't necessarily space to communicate this way. And either party can choose to remove themselves and not participate and, that is ok.
    - sombremesa 5y ago
      > From the speakers side they have to be aware of their feelings in the first place, and then additionally what needs are prompting those feelings, to even start to be able to communicate that. This is exactly my point in terms of exclusion, by enforcing such a communication style you would effectively shut down this discussion (depending on the people involved) before it even begins. My argument is that intentions of "openness, honesty, and genuineness" (in other words, transparency, candor, and trust) are by themselves enough to establish effective communication without requiring a framework that potentially shuts people out.
      - BeetleB 5y ago
        > This is exactly my point in terms of exclusion, by enforcing such a communication style you would effectively shut down this discussion (depending on the people involved) before it even begins. If you've ever read the NVC book, you would realize that the notion of "enforcing an NVC communication style" is fundamentally an oxymoron.
  - jimbokun 5y ago
    > Even calling it "non-violent communication" implies that more direct styles of communication are "violent", and veers towards manipulative exclusion of your peers. The increasing use of the word "violence" to describe clearly non-violent things greatly disturbs me. It could lead to people reacting more strongly to words than literal, physical violence. And I think that is a very very bad direction for society to go.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    > it's much better to simply commit to transparent and candid communication As your responses show, what constitutes transparency and candor is widely disputed, given that NVC is fundamentally about transparency and candor. It seems you're confusing a (suggested, but not required) template with intent. The template can be used for anything good or bad. The NVC book isn't about the template, but the principles. I've spent most of my life holding your view on this. Be direct. Don't take it personal. Etc. And my life's experiences showed me that merely committing to this is insufficient. Being well intentioned, and transparent, and candid, is not sufficient for effective communication, because there are usually barriers that prevent the other party from processing your words, no matter how clear or precise they are. What every communication book (not just NVC) teaches are methods to make it easier for the other party to listen to you. And in most cases you cannot do that without addressing the emotional aspect of humans. I would often "excuse" myself by realizing that I've been quite unambiguous and clear, and if the other person doesn't understand it, they are the problem. In reality, I was merely accepting that I do not want to improve my communication.
- aaron-santos 5y ago
  That's the heart of GP's critique. People are masking abusive and manipulative statements with the language of NVC. Here's a mild example: "Altcongnito, when I see you leave work and there are still tickets in the queue, I feel disappointed, because I need us to work as a team. Would you be willing to work late until we get through them?" What people rightly feel is a disconnect between the language of NVC and the spirit of NVC in these situations.
  - tome 5y ago
    Interesting, what's your objection to that? Seems like a reasonable way to make a request to me. Also seems reasonable to agree to or deny the request.
    - jstx1 5y ago
      If I heard this, I would think that those words are coming either from a sociopath or from a very socially inept person who read a self-help book. There are probably cultural differences in how it's perceived but it sounds so fake, forced and manipulative that it would make me put my defences up immediately.
    - Majestic121 5y ago
      Not the parent, but my objection to that would be that your feelings are yours to handle, not me. And for this kind of request, saying that you feel disappointed because I don't have time to finish the tickets will definitely backfire, with a "you should adjust your expectations", and using emotion talk in this context will immediately frame the talk as manipulative.
    - mrRandomGuy 5y ago
      Anytime a manager/boss brings up "needing to work as a team" as a reason to stay late is a subtle threat of losing your job if you don't do OT.
      - Kranar 5y ago
        Would it then be preferable for the manager to be more direct and assertive and state "In order to continue being employed here, you will need you to work overtime." To me there needs to be a differentiation between communication style, and consequence. If it is the case that your job is at risk unless you work late nights, is it preferable to be direct about it, use assertive language, or is it preferable to use NVC, and express ones feelings and other details that form some sense of empathy?
andrei_says_ 5y ago
I teach NVC and that’s a crucial aspect. One can only practice Nonviolent Communication if the goal is to remain connected. If the goal is to use NVC to coerce a behavior, then even if the format remains identical, it is no longer NVC but as you said, passive/aggressive manipulation. Learning the mechanical skills and language format and applying them without the internal alignment is possible and frequent but unfortunately retains the violent nature of coercive intentions. The first step toward non-violence is to truly accept that others have their own needs and allow their autonomy, to remove the invisible pressure which comes with “outcome at any cost” and switch from demands to pure requests - requests where a refusal comes with zero negative consequences. Without this safety, the rest crumbles.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  My wife and I tried NVC for our first two years before binning it. I argue it's counterproductive outside a therapeutic context. When both parties are heated it's often that they just need a release valve. Placing a bunch of logical frameworks over real emotion can often stymie the other party who needs to release. After four years now the real magic trick has been to just work on our problems individually and on the rare occasions we bicker either really, honestly, directly blow off steam (this is as about anti-NVC as you can get) like hey you piss me off right now and it's this thing you're doing and it sucks or leave the situation bodily and come back later. The key thing for us has been to silo these arguments off from the rest of the relationship. The high drama that occurs inside the confines of an argument doesn't need to mean anything to the broader relationship. Of course if you have systemic issues then those need to be dealt with but no amount of modulating your tone or speaking in I statements or trying to reflect the other person is going to solve those. We're so intent on logicking our way out of anything. But we're not Spocks. We're human beings with big big feelings. Funny story, if you look at my comments history about two down, my father the massive criminal who raised me is the one who first introduced NVC to me. He fancied himself an armchair psychologist. He remains one of the most toxic individuals I have ever encountered to this day, certainly to my own life. I think we're going to see a renaissance in plain speaking from the heart. That's my prediction for the next decade.
  - 5y ago
mcguire 5y ago
"It's about coercing people into changing their behavior..." Isn't that the point?
acituan 5y ago
> But I often see NVC abused as passive aggressive manipulation as opposed to open communication. That's because it is a passive aggressive framework. Violence is primarily a physical concept, and made use as as a relational metaphor with varying degrees of internal consistency. For example when one is being "violent" in a communication, what is it that they are actually violating? If you're in violation of a narcissistic other's grandiose self-image, are you really being violent? Is saying stop to an abuser without 'I feel' statements being violent? Aren't I-feel statements at best saving your particular interaction but still enabling such behavior to be put upon the next guy who is not as savvy in such overly nice, "please don't hurt me" tactics? "Successful communication" frameworks are sold as virtuous, harmonious constructs, but they are really an invention of 21st century to enable getting minimally along with strangers you have to interact. It is a truncated version of human self-expression that helps you survive a day with narcissists of the hyper-individualized social spheres. They don't dare to put any demands of change on the other, and as such maintain the narcissists' arena. Real virtuousness would include the possibility of being courageous to say "hey, that's wrong!", a correction which many others who interact with the corrected would benefit. Unlike NVC it would have a skin-in-the-game, lets-be-better telos. In such a setting, pathological characters wouldn't bubble up to top, and people wouldn't need to constantly pay the NVC tax. If you've seen the movie A Quiet Place, it perfectly exemplifies this. People don't coordinate and speak up to throw the monsters off, they just auto-censor themselves more than the other guy, and in the end reduced to bare survival.
ungamedplayer 5y ago
I'm confused by how there can be 'violent speech', I don't believe there can be. I believe there can be aggression, but I do not think there can be physical damage done by words alone. The paranoid in me ponders if this abuse of terminology is part of an effort to classify speech as violence, meaning that something that 'hurts the feelings' is classified as assault.
- krapp 5y ago
  "violent speech" is commonly understood to refer to speech which threatens or incites physical violence, what has commonly been referred to by courts as "incitement to imminent lawless action" or "fighting words."

altcognito 5y ago

What you described is not NVC communication. NVC communication requires at a bare minimum first listening to both sides needs.

sombremesa 5y ago
I agree with GP here, it's much better to simply commit to transparent and candid communication, without forcing people into some preset paradigm that may not fit at all with their communication style. If a pre-requisite for NVC communication is trust and the application of hanlon's razor in any case, I don't see how adding it to the equation improves upon just letting people hash it out in the way that jives best with their personalities. Even calling it "non-violent communication" implies that more direct styles of communication are "violent", and veers towards manipulative exclusion of your peers. The reason NVC is "a hard skill to cultivate" is because it's an unnatural method designed to suppress candor and transparency in favor of feel-good vibes, the interpersonal equivalent of corporate "synergy".
- potatoman22 5y ago
  I agree that NVC isn't best for all scenarios and it can feel unnatural, but I don't understand how it's not transparent. To me, I think telling someone about your feelings and needs requires a great deal of transparency and vulnerability. I see it as very directly conveying what the issue is, why it's an issue, and how one can help solve that issue. One issue with "candid conversation" that NVC tries to address is that the language we use can often imply blame or thrust the onus of your emotions onto someone else, even when not intended. NVC provides a more standard framework for working out issues while reducing the likelihood that your intentions are misinterpreted.
- ScoobleDoodle 5y ago
  The method being called "non-violent communication" is a self referential intention for people practicing it to hopefully commit to communicate in a non-violent way. It is not making an interpretation or judgment on other communication styles which may or may not be violent. By calling itself "non-violent communication" it is in no way saying that all other communication styles are violent. I have seen and felt NVC is a hard skill to cultivate because it takes good will, patience, and a lot of introspection to learn. From the speakers side they have to be aware of their feelings in the first place, and then additionally what needs are prompting those feelings, to even start to be able to communicate that. Even learning the gamut of feeling words and types of needs is an eye opener. And then on top of that is when listening to others, the practice of hearing their feelings and needs even when they might not communicate it in a clearly non-violent way. It seems the key is valuing the relationship between the people communicating and having an intention of openness, honesty, and genuineness even if you might in the end agree to disagree. If one party does not want to participate then there isn't necessarily space to communicate this way. And either party can choose to remove themselves and not participate and, that is ok.
  - sombremesa 5y ago
    > From the speakers side they have to be aware of their feelings in the first place, and then additionally what needs are prompting those feelings, to even start to be able to communicate that. This is exactly my point in terms of exclusion, by enforcing such a communication style you would effectively shut down this discussion (depending on the people involved) before it even begins. My argument is that intentions of "openness, honesty, and genuineness" (in other words, transparency, candor, and trust) are by themselves enough to establish effective communication without requiring a framework that potentially shuts people out.
    - BeetleB 5y ago
      > This is exactly my point in terms of exclusion, by enforcing such a communication style you would effectively shut down this discussion (depending on the people involved) before it even begins. If you've ever read the NVC book, you would realize that the notion of "enforcing an NVC communication style" is fundamentally an oxymoron.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  > Even calling it "non-violent communication" implies that more direct styles of communication are "violent", and veers towards manipulative exclusion of your peers. The increasing use of the word "violence" to describe clearly non-violent things greatly disturbs me. It could lead to people reacting more strongly to words than literal, physical violence. And I think that is a very very bad direction for society to go.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > it's much better to simply commit to transparent and candid communication As your responses show, what constitutes transparency and candor is widely disputed, given that NVC is fundamentally about transparency and candor. It seems you're confusing a (suggested, but not required) template with intent. The template can be used for anything good or bad. The NVC book isn't about the template, but the principles. I've spent most of my life holding your view on this. Be direct. Don't take it personal. Etc. And my life's experiences showed me that merely committing to this is insufficient. Being well intentioned, and transparent, and candid, is not sufficient for effective communication, because there are usually barriers that prevent the other party from processing your words, no matter how clear or precise they are. What every communication book (not just NVC) teaches are methods to make it easier for the other party to listen to you. And in most cases you cannot do that without addressing the emotional aspect of humans. I would often "excuse" myself by realizing that I've been quite unambiguous and clear, and if the other person doesn't understand it, they are the problem. In reality, I was merely accepting that I do not want to improve my communication.
aaron-santos 5y ago
That's the heart of GP's critique. People are masking abusive and manipulative statements with the language of NVC. Here's a mild example: "Altcongnito, when I see you leave work and there are still tickets in the queue, I feel disappointed, because I need us to work as a team. Would you be willing to work late until we get through them?" What people rightly feel is a disconnect between the language of NVC and the spirit of NVC in these situations.
- tome 5y ago
  Interesting, what's your objection to that? Seems like a reasonable way to make a request to me. Also seems reasonable to agree to or deny the request.
  - jstx1 5y ago
    If I heard this, I would think that those words are coming either from a sociopath or from a very socially inept person who read a self-help book. There are probably cultural differences in how it's perceived but it sounds so fake, forced and manipulative that it would make me put my defences up immediately.
  - Majestic121 5y ago
    Not the parent, but my objection to that would be that your feelings are yours to handle, not me. And for this kind of request, saying that you feel disappointed because I don't have time to finish the tickets will definitely backfire, with a "you should adjust your expectations", and using emotion talk in this context will immediately frame the talk as manipulative.
  - mrRandomGuy 5y ago
    Anytime a manager/boss brings up "needing to work as a team" as a reason to stay late is a subtle threat of losing your job if you don't do OT.
    - Kranar 5y ago
      Would it then be preferable for the manager to be more direct and assertive and state "In order to continue being employed here, you will need you to work overtime." To me there needs to be a differentiation between communication style, and consequence. If it is the case that your job is at risk unless you work late nights, is it preferable to be direct about it, use assertive language, or is it preferable to use NVC, and express ones feelings and other details that form some sense of empathy?

andrei_says_ 5y ago

I teach NVC and that’s a crucial aspect. One can only practice Nonviolent Communication if the goal is to remain connected. If the goal is to use NVC to coerce a behavior, then even if the format remains identical, it is no longer NVC but as you said, passive/aggressive manipulation. Learning the mechanical skills and language format and applying them without the internal alignment is possible and frequent but unfortunately retains the violent nature of coercive intentions. The first step toward non-violence is to truly accept that others have their own needs and allow their autonomy, to remove the invisible pressure which comes with “outcome at any cost” and switch from demands to pure requests - requests where a refusal comes with zero negative consequences. Without this safety, the rest crumbles.

emptysongglass 5y ago
My wife and I tried NVC for our first two years before binning it. I argue it's counterproductive outside a therapeutic context. When both parties are heated it's often that they just need a release valve. Placing a bunch of logical frameworks over real emotion can often stymie the other party who needs to release. After four years now the real magic trick has been to just work on our problems individually and on the rare occasions we bicker either really, honestly, directly blow off steam (this is as about anti-NVC as you can get) like hey you piss me off right now and it's this thing you're doing and it sucks or leave the situation bodily and come back later. The key thing for us has been to silo these arguments off from the rest of the relationship. The high drama that occurs inside the confines of an argument doesn't need to mean anything to the broader relationship. Of course if you have systemic issues then those need to be dealt with but no amount of modulating your tone or speaking in I statements or trying to reflect the other person is going to solve those. We're so intent on logicking our way out of anything. But we're not Spocks. We're human beings with big big feelings. Funny story, if you look at my comments history about two down, my father the massive criminal who raised me is the one who first introduced NVC to me. He fancied himself an armchair psychologist. He remains one of the most toxic individuals I have ever encountered to this day, certainly to my own life. I think we're going to see a renaissance in plain speaking from the heart. That's my prediction for the next decade.
- 5y ago

mcguire 5y ago

"It's about coercing people into changing their behavior..." Isn't that the point?

acituan 5y ago

> But I often see NVC abused as passive aggressive manipulation as opposed to open communication. That's because it is a passive aggressive framework. Violence is primarily a physical concept, and made use as as a relational metaphor with varying degrees of internal consistency. For example when one is being "violent" in a communication, what is it that they are actually violating? If you're in violation of a narcissistic other's grandiose self-image, are you really being violent? Is saying stop to an abuser without 'I feel' statements being violent? Aren't I-feel statements at best saving your particular interaction but still enabling such behavior to be put upon the next guy who is not as savvy in such overly nice, "please don't hurt me" tactics? "Successful communication" frameworks are sold as virtuous, harmonious constructs, but they are really an invention of 21st century to enable getting minimally along with strangers you have to interact. It is a truncated version of human self-expression that helps you survive a day with narcissists of the hyper-individualized social spheres. They don't dare to put any demands of change on the other, and as such maintain the narcissists' arena. Real virtuousness would include the possibility of being courageous to say "hey, that's wrong!", a correction which many others who interact with the corrected would benefit. Unlike NVC it would have a skin-in-the-game, lets-be-better telos. In such a setting, pathological characters wouldn't bubble up to top, and people wouldn't need to constantly pay the NVC tax. If you've seen the movie A Quiet Place, it perfectly exemplifies this. People don't coordinate and speak up to throw the monsters off, they just auto-censor themselves more than the other guy, and in the end reduced to bare survival.

ungamedplayer 5y ago

I'm confused by how there can be 'violent speech', I don't believe there can be. I believe there can be aggression, but I do not think there can be physical damage done by words alone. The paranoid in me ponders if this abuse of terminology is part of an effort to classify speech as violence, meaning that something that 'hurts the feelings' is classified as assault.

krapp 5y ago
"violent speech" is commonly understood to refer to speech which threatens or incites physical violence, what has commonly been referred to by courts as "incitement to imminent lawless action" or "fighting words."