I think you’re in the neighborhood of what I’m trying to say.

I do not, however, want to suggest that I am—or anyone else is—worthy of love.

Worthiness is not a notion I could defend or even define other than in terms of some standard, so I’d rather do without it. And, of course, the same for unworthiness. In “worthy”, I still hear conditionality, and without conditionality, I don’t know what “worthy” could mean. Or from another angle, I might say that I’m both worthy and unworthy, since I satisfy some people’s conditions and don’t satisfy other people’s conditions.

thanks for your reply. I’m glad you’re doing good. Unfortunately I’m too illiterate regarding programming to appreciate the explorations on your other blog. But I trust that it’s fun for those who get your meaning.

Alright, I get that you really want to point to something else than avoiding criticism (and I was teasing you a bit there). But I’d still like to check, whether I get what you’re saying.

Let’s take your example. When someone says “You’re inconsiderate!” and it hurts you, your theory is that it hurts you, because somewhere within your personality structure there’s a rule saying “You’re only worthy of love, when you’re considerate. – If you’re inconsiderate, you’re not worthy of love.” This is the pothole in your parallel. You can avoid having to acknowledge that somebody else deems you inconsiderate, that your behavior can be accurately summarized as inconsiderate or that you think of yourself as such. But avoiding the premise of the rule doesn’t change the rule.

Filling the pothole, then, means to fully acknowledge the fact that you’re inconsiderate, while AT THE SAME TIME confirm that you’re worthy of love?

Warmly
Niklas

I’ve been having a great time. Most of my creative energy is going into non-NVC explorations, some of which is described at my other blog.

“When someone criticizes you, look for the actual behavior of yours, that the other is referring to and acknowledge, how it affects the other person, without rationalizing or empathizing it away. Then look, what you can or want to learn from that. …”

In this description, I hear a strategy for neutralizing criticism, replacing it with objectivity/clarity and learning. Very useful stuff. I’m talking about a contrasting strategy with a quite different goal: instead of neutralizing, amplify! Lean into the criticism, owning it fully—more fully even than the critic intended.

While strategies for neutralizing criticism steer away from the gaps in my self-love, embracing and amplifying them raises another opportunity to fill those gaps.

As an analogy, suppose there are several potholes on the street where you live. After living there a while, you’re probably pretty good at steering around those holes. And good at getting out of the holes when you don’t manage to avoid them. These avoidance skills are helpful, since they let you get on with business, including getting past your street to other places, like where you work and where your friends live.

One of these days, however, you might want to fill the holes in your street.

Every time such a hole comes to my attention, I have an opportunity to invest in wholeness.

Lest anyone misunderstand the parallel I’m drawing, the holes are not our defects, which is a surface-level interpretation of criticism. That is, the holes are not blemishes in the perfection that would make us worthy of love. Rather, the holes are the gaps in our unconditional self-love.

long time no read. How have you been?

I’m wondering, how what you’re saying is different from “When someone criticizes you, look for the actual behavior of yours, that the other is referring to and acknowledge, how it affects the other person, without rationalizing or empathizing it away. Then look, what you can or want to learn from that. And please always do that with me, when I criticize you.”

Can you tell me?
Cheers
Niklas

I’ve already reached out where I believe CNVC folks are reading. So far, I’ve not heard back. I’m happy to dance if & when they show up.

I’m applying a principle I’ve learned from experience: if I’m going to help someone, I want to see that they’re trying at least as hard as I am. Otherwise, I waste a lot of energy that could be invested more fruitfully elsewhere.

Many thanks for this post, which I find provocative and addressing an important issue.

I would say that if CNVC’s request is genuinely a request as I understand it in NVC, then the people who made the request would be willing to engage with a “no” or a counter request, or a desire to dialogue about it.

Otherwise, it’s either a demand or something that I don’t want to take seriously, myself.

I would be curious to see what happens if you engage with CNVC and request a giraffe dance (i.e. connecting conversation), in which both sides can exchange needs in the dance of honesty and empathy.

Personally, my efforts to engage CNVC from 2006-10 have been totally and utterly unsatisfying, and mostly have been met with silence.

Thanks again for the post and all the best.

Sincerely, Jeff
_________________________________________
Jeff Brown, Executive Director
Compassionate Communication of Central Ohio [www.nvcohio.org]
2350 Indianola Ave., Columbus, OH 43202 USA
614-558-1141 office ~ 812-320-3842 personal

* Certified Trainer, Center for Nonviolent Communication [www.cnvc.org]
* Associate Trainer, NVC Training Institute [www.nvcti.com]

> Visit my blog: http://heartfeltcommunication.blogspot.com

Hurray! I’m delighted to hear that CNVC has expanded their request to include “compassionate communication” (and I see “giraffe language”) as well. Here’s why.

I have felt deeply disheartened every time I heard of people taking refuge in being allowed (huh?) to use “compassionate communication” as a way of avoiding the request about the terms “nonviolent communication” and “NVC”. What matters to me here is people applying the spirit and principles of NVC deeply and consistently. Wherever we are uncomfortable applying these princples is exactly where we have an opportunity to learn and integrate more deeply, both individually and as a community. But mostly, people avoid discomfort, rather than growing through it, and the “compassionate communication” loophole had provided NVC-lovers a tolerably comfortable avoidance strategy. Now that CNVC expanded their please-do-not-say list, I hope there is enough incentive for people to notice and address more of the discrepancies between what we preach and what we practice.

Marshall taught us that it’s perfectly fine not to accommodate requests. And not just fine, but *wonderful*! He taught us what to do instead:

* Remember that their needs can be met with a multitude of strategies other than the one carried in their current request. Most of those strategies don’t involve us at all.

* Share what needs of ours interfere with saying yes to a request, giving the other (CNVC in this case) the opportunity to join in a giraffe dance.

A challenge here is to stay awake enough in the process that we don’t slip into power-under. For instance, one might easliy forget the nature of a giraffe dance and act as if we’re asking CNVC’s permission or waiting for their approval.

It is my intention, and when awake & centered also my practice, that my decisions come from my own inspiration. That inspiration flows out of my deep connection with needs. I’ve read various versions of CNVC’s “requests” and explanations, with curiosity about their underlying needs. I have found a few statements phrased in a way that resembles needs language, but so far I haven’t found the real stuff. If requests were a big deal to me, I might keep trying to get at what’s behind these ones. However, I know that strategies (and hence requests) are expendable and possibilities abundant.

In answer to your question, my needs and strategies are unaffected by CNVC’s modified request, and I’m feeling excited & joyful.

If anyone would like help navigating through their discomfort around CNVC’s requests, please let me know. We could chat here or on a mailing list, e.g., the “NVC Evolves” or “Emergence of NVC” groups, or maybe set up a conference call.

Sarah Peyton

I’m inspired to write by the convergence of some experiences and thoughts I’ve been having lately and the written phrase, “Deal with stuff as it comes up instead expecting to control it in advance.”

I volunteer once a week teaching the convergence of relationship and language (ipnb and nvc) at a women’s prison and one of the things that I hold myself with a lot of self-empathy around is the issue of side conversations while I’m making my offerings. (This is to say, my focus on either the person who is speaking or on the flow of my own speech shifts when there are side conversations, and then I need to give myself support around my desire for clarity and follow-through and ease and my longing to convey and share the beauty and healing potential of nvc.)

There is a lot of right-wrong thinking about side conversations in the room – even the people who are doing it feel angry and express it if there are others doing it. Proposals are made, accepted, (and then disregarded in practice) that we have one person at a time speaking.

This last week there was an ongoing murmur from two women sitting immediately to my right.

I spoke about my own difficulty with focus, and said “and I don’t want to make anyone wrong. The folks who are speaking have needs, too. I’m guessing you have needs for connection, communication, understanding, meaning… What would you like to say about what’s going on for you?”

It turned out that one of them had had an experience of sharing the visiting room with a woman who was in prison for child sex crimes – that she had been sitting in the visiting room watching this other woman watch her children and was overwhelmed with a need to protect, torn between the desire to take action and her long-term need to conform with the requests of the prison system (to act peaceably) so that she could get out as soon as possible to be with her children.

This was not an easy situation for me, since the use of children as sexual objects knocks me out of the ball park and getting back to a calm, easy, inclusive and balanced place is a mighty journey. I also mourn for everyone in this story on so many levels, including myself.

But my experience is less important than my point here – that we might say that side conversations are bad, but if I had given warnings and used power over, or more subtly used power over to stay with the strategy of focus that the majority of the group was asking for, then something incredibly important would not have been held at all. Other things were unspoken, the material I had intended to cover wasn’t covered, I had a hell of a time getting back to some sort of balance, it was in no way a “model class” in which everyone was heard and time was shared somewhat equally, but it was important, and nothing was glossed over.

It’s not really comfortable, moving into this space – I feel awkward, out of balance, call myself “ineffective and incompetent,” beat myself up afterwards for not being able to figure out how to “hold space better,” and for falling so heavily into my own pain, and then the next week when over half of the class didn’t turn up, there’s the sense that folks are voting with their feet, and the vote is “no.” Simultaneously, the third session is usually when you get the huge fall-out in attendance, I was nominated as volunteer of the quarter at the prison (they have thousands of volunteers), and I consistently held space in my offerings in the world outside the prison where folks expressed gratitude and appreciation. So despite my own negative self-talk, things aren’t as bleak as they feel.

Dang! It’s important to me, this concept of everyone’s needs mattering – which can be lived to some extent in the strategy of “Dealing with stuff as it comes up instead expecting to control it in advance.”

I’d love to hear if this contributed, or generates any response in anyone reading –

Best, Sarah Peyton

I did try and have a dialogue with CNVC about using the words as a title about 4 years back. Sadly though I found there didn’t appear to be the time, space or desire for dialogue. Recalling it now it feels painful, I guess I wanted connection, understanding, dialogue and mutuality, however, my experience was that I was communicating with an institution and there was an “official line.” Back then I had attended around 60 days of training the majority of it with Marshall. I wasn’t interested in becoming certified as I lacked confidence that being “certified” helped trainers stay in touch with the essential alive energy of not knowing an openess to sharing. I could see that they were skilled in the language and concepts but the sense of the alive spirit underlying the model was for me missing. I am not blaming anyone it is hard to stay with vulnerability and openness it is easier to be the expert and whats more have a certificate saying you are competant and an authority. I was also concerned with what I judged as a kind of career move, and the costs of people’s training events. A lot of our conditioning supports the slide into “expert” and learner as opposed to staying open and vulnerable. I think embodiment and exemplification communicate the principles at a deeper level than the exchange of information and knowledge. There is a spiritual element to NVC and it lies in the valueing of others needs as much as my own.

For the sake of ease I thought of becoming certified instead I decided to use alternative names,to promote my sharing of the ideas, skills and experience of NVC, names that I prefer. Though, I now find myself in the position of people contacting me asking for NVC training, or organising events on my behalf and promoting them as NVC which has brought the issue back. I have enourmous gratitude to Marshall and others who have introduced and helped me understand and hopefully more fully embody the ideas and principles of NVC. I will continue to acknowledge and reference Marshall and I hope that the quality of sharing I give will have a growthful and beneficial effect on many people. Having read this blog I feel a sense of ease. If people want to call what I share NVC or promote it as such, it is fine. I will continue to promote my own trainings as Compassionate Communication…

Jayaraja

So I request that we [...] look to how we can protect the public in its various relationships to CNVC and NVC. How can CNVC assure itself that people they are blessing with the title of Certified CNVC Trainer are within the bounds of what they consider to be appropriate cohesiveness with the model Marshall developed.

This question doesn’t interest me, since the whole strategy of blessing by a centralized, authorized institution is just a strategy, and a problematic one at that. For alternatives, see Emergence of NVC a Life-inspired, self-organizing vision to support learning, living, sharing, and evolving Nonviolent Communication.

I’d also like to remind you and others of the topic of the post, which is noticing and clearing away faux needs and finding the real thing. I’d like replies to address that topic.

The whole discussion of the faux needs being served by CNVC in its certification process seems distorted. All “needs” of an institution are false in that institutions do not have needs as we in NVC define needs.
[...]
Needs are the province of the individual not the social structure.
[...]
The only way it makes sense to look at “needs” faux or not in terms of CNVC is to look at the needs of individuals who are affected by the institution.

I guess you have a more limiting view of needs than I do. I see NVC’s current focus on needs of individuals as merely a developental (evolutionary) stage, rather than an inherent limitation. I suspect that there are indeed useful notions of needs that apply to institutions/organizations, and I’m openly curious about what those notions might be. I hope others are openly curious as well, because I expect discoveries to come from those who look rather than those convinced that there’s nothing to look for.

All “needs” of an institution are false in that institutions do not have needs as we in NVC define needs. Where is the heart or the body or the mind of an institution to sense whether a need resonates truly or falsely with any test, not matter how useful.

My interpretation is that you’re posing your lack of answers as an argument that answers don’t exist. I think you’re confusing existence with a particular method of observation. If I understand your argument, it’s that (a) you don’t foresee how to apply your current favorite accuracy test for needs-guessing in this situation, thus (b) no test exists, and therefore (c) the need itself doesn’t exist.

Yes! Resonates, yes. I am so excited about the work you’re doing in helping NVC to be fully and completely NVC… without compromise, and the way you lovingly seek out places where we might have habits that conflict with the world we hope for. I feel such a sense of joy about it. So yes, it resonates, and thank you for putting this out there!

And if you find yourself in a place where you want to help me grow in these things, I would love to learn from you.

Angela

I thought;
“Well we are NVC people, we dont need rules because we have the ability to voice what is alive in us in a non-violent way… rules or laws are outdated/redundant for us”

There is no way of knowing exactly what gets stimulated in others, but if we can voice what is alive in us then we can connect and play in a fun way.

It seems that the litigious spirit or the use of rules is needed in a group of people who do not/can not connect with each other, therefore to gauge whether actions are meeting needs instead of connecting with others one connects with his thoughts and beliefs (morals/ethics) or his law book (rules/laws).

Not only does this not meet the need for connection and growth but the disconnection would (and does) result in people acting in ways that cause harm to others as they dont get the feedback required to trigger the need to help/enrich life (and thus not harm others.)
Also it opens people up to maipulation by the law-makers.
And is usually enforced by a retributive justice system (punishing those who break the laws.)

Such things of cause are required in a dominative system. Think “devide and conquer”.

One alternative to this would be of cause “facilitate connection”.

Do you really mean trust-that as a feeling of confidence? How about instead, a thought that supports such a feeling? And maybe “calm” is closer to the feeling.

I’ve often heard “reassurance” used as a need, but I don’t see it that way. What I really hear is “reassurance that …”. If someone wanted pure Reassurance (whatever that could mean), it could be about anything or about nothing, couldn’t it? As for support, sure I guess it could be. It could really be any need though. Maybe they want Inner Peace. In that case, reassurance is a pretty brittle, though popular, strategy.

I suggest that the parsing you offer is one, rather than the, parsing. That one leads to one meaning, and probably a linguistic origin. I’m suspicious of other meanings, considering (a) the capitalization, (b) ego habits, and (c) observations around the use of the word “trainer” in CNVC-influenced circles. In the latter case, to my surprise, “trainer” quite often is used to mean something quite different from “one who trains”.

Your example of “President” also comes from “one who presides”, doesn’t it?

Using the name NVC for this blog is a choice I’m happy with, based on the values I see in the choice. Call it proactive, reactive, radioactive, participative, or even no evaluation at all, as you prefer.

When I use the term “NVC” or “nonviolent communication”, I do so specifically to refer to Marshall’s ideas, because I want people to know what content I’m referring to. I don’t use the term for its descriptive value, because (a) I don’t think the name conveys the message, and (b) I prefer positive terms to negative.

A second reason I use these terms is as gift: an invitation and encouragement to dance. Offering my partnership in bringing to light the beautiful needs under CNVC’s preferences (and under the standard NVC-ese phrases). Once they and I are deeply connected to the underlying needs, then solutions will arise that better serve their needs and mine.

We can use the expression “nonviolent communication” to describe a model that is entirely different from Marshall’s as long as we don’t capitalize it. And we can use the acronym NVC – yes, even in titles – as long as we put the superscript SM for “service mark.” (I don’t know enough HTML to do that for real.) Isn’t that enough?

Considering your choice of “we can”, instead of “cnvc prefers us to”, I guess you’re hearing a demand also.

About “enough”, I wonder: enough for what? In any case, I don’t settle for merely enough, which I hear as another word for acceptable compromise. One of the many gems Marshall has given me is the realization that requests/strategies/preferences are dime-a-dozen. They’re expendable in this abundant universe of infinite possibilities for meeting all needs fully. I enjoy acting from inspiration. The fact that I’m not yet inspired with CNVC’s requests is important feedback to me and to CNVC. Let’s dig for needs, which is the invitation part of my choice to use “NVC”.

I love acknowledging and celebrating Marshall, which I do joyfully and spontaneously.

I’m not sure what you want in asking to “shift the debate”. I’m all for a variety of conversations. The one about using “NVC” seems to capture a lot of interest, especially as people become aware that they’ve been playing Power Under. Meanwhile, let’s also have whatever other conversations people are interested in.

I don’t like the name NVC anyway. I totally get the fact that the consciousness is grounded in Ghandian nonviolence. When Marshall articulated his model, nonviolence was a hyphenated word, so NVC made sense as an acronym. It’s been a long struggle to drop the hyphen and have nonviolence accepted as a word with its own wholeness, and I think that’s more important than playing tug o’ war with an acronym that doesn’t even stand for what we want it to stand for!

We can use the expression “nonviolent communication” to describe a model that is entirely different from Marshall’s as long as we don’t capitalize it. And we can use the acronym NVC – yes, even in titles – as long as we put the superscript SM for “service mark.” (I don’t know enough HTML to do that for real.) Isn’t that enough? I’m even willing to give Marshall’s name and credit him with the development and application of the language model that changed my life.

So can we shift the debate and come up with a new name and start articulating some of the ways in which our model is different from his and our way of being in the world is different from CNVC’s? Then we can sneak in the back door when CNVC gets its Synergy Circle going and tie in to the global network anyway!;)

by the way: what does “woot” mean? My knowledge of the English language deserted me at that point