Conflicts in Nonviolent Communication Theory
F.R.R. Mallory
October 6, 2007

Conflicts in Nonviolent Communication Theory

We may never be strong enough to be entirely nonviolent
in thought, word and deed.
But we must keep nonviolence as our goal
and make strong progress towards it.
~Mohandas Gandhi

In 2003 Marshall B. Rosenberg, Ph.D., published a book titled “Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life.” He characterizes his communication theory as, “using the term “nonviolence” as Gandhi used it—to refer to our natural state of compassion when violence has subsided from the heart” (Rosenberg ). Rosenberg, in describing his communication theory, states that, “Although I refer to it as “a process of communication” or a “language of compassion,” Nonviolent Communication is more than a process or a language. On a deeper level, it is an ongoing reminder to keep our attention focused on a place where we are more likely to get what we are seeking” (Rosenberg ). In this way Rosenberg clarifies that his theory and process are oriented toward the achievement of a personal objective. It is possible to say that all communication has objective but this does not mean that all objectives are the same. Because Rosenberg chooses to label his communication theory as ‘nonviolent communication’ he creates the measure to which his theory should be held.

The idea of nonviolence can be very appealing, particularly in light of the rather smarmy police action wars our current government has chosen to engage in and as we endure a rising tide of violence among youth and even young children. We seem infected by a spiral of violence affected behaviors that have created an overflow in prisons and turned prison industry into a profit making business. Against this background, a communication theory offering improvements should attract a lot of attention, and it has. NVC, the acronym Nonviolent Communication is known by, has spread across America and in fact worldwide offering training courses, groups, workshops and events and of course sales. NVC is business. CNVC is a nonprofit 501 (c)(3) organization that states, “CNVC relies upon workshop revenue and tax
deductible contributions for financial support” (Rosenberg). In 2006 the organization reported more than two million dollars in revenue. (2006 CNVC Annual Report).

How well does Rosenberg’s version of Nonviolent Communication hold up under scrutiny?

First let’s take a moment to look at the meaning of nonviolence. Rosenberg takes great care to direct the reader to a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi indicating that this is the definition of nonviolence Rosenberg is alluding to in the title of his work. As a definition the quote is vague, does Rosenberg only want us to look at violence ‘in’ the heart and if so, what does that mean exactly? Is an average person’s experience of violence conflated with their heart? I can’t really answer for any person but myself but I don’t generally think in those terms. Merriam-Webster offers more clarity around violence and defines it as: “the exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse or an intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force” (Merriam-Webster). This definition certainly seems at odds with how Rosenberg prefers the reader to understand his terms. My concern centers first on why Rosenberg finds it necessary to re-language a familiar word and second on why he chose the definition he did.

Mahatma Gandhi was to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1948, the year he was assassinated. By referencing Gandhi, Rosenberg associates Gandhi’s authority on nonviolence with Rosenberg’s new communication theory. In the course of writing this paper I have made significant attempts (looked at hundreds of quotes and enormous amounts of Gandhi materials) to locate the quote attributed to Gandhi, without success. My concern with this inability goes further, particularly in relation to the notable similarities between Rosenberg’s four principles and the descriptions of “Mahatma Gandhi's Theory of Nonviolent Communication” as written and presented by Robert A. Bode at the Annual Meeting of the Western States Communication Association (Portland, OR, February 10-14, 1995) (eric.ed.gov). The core of Gandhi’s satyagraha (a word taken from Sanskrit, meaning "insistence on truth") were campaigns centered on the ‘insistence on truth’ such that any examination positing Gandhi as central to the understanding of a theory must include his satyagraha.

Arne Naess in his 1974 book “Gandhi and Group Conflict: An exploration of satyagraha, describes Gandhi’s communication theory as:

1. on-site accumulation and analysis of facts, with opponent participation;
2. identification of interests in common with opponents;
3. formulation of a limited action goal acceptable to all parties and mutual discussion of same; and
4. a search for compromise without ceding on essentials” (Naess).

            Robert Bode describes the same theory this way:

1. nonviolent speech and action;
2. maintenance of relationships and enrichment of personhood;
3. openness; and
4. flexibility”. (Bode).

Both of these descriptions become useful when we look specifically at the four principles Rosenberg offers as his “Nonviolent Communicationsm” theory.”

1. observing;
2. feeling;
3. needing; and
4. requesting” (Rosenberg).

Rosenberg calls the techniques he uses and teaches, a raft. He says, "the objective of NVC is to establish a relationship based on honesty and empathy" (81). This seems to me to be a worthwhile objective. However, I am less certain his techniques demonstrate the achievement of these ideals.

Rosenberg’s theory is reduced to very simplistic terms which are not significantly expanded on in the book. He chooses instead to devote most of the book to anecdotal story telling with a strong flavor of self-aggrandizing. His lack of specificity makes comparisons to Gandhi’s extensive materials on the subject difficult but not impossible. He primarily deviates from Gandhi’s model in two critical areas, (3) and (4) .

Both models essentially ask the participant to accumulate the facts with the participation of the other person. Rosenberg calls this the ‘observing’ phase of his model. While I’m stating their similarities it’s worthy of note that Gandhi goes beyond observation to enroll the other party in the process of defining and strictly limiting the area of conflict. This becomes important because the Gandhi model is also dependent on a cultural conditioning that includes the concept of nonviolence. This cultural conditioning is not present in all cultures and although it can be learned, one person practicing nonviolent communication cannot exist in a vacuum and in fact the persons closest to Gandhi who worked directly in satyagraha campaigns did so after extensive training. Gandhi became almost a 3rd party outside of satyagraha to the degree to which he preserved the distinctions between area of discussion and the individuals participating. His campaigns often featured strong personal relationships between Gandhi and those he was ‘in conflict’ with. At times, this close relationship repositioned the opposition. This is quite different from an adversarial communication model.

“Tolley (1973) places the formative period for attitudinal and behavioral patterns concerning peace/war issues and conflict regulation styles at ages 4-12, then learning creative approaches to conflict regulation through family, school, mass media, and other primary learning environments is essential” (Wehr).

In terms of Rosenberg’s theory the first stage or (1) observer, requires that the individual receive whatever content the other person wishes to discharge. It is at this point in his model that a question can be asked about whether the receipt of verbal violence as part of being ‘observer’ is in any form nonviolent. Rosenberg argues that (2) feeling, which is actually a process of restating the other person’s views in a non-judging manner, is a way to remove the violent aspect through which the original comments may have been framed. This is the step of reframing what the other person says. From the Rosenberg model, this is where the person observing is attempting to listen to the other person from their perspective or to feel or to become empathetic to their point of view. In practice, this reframing becomes a way of indicating to the other person that their manner of describing the situation in their personal terms is in some way less valid because the ‘observer’ has seen fit to re-language their comments. I found this step of his process to be somewhat passive-aggressive and violent in the sense that the observer through their re-languaging process is non-consensually removing the power of the other person’s word choices.

There is also a patronizing quality to this reframing process. The observer seems to take the position of ‘condescending listener’ who needs to ‘teach’ through ‘reframing’ the other person’s statement. However, as I noted earlier the first two steps I’ve talked about in regard to Rosenberg’s theory are not strongly dissimilar to those used by Gandhi and it might be more accurate to suggest that Rosenberg’s model might be a highly simplified version of Gandhi’s model. The most distinct difference in these two steps appears to be where Gandhi is in the business of identifying areas in common during step two where Rosenberg is in the business of empathy and reframing during step two.

Rosenberg identifies his third step as (3) needing. In this step he suggests that participants should identify their needs. Since the NVC method is frequently used in personal relationship conflicts more so than addressing significant political issues, it becomes useful to look at a more concrete example: Mary and Joe are having a verbal disagreement. In their fight Joe calls Mary some abusive names. Mary chooses to try out her NVC skills on Joe who hasn’t read the book, attended a workshop or engaged in more than a passing conversation about the techniques. Rosenberg first asks Mary to observe and listen to Joe’s abusive comments. He then asks Mary to reframe for Joe what Joe has just said to her. So;

Joe calls Mary “a lazy bitch.”
Mary replies by saying, “Are you angry because you would like the house to be more clean when you get home?”
Joe, “The house is filthy and you lay around and eat all day, bitch.”
Mary, “Sounds like you’re feeling very desperate and you’re wondering whether I or anybody else can really understand what it’s like to be living under these conditions.”

First, is Joe looking for a conversation or engaging in verbal warfare? Is Joe venting? Is Mary’s technique likely to reduce Joe’s venom at this point? Rosenberg then asks Mary to identify her needs. Keep in mind that at this point Mary is supposed to have identified Joe’s needs through her reframing technique. Joe appears to at least want the house to be clean but the issue of the abusive label has not been explored to discover its underlying need. What is her need? It’s reasonable to suggest she might want him to stop saying nasty things to her.

In Gandhi’s model step (3) is the formulation of a limited action goal acceptable to all parties and mutual discussion of same. This is a big difference. Rosenberg is asking Mary to identify her needs not necessarily to identify the needs of both persons and goals to work toward them. Rosenberg repeatedly states that,

The use of NVC does not require that the persons with whom we are communicating be literate in NVC or even motivated to relate to us compassionately. If we stay with the principles of NVC, motivated solely to give and receive compassionately, and do everything we can to let others know this is our only motive, they will join us in the process and eventually we will be able to respond compassionately to one another. I’m not saying that this always happens quickly. I do maintain, however, that compassion inevitably blossoms when we stay true to the principles and process of NVC. (Rosenberg)

“Small group experiments (Shure et al., 1965; Bartos, 1974) have also suggested the potential risk that pacifist or conciliatory responses may increase the aggressiveness of an opponent. The point to be made here is that the training and discipline of nonviolent actors and their understanding of the interpersonal dynamics of nonviolence are important. Socialization into and internalization of the role of nonviolent actor is critical for the self-limiting capacity of nonviolent action.” (Wehr). Rosenberg’s statement, while generally accurate over the long term, does not address the real risks a person who has simply read a self-help book may experience when trying this process on a reluctant or very angry opponent.

Further, his contention that compassionate relating is the sole motivator counters step (4) requesting, of his process. In step Rosenberg asks Mary to make a request of Joe that will meet her newly discovered need. This is certainly a different motivator than simple compassionate relating. Mary has an objective throughout her NVC exercise, she wants something. Mary could offer to clean the house in exchange for Joe stopping his cutting words. However, that isn’t described as Mary’s need. Her need is merely for Joe to stop saying hurtful things. In this example Mary and Joe are not relating as equals, they are not sharing an objective to participate in compassionate conversations with each other, they are relating to each other’s expressed power differential. If Mary were to request that Joe stop his abusive language is that likely to result in improved conditions? It seems likely that Mary has understood her need before this moment. Is Mary really sympathizing with Joe about how difficult it is to live in a dirty house? Although I have used a simplistic example here it becomes possible to see where this type of manipulation of right to request change is not really nonviolent. This may be a lesser violent model and it may be effective when separations are made between the conflict and the persons attempting to resolve the conflict. In personal relationships this becomes considerably more difficult and often requires third party mediation to sort it out.

Having objectives is a natural part of communications. Everyone wants something. Gandhi certainly wanted things from his satyagraha campaigns and he clearly identified how vitally important nonviolent communication was to accomplishing satyagraha. However, in Gandhi’s model the objective aligns more with Quaker concepts of a “meeting of the minds” rather than the identification of need and request of fulfillment of need.
In my experimentation with Rosenberg’s NVC techniques, did I experience nonviolence? To consider this question fairly I must first reexamine my meaning of nonviolence and Rosenberg's meaning, to see if we are understanding these words in the same way. I consider violence to be the intentional action of a person to injure, harm or abuse themselves or others, including through the delivery of intense feelings or expressions. For me, nonviolence is the absence of violence. Rosenberg chooses to describe nonviolence as the point where “violence subsides in the heart and to a natural state of compassion.” It is clear that our meanings do not closely parallel each other. Can I equate the absence of violence with a natural state of compassion?

Do I believe these two concepts are the same?

This question has led me to consider the idea of compassion and to ask myself if it is a natural state. Can I find foundation for compassion in humans as a natural state? Mirriam-Webster describes a "natural state" as, "being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment; living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society" and describes compassion as, "...consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it" (Mirriam-Webster). From the examination of just these few words it becomes clear to me where my expectation might be flawed and why I experienced Rosenberg's book to retain features of communication violence.
Rosenberg's technique is actually quite simple: first we observe the situation and make a preliminary determination if it is, "enriching or not enriching our lives" (6). Second, can we communicate our observation without criticizing, blaming, judging. Third, can we connect what we feel to needs that we have and fourth, can we communicate what we feel we want so that our life will be enriched?

Rosenberg urges us not to place a value judgment but surely "enriching" or "not enriching" are value judgments. In practice during step two he asks us to sense what the other person's unaddressed needs are and articulate them aloud. Be empathetic. Doesn't this also place a silent judgment upon the other person's language choices as inadequate or incompetent and aren't these also value judgments? Rosenberg might view this step as a compassionate collaboration, however, is this merely a form of magisterial speech or a way to speak 'for' another person rather than allowing them to speak for themselves? In the third step he asks us to connect our feelings to needs we have - isn't this creating a reciprocal imposition upon the other person, an external responsibility for our unresolved hidden needs? Lastly we are to language our needs in such a way as to encourage the other person to meet our needs.

If there is a potential consequence for refusal of request, can a request be nonviolent? Doesn't this request demand concept rely on an elevated self-advocacy skill-set in the recipient of the request in order for the request to meet the standard of nonviolence? In what way does the requester determine the existence of this skill-set prior to deploying their request?

What is violent communication? From my perspective it begins with the forcible, nonconsensual imposition of energy, through language, to silence or alter the way another person is being in the world. In literal terms: to infringe on another's right to freedom of thought and speech, perhaps through extension on physical freedom as well.

Is the first violent communication between people (such as between Mary and Joe) negated by an empathetic understanding of the other person's pain? Does Mary really hurt less because she reframes Joe’s words and sees the dirt in the house from his perspective? If Joe’s assault wasn’t verbal but physical, say he slapped her face, would the slap magically disappear and become nonviolent once Mary started her technique? No.

From this perspective my potential communication tools would not appear to protect me from receiving injury. Further, if I am open to receiving another person's pain, if I equate Joe’s anger to expressed pain, am I creating a mental thought process that I share some responsibility for his pain? Again, is this nonviolent toward myself? Is Joe responsible for his own actions, including words of violence, or can this responsibility be shared by those around him?

What do we know about these issues? Science has clearly identified correlations between nonenriching verbal assault and elevated levels of stress and disease in the body of the recipient. We can consider these nonenriching verbal assaults to be transmittable forms of disease transmission. If we transposed this argument and said that a person was verbally assaulting another person with cancer when they yelled at them does this issue become more clear? While the physical implications may be less initially visible than with physical assault, the long-term damage from violent communication cannot be understated.

The Journal of Affective Disorders, Study Highlights Longterm Damage of Verbal Abuse states: “People who were verbally abused had 1.6 times as many symptoms of depression and anxiety as those who had not been verbally abused and were twice as likely to have suffered a mood or anxiety disorder over their lifetime, according to psychology Professor Natalie Sachs-Ericsson, the study's lead author.” (Treatment Online).

In step four we are encouraged to express our unmet needs to the person we are communicating with. Factually, when we tell another person what we want there is a strong cultural subtext that is activated. If that person does not comply will there be consequences for them such as feelings of guilt, betrayal, abandonment, shame, etc.? Rosenberg asks us to frame our needs as a request rather than a demand, but he doesn't appear to explore the ramifications of rejection no matter how this action is languaged. Further, he doesn't discuss how to identify that the recipient of this request will have the necessary skill-set in self-advocacy to respond to this request without self-injury or consequence. Will we relate to others differently because they have rejected our expressed needs? Did they consent to receiving our requests? Is this step potentially another way to manipulate or impose direction upon other people under the guise of getting our needs met? Aren't these also forms of violence?

I feel it is also important to take a look at Rosenberg's orientation toward compassion. He appears to feel that the absence of violence in communication equates to a motivation of compassion. If I were to say that the absence of war could be viewed as an absence of violence, does this mean my absence of war translates into my possession of a desire to alleviate your distress? No. There may be many reasons why I might desire not to engage in a war with you or perhaps with anyone. Perhaps I simply want to live with an absence of violence.

It could be true that this less-violent state may result in improvements in relationship but it may not. Because I choose not to injure you does not mean I am interested in investing in your feelings, concerns or needs, nor you in mine. It is in these areas that I feel Rosenberg doesn't go far enough. We impose our communication styles upon each other and imposition can be a form of tyranny just as these techniques can be a form of tyranny. Rosenberg asks me to speak for the silence of your needs but what I really want is for you to speak for yourself. These techniques ask the participant to place themselves on both sides of the conversation, becoming both voices speaking to self. It is useful, but as a raft, will it carry me all the way across the river or will it bob near the shore of violence, unable to weather the deeps?

With communication being so vitally important in an ever more fractured world tools such as the ability to communicate nonviolently are needed now more than ever. However, as with any ‘new’ theory I feel it is important to examine what is presented from as many viewpoints as possible before investing in either idea or process. From my perspective NVC seems a bit too eager to lay claim to nonviolent communication as their forte. From even a cursory examination, such as I have done here, there are questions as to where this theory originated and what is the underlying agenda of its practitioners and advocates.

Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated before the entire world the efficacy of his ideas and theories of nonviolence and how satyagraha campaigns could be waged to raise up societies in the face of oppression and tyranny. In a sense he delivered these ideas from a position of selflessness and absence of profit or the near opposite of the path chosen by Marshall Rosenberg. Given the choice I will continue to follow the thoughts and ideas of Mahatma Gandhi rather than the profit chasing quickies of Rosenberg. In addition, it troubles me that Rosenberg appears to be executing a type of idea piracy here, profiting off the hard-won lessons of far better men, only reduced to one-word soundbites.

Work Cited

Miriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Bode, Robert A.,“Mahatma Gandhi's Theory of Nonviolent Communication.” (1995)  2007.

CNVC, “Annual Report for 2006” CNVC. May 7, 2007. (2007).
Miriam-Webster Dictionary,. 2007.

Naess, Arne, “Nonviolent Communication in Group Conflicts:  An Intramural Note” The Trumpeter. (2005) Volume 21, Number 1 2007.

Rosenberg, Marshall B., Ph.D., "Nonviolent Communication, A Language of Life." California, PuddleDancer Press, 2005.

Sachs-Ericsson, Natalie, “Study Highlights Longterm Damage of Verbal Abuse” Journal of Affective Disorders. (2006) 2007.

Wehr, Paul, “Self-limiting Conflict:The Gandhian Style”
2007.

Marshall Rosenberg
Center For NonViolent Communication

This is the second of three essays I am including in this section. The first two, including this one, speak about Marshall Rosenberg's work with his book and organization. The third essay deals more directly with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and what I consider a far more valid and useful exploration of actual nonviolence in application.

I have found Rosenberg's work to be somewhat trivial and rather like a poor copy of the much wider work of Gandhi and others.

If you have a strong interest in nonviolent theory or practice then I encourage you to seek better sources than Rosenberg for thoughtful answers. It is my opinion that Rosenberg, at best, is speaking to a lesser violent model, not a nonviolent model of communication. In addition, I also felt there were many underlying psychological issues such as the reassignment of personal responsibility in his work that take the work more toward addressing personal needs rather than the needs of the collective.

HOME | MALLORY'S WORKS | COOL STUFF | JOURNAL | TRUNK | ABOUT MALLORY

© 2007-2008 F.R.R. Mallory