Are some needs really pseudo-needs?

The lists of universal human needs that are widely circulated among the NVC community vary somewhat, but most contain the same 90%+ needs.

My assumption is that the original list of needs was created by the founder of NVC, Dr. Marshall Rosenberg, and has been adapted and revised by various trainers.

There are a few needs that appear on some "needs lists" that are dubious as to whether they are actually describing a universal element of life for all human beings.

First, allow me to offer my own definition of "need" as we define it in NVC:

"A quality of life energy that arises from inside of me, and asks for attention and fulfillment. Needs are the basic building blocks of life that are required to sustain and enrich life. They are universal in nature, meaning that all human beings share the same needs."

So, here are a few so-called "needs" that I call into question:
* validation
* approval
* emotional safety
* shared reality

Validation and approval are pretty clear-cut for me -- they are not really universal needs, because they have more to do with someone else telling me I am OK, rather than acknowledging my value from the inside-out. No problem here.

Emotional safety is a little bit more difficult. If, by emotional safety, you mean that everything and everybody has to be really nice to you all the time, and whisper sweet nothings in your ear every time you express yourself, then no, obviously emotional safety is not a need -- far from it!

I would guess that someone who says they have a need for emotional safety might have a need for acceptance (perhaps self-acceptance), or self-worth, or something like that.

Shared reality is even more dicey, to me. This one can go either way -- either a genuine universal need (in my eyes), or a pseudo need that takes us very far off track, even dangerously so. To me, shared reality is a need if you mean having companionship with others who you resonate and connect with -- people who share your interests, your lifestyle, etc.

On the other hand, shared reality can mean a very different thing. If a person or organization with authority -- take the Chinese government, for example -- says they need, "shared reality," and when their citizens do not comply with their view of the world and what is "right"... and then imprison them for speaking out, then most certainly we are not talking about a need.

Some other trainers even call into question needs such as trust (as in, "trust in what?") or respect, believing that respect is almost always an externalized need, rather than being sourced form within.

I enjoy this topic very much. Are there any other needs that, for you, are pseudo needs?

OFNR gets a bad name, but is revolutionary

Over the course of my nine years in and around the Nonviolent Communication (NVC) community, many times I have heard people refer to OFNR (Observations, Feelings, Needs and Requests) in a disparaging way, in my evaluation.

By OFNR, I am referring to the structured approach to using NVC, namely by expressing ourselves through these four primary components of the process, as described by NVC's creator, Marshall Rosenberg.

The idea is that when we use the formal approach to NVC in this fashion, it can sound phony and mechanical to others, and actually impede connection from occurring... which is the goal of NVC to begin with.

Over the past 3 or 4 years, I have been exploring how to use and teach NVC without explicitly including these four ingredients of NVC, with some success. And yet, at times, I find myself getting so "fancy" that my power of expression is diminished by trying to "dance around" the essence of OFNR.

I had recent experience teaching NVC in Japan alongside fellow certified trainer, Francois Beausoleil from Canada, in which OFNR appeared to be an absolute revolution for the participants.

We were working with an audience with very little, if any, background about NVC and furthermore, our work was being translated from English into Japanese, so for all of these reasons I elected to keep it simple this one particular day -- essentially, I taught them OFNR.

And from the looks on their faces, and the feedback they gave to me through the translators, they were awed and inspired to discover that they could live their lives through a new lens -- that of OFNR -- and express themselves to others in this way.

This was a pleasant reminder to me of the power of OFNR -- obviously not to be applied in a stiff, mechanical way -- yet beautiful in its own way. I remember Inbal Kashtan (another NVC Trainer from California) sharing a few years ago that in spite of how hard people try to AVOID using OFNR, to her, it's a beautiful language.

Jeff teaches Nonviolent Communication (NVC) at university in Tokyo, Japan

On Thursday, I gave a 1 hour, 45 minute lecture to students at the International Christian University (ICU) in Tokyo. I was invited by Professori Mori, who teaches a class on international relations.

Hideayaki and Haruno, two of my Japanese friends, made this connection with ICU, and I am grateful.

(photo taken by Ken Anno-- thank you, Ken)

In preparation for the lecture, I reminded myself of something very useful I learned from Miki Kashtan a couple of year ago -- that people who attend an introduction to NVC are not necessarily interested in, or committed to, learning the skill sets of NVC (e.g. Observation, Feeling, Need and Request).

And I have found this to be especially true for groups -- such as this university class -- who do not deliberately choose to attend a training, but instead it is selected for them. The most extreme case of this is when I have been invited to give a training at a workplace, and the employees are "required" to attend -- this often creates an attitude of resentment and resistance even before I arrive, which I then am faced with once I get there.

In this class, obviously, the students had some degree of "buy-in" because they voluntarily signed up for the course as a whole. And to my extreme delight, my needs for receptivity and partnership and inspiration were very, very deeply satisfied.

The students, while they did not speak very much, seemed very engaged, and I sensed this based on their eye contact, facial expressions and nonverbal communication, including whenever I asked them to do something, they all agreed (which met my need for trust).

From the start, one of my favorite places to share NVC is in a university setting, which strikes me as somewhat odd -- even to myself -- because sometimes the institutional structure of universities sometimes makes it harder to establish heart connection.

Jeff shares NVC in Japan at Asian Rural Institute

On my first full day in Japan, I led a day-long training at the Asian Rural Institute (ARI), for 25 people from 12 different countries in Africa and Asia.

All of them them, as far as I know, spoke English as a second language, and because there were so many different languages among them -- and because ARI's programs are all in English -- there was no interpreter.

It was quite challenging for me, as I had to speak VERY basic English in order for them to understand me. I used about 20% of my normal vocabulary, and spoke twice as slowly as I normally do... which was quite an adjustment.

I was most struck by the personal stories the participants shared, for example three people from Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), who told of their encounters with the military government police, who struck them and others they know with the blunt end of their rifles, and who were punished for being on the street after 10 p.m.

It was rather difficult for them to "take in" the ideas of Nonviolent or Compassionate Communication, and my guess is that it's because they need a ton of empathy for how painful it is to live under these regimes.




Nonetheless, in spite of this, as well as the language difficulty, the feedback forms indicated that nearly everyone really enjoyed my presentation, which included several role play examples with the giraffe and jackal puppets, and plenty of empathy that I offered to the participants.

Again, it was quite a challenge to offer verbal empathy, as I reduced my available words by 80%, and yet I still enjoyed it and sensed that it connected with some people.