Henry, a friend of mine in St. Louis, recently posed a question to me about NVC in an email exchange we were having.
I am inspired to share it in my blog, in the hopes that it will stimulate you in some positive way. As always, I welcome feedback about my musings.
> HENRY: Question: in your judgment, is a stereotypical, sociopolitically conservative worldview compatible with NVC?
JEFF: I like this question -- it challenges me and stimulates me to grow and explore this question myself.
Prior to Nonviolent Communication (NVC), I spent 5 years of my life as a progressive political activist, and gave that up because I became so hopeless and despondent that so many people appeared to be "locked into" the stereotypical, sociopolitically conservative worldview that you refer to.
My answer to your question is "Mostly." NVC enables us to focus our attention on our own needs and values, as well as onto others' needs and values, and see the divine life energy that is motivating us all to espouse whatever political views that we do.
In that way, NVC does not put forth any particular political stance or orientation -- it just seeks to illuminate the truth of us human beings, which I see as Love (Marshall Rosenberg, the creator of NVC, talks about this, too. I have heard him say that he created NVC to take the concept of love and make it real in our everyday lives.)
I find that any attitudes that seek to limit, constrict, compartmentalize or isolate the human experience of Love do not the stand the test of time when NVC consciousness is applied to them. For me, NVC shows me how to place my attention on those aspects of the human experience that are the most likely to put me in the flow of life. These aspects are often referred to as the mechanics of NVC: observations, feelings, needs and requests.
I also want to be abundantly clear that I do not believe that progressive political thinking is better than conservative thinking, even if those terms could be quantified and defined in the first place. In fact, when I was an environmental activist for those 5 years, I was absolutely fueled by "jackal thinking" that the "enemy" (i.e. anyone who held an opinion different than my own) was irresponsible, bad, or wrong-headed, and it was my job to convince them of their wrongness.
Needless to say, I was not only ineffective, I believe that I made things worse -- by irritating people, stimulating them to defend themselves and reinforce their position, and making little (if any) connection with them. I have since learned that my favorite way to gain political power -- or any kind of power with people -- is to use empathy to demonstrate that I see the divine reasons for a person holding political beliefs that are different from my own, even if I feel scared or angry about them.
2 comments:
You and your questioner may understand what is meant by a stereotypical, sociopolitically conservative worldview. But, I certainly don't, and I imagine that others don't either. My request is that you define what this is?
Dear Jeff
I stumbled upon your blog today and would like to comment on a few points that you mentioned, that do resonate with me.
You wrote about clinging to one's beliefs and values and how that is on the way to establish and maintain a heart-to-heart connection, even among people who are "knowlegeable" about NVC techniques.
That is something that I observe with concern over and over -- beyond a few instructions or steps, the NVC model is not more than an invitation to connect to your own feelings and identify the universal needs in you and the other parties.
Then you have a problem. You invite the other party to join you in that problem, and then both of you have a common problem. No solutions. Just a problem that you both share and you both share the willingness to solve it -- not necessarily that the resources to do so are evident to you.
This togetherness somehow makes the problem out there less important, less heavy on your soul. I would call this a miracle, a mistery of life, and I would call it "love".
The tendency, fueled by fear, is to pull away, and go back to me/stand alone, save "myself", as if it was possible to save "me", without saving "us". And, it looks that way, at least temporarily. Often the
consequences of the pulling away are not evident in the short run, and we do not get to associate the "being alone" with any limitation to survival, as if an individual alone can survive, needing no one else.
But the fact is, as you pointed out, that the pulling apart does end the survival of the community.
That far I have gone in my musings. I have accepted your invitation to join you -- so we both have a problem: when one is witnessing disintegration either inside of oneself or in the relationship /
community --what?
I am happy to report that I have been able to establish a sound relationship with my son (the closest person to me at this time). We
can disagree and we can fight, but there is a strong platform of
togetherness, even in our pain.
Regardless of that, I am often incapable of giving empathy, not having any idea of how that sounds
like. Then, I acknowledge my fear, and one goal is met: he knows I am not indifferent, and that my intention is not to attack him. Then, we are faced with a problem together: I am protecting myself, I am scared.
Yes, this doesn't sound like an ideal situation. In fact, for years I thought this was reversed reality. Moms are supposed to protect their children. Moms are the ones to calm down their child and say "it's ok", even if not true. It is "suppossed to be", and then the reality is hidden and never addressed.
So, Jeff, I acknowledge that I have not found the answers to fundamental questions that concern me. And I know that the NVC model is far from being the answer-to-everything solution. And humbly, I am willing to share and listen.
titive@netcourrier.com
http://unpoquitodejusticia.blogspot.com
Post a Comment