When to Kill People to Increase the Peace

I've been doing some healing work lately as a result of an experience I had last May in St. Louis where I was held up at gunpoint by two young men late at night, in front of the home I was then living in.



My counselor was using a process known as EMDR, and what came forward in me during that process was a desire to physically beat those men who robbed me, and furthermore hurt them so bad that they could never threaten me, or anyone else, ever again.

I also remembered reading something by Dr. Marshall Rosenberg, founder of Nonviolent Communication, in response to the 9/11 attacks in New York City. I looked it up on his organization's website, and he wrote,

"To create short-term safety, we will need to protect ourselves from further threat. This may include actions taken in, what I call, the “protective use of force.” We may need to capture and imprison the perpetrators so that they cannot attack us again. And we may even have to kill some of them if we can't otherwise restrain them."

I resonated with this statement, and it gave me companionship to know that even a world-famous peacemaker would write such things.

For me, I am so committed to peaceable communities, and so dearly want all people to be able to live without fear of being attacked, killed, or otherwise oppressed, that I'm willing to consider anything to preserve safety and security... even if it means using force. Whatever force I have in my body. Including when my well-being is physically threatened, because I matter.

Now, it's important that I offer context for how I came to this -- I was in a semi-trance state, doing healing work about a very traumatic experience that I had.

Somehow, coming to the idea that I matter, and that I can use force to protect myself and preserve peace in my community... in my world... was extremely empowering.

I suspect it was part of my healing process, somehow.

Back to Dr. Rosenberg's statement quoted above -- to be fair, that paragraph was only a small part of his response letter to the 9/11 attacks, and most of the letter (as I understand it) was about the folly of retaliating with violence, and how important it is to use NVC principles when dealing with such incidents.

Nevertheless, I still honor how Marshall includes the use of force, in a protective manner (rather than punitive), as being consistent with nonviolence.

Back to me: I cannot fathom going out looking for trouble or looking for someone to attack -- it's beyond my imagination to do that. Yet, when I connect deeply with my desire for safety and well-being and survival, I find within me immense resources (physical, mental, emotional and spiritual) to create the kind of world that I want.

The "N-word" from NVC consciousness: YouTube video

I recently discovered this YouTube video of an African-American man talking about the N-word.



It is an African-American man with the screen name, "NLP NVC" who talks about
how he responds to the "N-word."

I was moved by this, and struck by the congruency with NVC consciousness he
talks with. I wonder if he's studied NVC?

Click here to view the video in another window if you cannot view it above.

What ARE the principles of NVC?

Recently, I have noticed myself making reference to the "principles and practices of Compassionate Communication (a.k.a. "NVC")."

The practices of NVC are pretty clear to me -- the three modes of communication being honesty, empathy and self-empathy, within which we utilize 4 ingredients: observation, feeling, need and request.

The principles of NVC are less accessible to me, so I am getting clarity for myself what I mean when I refer to the principles of NVC.

I came across a handout from Bay NVC (www.baynvc.org) that describes these principles in a way that I like:

--

Nonviolent Communication is based on the premises that:

1. We are all trying to get our needs met.

2. We fare better if we know how to get these needs met in a cooperative, rather than an aggressive way.

3. Each of us has remarkable inner resources we can use if we are given empathy to get in touch with them.

4. People naturally enjoy contributing to the well being of others when they can do so without any element of coercion.

5. Each of us is responsible for our actions and for how we respond to what others do or say.

6. Some forms of thinking and speaking tend to disconnect us from the life within ourselves and others, whereas other forms enable us to remain connected with life.

--

I would enjoy dialogue and exploration of these ideas.

Do you resonate with these principles, as outlined by Bay NVC?

Would you add any others?

The Connecting Power of Authentic Expression

I continue to be amazed by the power of honest, caring self-expression.

I can hardly believe how empowering and energizing it was to express my honesty to a person in an NVC organization I am a part of, in front a group of 20 people, no less.

More than 24 hours later, I continue to feel jazzed.

Here's what happened: I was part of a daylong meeting, during which one of the participants and I had an exchange where we both experienced distress and dissatisfaction.

We completed our tasks early, and the facilitator of our meeting (a consultant) suggested that we spend the final hour practicing a new clearing process that I have been developing that combines things I've learned in the Mankind Project with NVC.

After doing some heavy-duty self-empathy -- and receiving empathy on a break from another participant -- I passionately expressed how I felt about the person's actions, along with the qualities in relationships that really matter to me (i.e. my needs).

We had a dialogue over the course of 5 or 10 minutes (again, in front of the group), and it was of secondary importance how the person responded and how it ended -- I had proactively expressed my truth to the person, with the rest of the group as my witness, and wow that feels great!

NVC and Decision Making (by Miki Kashtan)

I have been gnawing on the whole concept of NVC and decision-making recently, and I came across and article written by fellow NVC Certified Trainer, Miki Kashtan, titled, "Maximizing Willingness: Facilitating Efficiency in Collaborative Decision-Making."




Miki is one of the co-founders of Bay NVC and is an instructor in their annual Leadership Program, where I understand they teach and practice these principles for decision-making.

To read the full article, click here.

Here is an excerpt:

Why Collaborative Decision-Making?

The principle of including people in decision-making can often be a hard sell because most people don’t have successful experiences combining inclusivity with efficiency. If one person makes the decision, or a management team, or a majority vote, as the case may be, the process appears faster and more efficient, qualities highly sought after in the high-speed environment of modern workplaces in particular.

In my experience, however, such shortcuts can be costly later. Including needs and perspectives of all parties affected by the decision is not just about making the care for everyone visible. It’s also about effectiveness, and about leaders and decision-makers having access to information critical to the success of whatever strategy they want to implement.

When it comes to implementation, suddenly there can be a gap, a problem, an issue that is blocking the implementation. Often it’s delayed because people are afraid to speak for fear of consequences, or are discouraged about being heard, or don’t trust their needs and perspectives matter...

Breathing Life into my NVC work -- NVC and Abundance

I am copying here a recent email I sent to the "Nonviolent Communication and Abundance Project" that I co-founded with fellow NVC trainer, Francois Beausoleil.



It's about a topic that has a lot of juice for me lately -- how does the notion of abundance and sufficiency relate to Compassionate Communication.

Some questions that have come alive in me:

Q: Can I be in integrity receiving money in exchange for sharing NVC?

Q: Are NVC and Abundance Consciousness in harmony? Are they the same thing?


I want to share with you the single most effective "Key to Success" I have found in creating an abundant income for myself sharing NVC:

** Breathing Life into events that I organize **

WHAT DO I MEAN BY "BREATHING LIFE" INTO AN EVENT?

I hold events as though they are living organisms that require care and nurturing, much like a puppy dog requires nurturing from its mother, or human baby needs nurturing from his or her caregivers.

Too often, I perceive that facilitators and organizers "go through the motions" of organizing and promoting an event -- reserving a room, writing an email, hanging up a few fliers -- however if the event was a living organism, it would be on life support.

The event seems like it's hanging out in thin air, just waiting for someone -- anyone -- to \ breathe life / into it.

Although this might sound ambiguous, my objective is to bring the event to life, so that it becomes a living organism.

In other words, I BREATHE LIFE into the event. The way I think about it, the way I talk about it, and the way I feel inside myself about it is FULLY ALIVE.

When I do this, an amazing thing happens -- people show up.

They show up with curiosity; they show up with intrigue; and most of all, they arrive ready to learn and integrate what I have to offer.


MY QUESTION FOR YOU:

So my question to you is this: Are you willing to think the thoughts, feel the feelings, and take the actions necessary to create your work so that it's a living organism?

Are you willing to "breathe life" into your work in such a way that it comes alive and becomes an attractive force for others to join with you?

Is Nonviolent Communication an effective decision-making model?

I'm participating in a 5-day retreat in New York state this week for Nonviolent Communication (NVC) trainers. I am feeling very nourished to be with a group of my colleagues who are truly peers to me (so it's great to have empathy, shared understanding, authenticity, and all the goodies that come with NVC! ;-)



The group's decision-making process, though, has left me unsatisfied overall, and at times feeling a lot of frustration.

It raises some questions in my mind that have been "on my mind" a lot lately:

Q: Is NVC an effective decision-making model?

Q: Can NVC be used as a governing structure?

My quick answers, at least in the present, are: No; and not really.

For me, NVC is an amazing and powerful interpersonal communication model, and also is tremendously supportive for my inner work (inner peace, transforming enemy images, healing, etc.)

It supports me in focusing my attention on what is alive in each moment -- what is coming through me and the other person -- which keeps me in the present and empowered to take actions that serve everyone involved.

The dynamics shift, however, once we include much more than a small group of people -- say 4 or 5 -- and we have a group process happening.

I have experienced countless frustrating and ineffective group decision-making processes in NVC communities over the years, and I believe I know why: NVC is not necessarily an effective approach for making decisions!

In fact, it can be downright oppressive, as well as exasperating!

What I am leaning toward now is finding other, effective models for decision-making and governance, and INFUSING them with NVC consciousness; in other words, making them more powerful by integrating NVC skills within them to create synergy.

For instance, I really like most aspects of Sociocracy, the decision-making model that was originated in Holland and recently has begun being used in North America.

Sociocracy, as far as I can tell, has clear, specific processes for including everyone, gathering input, and making decisions that everyone can live with, and giving a timeline for how long the group will try out the decision before it re-evaluates it.

The goal, thank God, is not to continue processing until each person present feels comfortable and happy and totally at peace with a decision. That is nearly impossible and hardly ever happens!

I have noticed a tendency in NVC group processes to emphasize empathy more than I enjoy, so much so that is impedes the progress of a group. I like it better when individuals find ways to meet their own needs for empathy, and/or the group finds ways to build in empathy in a way that does not send the group process into a quagmire.