Current Page: 2 of 3
Re: anyone have experience with Non-Violent communication (nvc)?
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: August 20, 2018 12:07AM

kdag wrote:

Quote

From what I have heard out of some of these people, it goes so far as to transcend even "desirable/undesirable," thinking, as I also recall being told that we must give up our preferences and aversions.

That is like eradicating the immune system's capacity to recognize foreign antigens and block them.

We know what the result for that is: illness and death by opportunistic organisms otherwise suppressed when the immune system detect and put a boundary on foreign antigens.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: anyone have experience with Non-Violent communication (nvc)?
Posted by: bakkagirl ()
Date: August 20, 2018 12:24AM

corboy, and kdag,

This is quite a good analogy.

It has been my humble experience that When a party imposes her/his own speech rules on a conversation the result is frequently a lowered guard, and especially when these speech rules are cloaked in pious agendas related to equity and compassion.

Respectful people just don't make these demands.

bakkagirl

Options: ReplyQuote
NVC -- When Emotional Intimacy is Imposed Upon Us
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: August 20, 2018 12:32AM

Quote

In a NVC interaction, you have to regard your needs and the other person’s needs as equally important, no matter what they are. You have to regard their feelings and emotional reactions as equally valid and worth hearing as yours, no matter what they are. That is a good thing in some contexts, but it’s dangerous and deeply destructive in others.

That kind of interaction can be a good thing. I understand the value. But here’s the problem:

One way NVC can be abusive is that it supports coerced emotional intimacy, and coerced consideration of someone’s feelings even when their expressed feelings are abusive. This isn’t actually a good thing even when someone’s feelings are not problematic in and of themselves. Coerced emotional intimacy is a violation in and of itself, and it’s a violation that leaves people very vulnerable to greater violations.

I recently challenged an NVC advocate to answer this question:

Consider this situation:
An abuser has an emotional need for respect. He experiences it as deeply hurtful when his partner has conversations with other men. When she talks to other men anyway, he feels betrayed. He says “When you talk to other men, I feel hurt because I need mutual respect.”
Using NVC principles, how do you say that what he is doing is wrong?
This was their answer:
“You’ve described him as "an abuser”. Abusing people is wrong because a person with abusive behaviour doesn’t or can’t hold with equal care the needs of others.

Is he doing something wrong? Or is he being honest that he feels hurt when his partners talks to other men? His partner can become his ex-partner if she doesn’t agree to what he’s asking for.”
That, in a nutshell, is the problem with NVC philosophy. This abusive partner’s honest expression of his feelings is actually part of how he is abusing his partner. NVC has no way of recognizing the ways in which expression of genuinely felt emotions can be abusive. It also has no recognized way for someone to legitimately say “no, this is not a conversation I want to engage in” or “no, I don’t consider that feeling something I need to respond to or take into consideration.”.

Quote

NVC people also use empathy to violate boundaries.

They imagine what someone must be feeling, name that feeling, and express empathy with it. Then they either insert a loaded pause in the conversation, or ask you to confirm or deny the feeling and discuss your actual reactions in detail.

These are not really questions. They are demands.

They do not take “I don’t want to discuss that” as an ok answer. They keep pushing, and imply that you lack emotional insight and are uninterested in honest communication if you don’t want to share intimate information about your feelings.

That is coerced intimacy, and it’s not ok.

For instance, an NVC advocate with power over someone might say in response to a conflict with that person: I can see that this interaction is very difficult for you. I’m sensing a lot of anger. I’m saddened that your experiences with authority figures have been so negative. (Expectant pause). I think you are experiencing a lot of anger right now, is that right?

That is not ok. When you have power over someone, it is abusive to pressure them to discuss their intimate feelings rather than the thing they object to in your behavior towards them. Emotional intimacy requires consent; it is not ok to force it on someone as a way of deflecting conflict. And when you have a lot of power over someone and they aren’t in a position to assert a boundary unilaterally, you have a much greater obligation to be careful about consent.

NVC advocates may tell you that they are just trying to have an honest conversation, with the implication that if you want ordinary emotional boundaries, you are being dishonest and refusing to communicate. They are not right about this.

For more, read this article: Nonviolent Communication Can Be Emotionally Violent

[www.realsocialskills.org]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: NVC -- When Emotional Intimacy is Imposed Upon Us
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: August 20, 2018 12:40AM

Quote

Nonviolent Communication can be particularly harmful to marginalized people or abuse survivors. It can also teach powerful people to abuse their power more than they had previously, and to feel good about doing so. Non-Violent Communication has strategies that can be helpful in some situations, but it also teaches a lot of anti-skills that can undermine the ability to survive and fight injustice and abuse.

For marginalized or abused people, being judgmental is a necessary survival skill. Sometimes it’s not enough to say “when you call me slurs, I feel humiliated” - particularly if the other person doesn’t care about hurting you or actually wants to hurt you. Sometimes you have to say “The word you called me is a slur. It’s not ok to call me slurs. Stop.” Or “If you call me that again, I’m leaving.” Sometimes you have to say to yourself “I’m ok, they’re mean.” All of those things are judgments, and it’s important to be judgmental in those ways.

You can’t protect yourself from people who mean you harm without judging them. Nonviolent Communication works when people are hurting each other by accident; it only works when everyone means well. It doesn’t have responses that work when people are hurting others on purpose or without caring about damage they do. Which, if you’re marginalized or abused, happens several times a day. NVC does not have a framework for acknowledging this or responding to it.

In order to protect yourself from people who mean you harm, you have to see yourself as having the right to judge that someone is hurting you. You also have to be able to unilaterally set boundaries, even when your boundaries are upsetting to other people.

Link to article "When Your Right to Say No is Entirely Hypothetical

[www.realsocialskills.org]


Quoted from

Nonviolent Communication can hurt people

[www.realsocialskills.org]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: anyone have experience with Non-Violent communication (nvc)?
Posted by: kdag ()
Date: August 20, 2018 03:50AM

corboy posted:

"That is coerced intimacy, and it’s not ok.

For instance, an NVC advocate with power over someone might say in response to a conflict with that person: I can see that this interaction is very difficult for you. I’m sensing a lot of anger. I’m saddened that your experiences with authority figures have been so negative. (Expectant pause). I think you are experiencing a lot of anger right now, is that right?"

I don't know if Landmark calls this NVC, but it sure SEEMS go along the same guidelines. For all intents and purposes, it is NVC.

The sample conversation above is almost identical to one that I had with my recruiter. When it happened, I told her adamantly that she was violating my boundaries, that she was crossing a line. She kept pushing, anyway. (I did continue to refuse).

She went on to say that I wasn't "complete," with something. A person had done me great and deliberate harm. She wanted me to "bury the hatchet" with that woman. I told her that I was complete. I had walked away, and that was good enough for me. I pointed out that, since she was the one bringing it up, that she was the one that was not "complete" with it, and that she needed to "Get complete" with the fact that I was not going to be in contact with that woman. I further told her that i had never given her any authority over my life.

In Landmark, they tell you that if someone refuses to have a discussion, that their refusal is a sure sign of a "racket," so once again, they are trying to dismantle healthy, normal defenses.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: anyone have experience with Non-Violent communication (nvc)?
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: August 20, 2018 09:28AM

Heh. Would be fun to open a carrying case and display a tennis racket and say,

"Darling, this is a racket, what you're doing is mind fuck. Bye bye."

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: anyone have experience with Non-Violent communication (nvc)?
Posted by: bakkagirl ()
Date: August 20, 2018 12:41PM

Lot's of fun, yes, but less easy to do when these speech technologies are embedded in the work environment, as they are now embedded in many corporate cultures.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Did you get the hand-puppets?
Posted by: bakkagirl ()
Date: August 20, 2018 03:04PM

corboy,

Thanks for all of this.

I am thinking of what Margaret Singer observed, i.e. cults can form, be formed around just about any topic/focus, I believe she described equine worship as an example.

But, best, I think, when the topic has some 'universal' resonance. We all hate violence, don't we,...Wish we could live in a world w/o violence, don't we?

And, these focuses place skeptics in a double-bind in so far as if we express ANY level of concern about the means of attaining a desired result, we are perceived as questioning the desirability of the result. This is core to the mind-f'ery, and, probably, the critical component of it.

Express 'doubt' and this is perceived as the equivalent of feeding warm, cuddly puppies into a wood chipper, IMHE.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: anyone have experience with Non-Violent communication (nvc)?
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: August 20, 2018 09:34PM

Speaking of animals, here's a thought:

Here is some food for thought.

If NVC is not a personality cult, why do they continue to use
the giraffe/jackal animal characters that are Marshall R's signature embellishment
of NVC?

Why can't NVC be taught without jackals and giraffes, eh?

Many of us regard these as belittling.

IMO I would consider it a boundary violation - a disruption of my personal aesthetic -
to endure class instruction using such motifs. I am an adult, no longer a toddler.

I do not want cute. I want information backed by research.

If the NVC peeps require that we keep the giraffe and jacket characters as part of the
intruction package, that to me indicates that NVC is indeed anchored to Marshall's personality.

Marshall Rosenberg.

Jack Rosenberg. Only in America.

In all seriousness, it would be interesting to find out if Marshall spent time at Esalen or got involved with Werner Erhard - and or learned a bit about Bandler and Grinder's neurolinguistic programming.

Problem with all this neurology stuff is - it encourages us to regard the human person as a computer to be hacked and reprogrammed.

No respect for privacy. No respect for otherness.

When we send our computer to be repaired or reprogrammed, we never think to obtain consent from the computer; we regard it as a machine.

There's nothing more ghastly than someone who regards us as machines - while pretending to respect us as persons.

Many of these types can stroke our pleasure centers with the utmost effectiveness - they are unrestrained by ethics.

We are so happily cooing because our neurotransmitters are dancing that we cannot discern the fundamental lack of respect in the one who has tweaked our neurons into ecstasy patterning.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: anyone have experience with Non-Violent communication (nvc)?
Posted by: bakkagirl ()
Date: August 20, 2018 11:43PM

I suspect the animals are retained as a branding thingy.

[www.cnvc.org]

and, as an homage to the founder. Possibly, devotees of NVC may regard these puppets as having mystical attributes.

Consider, too, that many of Marshall's millennial devotees grew up with the Chidren's Television Network, and Sesame Street puppets teaching them valuable moral lessons; all they know.

"Adults of the world unite, you have only your puppets/muppets to lose!"

Bakkagirl

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 2 of 3


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.