Solving "Impossible" Conflicts | An Introduction to Nonviolent Communication

Our society loves arguments!

Most of us would prefer to not get into heated discussions with family, friends or co-workers, but generally we accept that arguments are healthy for reaching a more informed understanding of an issue. Our society labels arguments as somewhat of a necessary evil for solving conflicts and clearing up disagreements between people, factions or groups.

"It may get loud, yes, but that is a small price to pay for reaching a compromise that everybody can live with..."

While this can be true in theory - if you have lived on Earth for a few decades you will surely agree that often times arguments seem to derail so phantastically that participants will often wonder in hindsight what the whole fight was about. Or how it turned nasty so quickly.

A beautiful quote I learned a few years back goes: "When this is all over we won't remember what was said. All we will remember is how we made each other feel."

There comes a point in most heated discussions where logic and solid arguments are thrown out the window, a moment anybody can feel and recognize on an instinctual level (what I call "subtext", more on that in the future).

It's the point right before the energetic exchange turns ugly: A minute ago both sides were going back and forth reminding each other to consider this point or that point, and moments later both parties start to shout at each other, irrelevant arguments are being dropped that have nothing to do with the subject matter, and insults are quickly resorted to - often worded in a non-direct and opaque way. So that the other side can't claim we're being unfair.

Before we know it there is no connection left and the feeling of regret may set in having started this discussion at all:

"Here I thought this guy was serious in wanting to discuss this issue, now I know he is just an asshole!"

It's not that we want that discourse to turn ugly. It's not that we enjoy this degradation in communication... But often times we just can't seem to help ourselves.

The more important something is to us the more likely it is that we get agitated about it when somebody disagrees. We give up on our original mission to let the ideas speak for themselves. Instead we start defending the notion as part of our own identity because we feel threatened and attacked when our notion is being criticized - though we never quite recognize that mechanism until the damage is done, and we see that we may have become unfair in our wording and accusations just to prove that we're right.

An argument over a neutral issue in the world has quickly turned into a personal siege of someone's identity, and the validity of their convictions.

We feel 'responsible' for that notion. We feel we have to justify our position regardless of the strategies used to reach that goal - even if it means being a bastard and hurting the other individual greatly.

But why does that happen so often? Are we really that immature, or is the world simply so complicated that neutral and unemotional discussions are a fairytale?

Well, what if I told you that the veracity of arguments was never the point at all?

What if our society had largely failed to equip us with the tools to solve conflicts in the first place, from human to human?

I propose: We have been trained in a way of using language that does not serve the purpose of communication or conflict-solving at all. Rather it is a taught language of projection and fear that precludes reaching a solution, long before we ever started the discussion in the first place.

Our trained habits of using language are violent, we pick it up as "normal" when we grow up. And most of us have no idea that we do.

The fallacy of objectivity

We seem to be more mixed up in our Western metaphysics than we'd like to admit. When it comes to communication the vast majority of us falls for a basic misunderstanding about the world we live in, or rather: the way we have learnt to perceive the world.

We confuse our own perception of a situation with other peoples' motives. We mistake our incomplete perception with actuality. And we draw hasty and insufficient conclusions from that mixup before we go on to use that same conflation as basis for our argumentation.

We make statements that may not be accurate nor fair, yet we claim that these statements are accurately explaining the other individual's behavior. In other words we claim something and assume it to be true at the same time, automatically drawing our own conclusions on the spot - regardless of accuracy. We insinuate a motive. Often this is a direct projection of our inner fears placed on the outside.

We start believing the diagnosis we have just made about someone else when it may be anything but accurate.

We bamboozle ourselves in our own thinking until we are convinced of our claims - it's quite an automatic mechanism that most of us don't recognize as treacherous until we dissect it critically for the first time.

Rather we have this odd notion that we always know best what is going on, especially when we're party to a conflict. Oddly enough.

This mixup can quickly climax to a point where we completely disregard that altogether different factors could play a major role in the situation as well, and that we probably don't know everything to make an accurate diagnosis of the problem by ourselves.

Isn't that why we communicate at all? To find out more before reaching a conclusion?

In theory yes, in practice no.

We can assume. Yes. But we should be careful not to present our assumptions as given and unshakable facts, especially when they pertain to someone else or their behavior. If we do that the conversation is pretty much ruined before we get anywhere with it.

When we make broad claims like "Why do I always have to bring out the trash?!" or "You're always late!" we're actually putting ourselves into a position of a judge, not a mediator.

"This is the truth, and I claim it is the truth because my perception is somehow more accurate than yours."

Nevermind the fact that I myself may play part in this situation as well - I have effectively elected myself as the authority on knowing what the situation is, and what the objective criteria are that make up the problem. And I simply force that on someone else regardless of validity.

I project.
I JUDGE.

And of course, the other party will not like this, and will try to do the same in an effort to defend himself from my accusations. "I'm not always late! You never call me in time and you constantly postpone our dates at the last minute!"

Tensions will rise quickly.

It's no longer about "Hey, I'm having this issue - can we try to solve it together?". Instead it has become "There's a problem and it's basically your fault!"

Against our better judgment we're no longer interested in conflict solution... instead we're assigning blame and guilt to one another. We're furthering the divide - due to our incompetency in language and our own lack of understanding in constructive communication methods.

Words like "always" and "never" are not only particularly hurtful to clear communication, they're automatic phrases that are often quite exaggerrated and mostly unfair. Most people will agree that these terms are hardly accurate and basically judgments that don't illuminate the situation but serve to make it even more blurry for all involved.

Or as Marshall Rosenberg - the founder of Nonviolent Communication - would say:

"We're no longer playing the game of 'making life wonderful' - instead we're playing the game of 'who's right?'
Have you ever played that game?"

Language of empire

When I say we speak a violent language I am not referring to English, German or any other language in particular. I am talking about the way we use language in general. The assumptions we have accepted as basis of our communication with others and the approaches we use in speaking that turn out to be incredibly counter-productive for solving conflicts.

In my time in the zeitgeist movement I had stumbled upon this seminar online, a basic introduction to Nonviolent-Communication. And it amazed me!

Here was this guy who took apart all of my recent conflicts and emotional trauma from arguing with my girlfriend. Within an hour I could see what my problem was in talking to her. I could see why we would start fighting when we actually meant well for one another and wanted to improve our relationship. And I could remember that this sort of (mis)communication had often happened in my life with all sorts of people who were important to me.

After all we don't randomly get into heated arguments with strangers - we often fight the hardest with those dear to us.

I devoured the seminar, and I regularly do this still - about every 6 months before I forget completely.

In the seminar Rosenberg claims rather convincingly that our language is a language of empire. It is a language that denies responsibility for our actions and assigns blame to others. A language that serves to divide where we actually meant to connect. A language that separates people from each other and their needs by definition, and thus - from nature.

As I will lay out in my articles on "what I learned in the zeitgeist movement" I had long recognized the importance of needs for human interaction and a fullfilled life, before I came across Rosenberg's work.

Needs are basic to human existence in 3 dimensions.

More importantly: needs are universal - all of us have the same needs. Food, water, shelter, love, social contact... To name but a few.

When Rosenberg made the connection from our needs to our way of using language I was stunned! Stunned how obvious the connection was... and stunned that I had never seen that connection before, despite all my arguments over the years trying to convince people how eroded our system was!

If we were to ever overcome separation between people, we should start with our use of language first and foremost because we rely on it as the sole form of accepted communication in our modern societies. We should be interested to use language in a way that would no longer serve the empire to divide us further, but instead aim for the fulfillment of each other's human needs.

And therefore: foster mutual understanding.

The ultimate battle: Needs vs. judgments

When we get into arguments with other people, we're often starting off the wrong way. Instead of talking about ourselves, we purport to speak for someone else while making it sound like we're making an objectively true statement.

When I say to you "You just don't care about me because you have missed my birthday" I may be accurate in saying so, but I may also be far off.

How would I know if you missed my birthday because "you don't care about me" ? I don't.

I simply claim it to be so, and throw that grenade in your direction, making you want to defend yourself against the (baseless) accusation.

How would I know what exactly led to you missing my birthday?

Maybe you had to rescue your neighbor out of a burning house, maybe you were at home puking because of some bad food the night before, maybe you honestly forgot but are afraid to tell me for fear of rejection... There are a million reasons why you may have behaved the way you behaved.

But me drawing this broad and premature conclusion with a diagnosis about your motives will not make you love me more. Nor will it make it easy for you to explain your viewpoint calmly.

You might instead take it as an insult, wondering how I could be "so unfair" to you in the face of everything we have been through, for example.

It's an ever-growing cycle of baseless accusations, and it never relays to you what my actual problem is or what my need was when you didn't show up. When I judge your behavior through my assumptions I am not connected to my needs, I instead take the focus away from my own accessible inner world and diagnose your inner world remotely, in an intrusive and probably unfair way.

Because I love you.

That's how twisted we are. Instead of explaining to you why your absence on my birthday has made me sad without making any accusations, I go and dish out arbitrary assumptions. My best guess in the moment becomes the new basis for judging your behavior, and I mistake it for how things are. Solving our conflict then becomes highly challenging if not downright impossible.

If we want to connect to each other and especially to our loved ones, isn't it the most tragic thing that we cannot do so without causing further hurt?

It's like trying to write a love-letter to someone using only algebra because all you know is algebra.

We confuse our lack of communication-tools with the actual emotional response from those we have just hurt involuntarily.

And we make that hurt into a new assumption to further defend ourselves with - pushing our loved ones away even further.

Enough!

A shining bridge of light and love in human interaction

Now that we have gone far into the darkness maybe it's time we recognized the golden opportunity these lessons give us in looking for better ways to communicate. Better ways to build bridges to others and into our own inner world of feelings and needs.

As daunting as it may seem: I dare you to push through your resistance, watch the whole seminar and test these lessons in your social interactions for yourself.

Rosenberg relays so many important aha-moments in one session that I could never mention them here in full. My contribution is letting you know that such content exists and that it will be well worth your time. The full seminar is linked at the bottom.

In his seminars Marshall uses two handpuppets on stage to portray the two types of language we use, giving examples as to how each language mode would go about expressing a certain idea.

The jackal stands for our regular and conditioned mode of communication: violent & diagnosis-based.

The giraffe represents the nonviolent mode of communication: need- and observation-based.

And often Rosenberg will showcase stories from the audience and roleplay through them with the two characters. Other times he will tell from his own experience working as a mediator between the most hopelessly hostile factions imaginable. And how they were able to solve their conflict rather quickly when they dared to communicate in a nonviolent way.

It's not only totally captivating, but it will make you smile when you finally see how often you are talking in this violent way out of love.

All of us do!

No guilt, no shame, no obligation

In Nonviolent-Communication there are no compromises. There is no giving up on anybody's needs, no forced conversion to anybody else's viewpoint. Rather it is about recognizing someone else's needs as well as your own.

The more I study it the more I recognize its tenets are eeriely similar to what I have experience on psychedelic dancefloors.

When I started integrating these tools I felt more at ease with myself, I felt my communication was coming from a level of authenticity and wisdom rather than calculated outcome and manipulation. And while it may take a long time until I have fully mastered this discipline, I feel it has already given me tremendous insight for solving conflicts and navigating tense social interactions with people I love dearly.

Shifting to a needs-based form of communication is a paradigm-shift of major magnitude.

And don't worry: You will not unlearn your regular mode of jackal-communication from one day to another^^

Because it simply sits too deep. And that's probably alright.

We're all so far in our trained modes of consciousness that it may seem futile to even want to change it, but it isn't. Even the tiniest bit of insight will make you ten times better at what you do - regardless of what it is.

Want more success with your projects? learn NVC.
Want to better understand your situation? learn NVC.
Want more knowledge about your shortcomings? learn NVC.
Want more connection with the ones you love? learn NVC.

When we treat it as a separate language and invest time and effort to make it our own, we now have another major tool at our disposal. And when the situation warrants it we can always rely on that tool, rather than being forced to communicate in the only way that never gets the job done.

And that is a huge plus!

For many people these tools may come too late, after the damage has already been done. And while we can never fully prepare for life, I want to recommend checking out this method of communication so you may at least know where to go when you feel an insolvable conflict coming your way in the future.

When we get to a point in life where we have to talk with our partner about why we think we should end our failing marriage... When we get to a point where we have to explain to our best friend why we acted the way we acted that hurt him deeply... When we have to explain to our family why we quit our job to travel the world and meet other steemians instead - we may use these techniques in a way that not only helps those we love to better understand where we are coming from, but also gives ample merit to our choices and their validity. Because we can communicate them clearly instead of getting other people's convictions tangled up in our own judgments of an incomplete situational assessment.

In other words when we get to a point where communication is crucial to help each other understand our perspectives and maintain mutual respect in the face of disagreement - NVC is a priceless tool in your human toolbox.

And it seems to me, it would be wise to learn about this way of using language sooner rather than later, so we can make use of it when we really need it - at least the basics.

Needs are always valid for human beings. It's just that we've not been told that needs are the primary basis for any and all communication. We have not been told how to decode an insult by others into a direct unmentioned need.

We have never heard the idea that "everything humans are ever saying to each other" simply comes down to "please" and "thank you".

We are all stuck in communication-barrier-land despite our meaning so well. And if we choose, this is one of the ways to start building actual bridges to people instead of walls.

NVC can enable us to build a positive and rewarding upward cycle of mutual understanding.

And the actual building of trust among people.

After finishing this write-up I can bet I will sit through the whole seminar again - to not get stuck in old patterns of judgment-based jackal communication that come creeping back after so many months in this madhouse of civilization. And while it may seem like a gigantic time investment to watch this 3-hour seminar, I can really really recommend doing so, even if you watch it one bit at a time.

Just peek for the first hour and then tell me you are not intrigued ;)

Here's a 7 minute teaser for ya to see how you vibe with it:

So far anyone who I've shown this seminar to speaks in the highest regards of the content contained, and affirms that the learning effects of these 3 hours have been tremendously beneficial for their lives.

It will not only help you to communicate better with those you love, it will also reveal many aspects about your own life, your level of success and your shortcomings as a human being among other human beings. You will learn to accept yourself and your needs, instead of judging yourself for not meeting artificial standards of clandestine violence.

And considering the times we are living in, self-acceptance seems to be the winning horse - judgment and blame the losing one.

Watch the full seminar here:

_{Image sources:
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com}

Thanks for stopping by <3