|
|
|
|
P. M. - Worlds Apart? Nonviolent Communication May Be the Answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Polly Mann, W A M M
|
At most peace demonstrations participants are warned that hateful sarcastic remarks are a form of violence and should be eschewed. I agree. The same is true in argumentation. However, in presenting political issues in which I take a position I often find myself irritated by those who question or disagree with me. I believe that if I could but sufficiently convince myself that each person has a right to question and disagree, I would remain calm and collected.
When many years ago I read about Dr. Marshall Rosenberg and his work on promoting “nonviolent communication,” I was intrigued. Here perhaps was my answer—a method. Therefore when I read recently that he was going to offer a two-day workshop I decided to take the next step. The event, held in the beautiful new Coeur de Catherine building of the College of St. Catherine, was organized and sponsored by the Center for Women, Economic Justice, and Public Policy. Attendance of several hundred at the workshops far exceeded the planners’ estimates.
While I certainly have much more to learn about nonviolent communication at a personal level, the focus of the workshop was not what I was looking for. Time has taken care of the principal areas of conflict in personal communication—my husband of 63 years has died and my children are all grown. I could have used help during the kinds of verbal conflict that occur in almost all family relationships, but those days are gone. What I wanted to learn was a technique to be used in political discussions. While it is true that learning how to engage in nonviolent communication in all conversations is important, the stress at the St. Catherine conference was on the personal.
However, the strategies to be used are the same. Number one is to remind yourself that the person you’re addressing is not the “enemy” but rather a human being the same as yourself with the same needs as all human beings. You are to identify with that person recognizing that each of you has a need to be met.
I can understand that in personal conversation, but political conversation? Although I took notes, they’re not helping me much as I attempt to present what I learned. Most certainly this is not instant learning and the strategies and techniques require practice. One constant in conversation is to make certain that the needs of the person you’re addressing are being met. The difficulty for me is how to use words that convey the desired meaning without sounding stilted or sounding like a Psychology 101 textbook. “Are your needs being met?” is not a question that comes easy to me. Even “Do you feel comfortable with what I am saying?” sounds stilted somehow. The best question that I could come up with was, “Does this make sense to you?” which is not exactly the same as “Are your needs being met?” Obviously, I have a way to go.
Rosenberg reminded us that we are all human and thus our needs are all the same. Of course. I know this. But I tend to forget it at times. Most of his message was not entirely new, but applying it in a disciplined fashion—well, that’s something else. You listen carefully; you repeat what the other person has said to make certain there’s agreement as to the message. If you are requesting something, you ask for it in forty words or less. People tend to forget an overly long message. You ask how the other person feels about your request.
Finally, you ask for a specific action. Some of his statements were provocative, as, for example, warning that the use of compliments can discourage rather than encourage meaningful conversation.
Rosenberg has been all over the world with his message—at schools, prisons, government offices, etc. “Don’t use words,” he said, “that blame, criticize, or diagnose.” The consciousness that you must connect with is the consciousness of your communicant. The process can take an infinite amount of time. That does not negate its importance.
We live today in what some refer to as a “50/50” nation. We are divided into red and blue states. Many emotional issues such as Iraq, abortion and immigration reform keep us polarized and angry. The tone and tenor of some pundits and bloggers has become increasingly mean and hateful.
As peace activists we need to practice what we preach, and even thought we have strong feelings about what we believe is the path toward justice, we need to take heed of Rosenberg’s basic principles of communication if we are to be heard and respected.
Does this make sense to you? |
|
|
|
© 2006 Women Against Military Madness. All rights reserved.
|
 |
|
Complete June 2006 Index - click here
|
|
 |
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
