Note: I recommend NVC as a set of informative principles for use in appropriate situations of conflict - when there is an interest in engaging conflict in a constructive way, not merely "winning." I do not present NVC as a prescriptive method of communication, nor an ethical or moral system. The principles can be helpful, but are not universal in application to every communication situation or every conflict.
QUOTE FROM nonviolentcommunication.com: "Violent communication can be seen as the opposite of what Nonviolent Communication is, because it is based on judgment, criticism, labeling and pigeon-holing others, avoiding responsibility and blaming, placing demands, threatening, and having rigid concepts of rightness and wrongness."
Typically, communication in a situation of conflict is based on a win/lose, right/wrong agenda designed to win an argument or demonstrate a superior position. In limited cases this is entirely appropriate, but not usually in cases of personal relationships, nor in cases of group conflict involving any complex issue. Frequently in interpersonal dialogue, communication employs explicit or implied evaluative judgments such as right/wrong, good/bad, normal/abnormal, designed to create (or coerce) emotional responses in the partner. The most common responses in conflict communication are anger, guilt, shame, and depression. The strategy, if effective, transfers responsibility for movement to the partner, while also constraining their freedom or sense of choice, and creating an outcome of obedience or capitulation or response to authority, or alternatively, an outcome of rebellion. (Note 2) If this outcome does not actually increase or perpetuate the conflict, at the very least it does not increase peace, safety, or freedom for either partner in the dialogue.
Nonviolent Communication (NVC) assumes that we all share the same basic needs, that we all have a natural capacity for compassion, and that our actions are strategies to meet one of our needs. In situations of conflict, the emotions/feelings that arise often represent unmet needs or attempts to meet our needs. As such, communication should focus on the needs represented in each partner and to seek clarity by which participants in the dialogue can express their needs, make honest requests, and consider resolution by mutual giving. Thus, in communication, there is a determined effort to avoid evaluative language, to avoid language that transfers responsibility to the other for our feelings, and to use language that expresses our own feelings and needs, recognizes the needs of the other, and proceeds with the possibility of mutual generosity out of a capacity for compassion that is within most people.
Common individual needs include safety, security, affection, connection / to belong, justice, equality, respect, acknowledgement, to be heard, to be understood, to be loved, freedom, significance, privacy, order, joy, adventure, etc. (Note: These are interpersonal needs, not to be confused with, for example, a hierarchy of needs beginning with food and water and rising to something like "self actualization.")
Application to Group Conflict
The above list focuses on individual human needs, but translated to a group context, many still apply. In group conflict resolution, the need to be understood would translate to a need for some level of common understanding, common ground, or acknowledgement of the basic truth of the situation. In a group reconciliation effort, this is the "truth" step of "truth and reconciliation." Thus, a committed representative group would undertake the task of seeking a common understanding of the conflict situation or conflict history.(Note 3)
With a basic understanding of the conflict situation, representative members of each group can bring into the dialogue the needs and the desired outcomes for their group. On the NVC model above, evaluative (i.e. judgmental) language designed to control and manipulate the outcome distracts from a more constructive agenda which focuses rather on the underlying needs significant to each group. Sarcasm or any other language designed to belittle or embarrass the partner in dialogue has no place. It is difficult to avoid this type of language because we are culturally trained and rewarded by others of like mind when we rhetorically take down our opponents, even though in reality, this represents a one sided perspective that may create a temporary emotional reward, but it does not contribute to healing, to progress, to reconciliation.
As in the interpersonal case of NVC above, the focus on needs represented in both groups assumes a capacity for compassion on both sides, and by avoiding negative evaluations which constrict dialogue, expands the space of freedom of choice and the opportunity for constructive movement toward the other. The constructive agenda is to work toward clearly expressed needs in the form of reasonable requests, in contrast to demands. If an affirmative path is not immediately available for a clearly expressed request, the dialogue focuses on understanding what is preventing a "yes" to the request. Maintaining a space of freedom and honesty allows for further dialogue, possibility of compromise, possibility of movement toward the other, possibility of mutual giving and mutual transformation.
NOTES
Note (1) The Center for Nonviolent Communication (CNVC) is a global nonprofit organization founded by Marshall Rosenberg, Ph.D. We are dedicated to sharing Nonviolent Communication (NVC) around the world, and, to that end, we offer International Intensive Trainings and we certify individuals as trainers. NVC is about connecting with ourselves and others from the heart. It’s about seeing the humanity in all of us. It’s about recognizing our commonalities and differences and finding ways to make life wonderful for all of us. [Dr. Rosenberg died in 2015](www.cnvc.org)
(1) continued: In Athens, Georgia, the Georgia Conflict Center is local nonprofit that takes NVC to schools, jails, prisons, and community groups. NVC has been a component of cognitive behavioral classes offered at Clarke County Jail for about ten years.
(2) Note that this discussion is about conflict communication, not about routine parenting, some cases of moral/ethical or religious teaching, or appropriate directives such as training on a work procedure. Also, even in conflict, there are exceptional cases in which an evaluative expression, followed by a negative emotional response, followed by "obedience" would represent an appropriate sequence of events, such as a straightforward case of parent / child correction. Also there would be exceptional cases in which the disagreement about facts is so entrenched that resolution is not presently available. Finally, there are some exceptional cases in which people simply need to stop talking to one another, at least for a time, which would include (but not limited to) instances in which dialogue is abusive or otherwise unhealthy in a significant way for one or both participants.
(3) Strictly speaking, I am not trained in application of NVC to group conflict. Here I am extending basic NVC principles into a situation of group conflict and combining these with very basic concepts of a "truth and reconciliation strategy," which has been widely employed to great effect.