Beyond rules and guidelines
Recently, the moderator of an NVC-related mailing list I’m on wrote up a draft list of “guidelines” for the group to follow. (I don’t mean to single out this fellow. He just happened to provide a recent example of an issue that has been on my mind.) The list addressed some behaviors that he and some other took issue with (discussion focus, forms of humor, and “following standard ethical procedure” of citing articles, etc.) Predictably in an NVC crowd, a few folks (including me) wondered whether these guidelines were requests or demands and expressed concern about the use of domination tools. The moderator replied that the guidelines are requests that meet needs like respect & efficiency. And that if folks do otherwise, “then you know there are people whose needs you may not be meeting.”
I suspect that this person is making some assumptions that I don’t share, namely that his proposed strategies are actually more effective at meeting needs than other strategies, and that his strategies don’t also interfere with needs being met.
I figure, however, that the opposite strategies must meet needs as well. Otherwise, people wouldn’t be doing them.
It occurs to me that all sets of rules or guidelines have this same problem: they support needs sometimes in some ways and interfere with needs sometimes and in some ways. Another example is CNVC’s strategies around other people’s use of the name “NVC”.
Here’s an idea for a more alive approach to address clashing preferences:
- Use a living, collaborative medium, like a wiki page. Expect an ongoing evolutionary process, not a static conclusion.
- Jot down what behaviors you sometimes like and which ones you sometimes dislike, say which is which and why.
- Invite others to contribute to these lists as well.
- Deal with stuff as it comes up instead expecting to control it in advance.
I expect and hope that some behaviors will show up as both liked and disliked (even by the same person), and I believe this intersection will be where the most value comes. In fact, I’d be very surprised to learn of any behavior at all that’s worth writing down in one category (Like or Dislike) and not also in the other. After all, if everyone agreed, then either the behavior would always happen or never happen. In either case, there’s no point in mentioning it.
This last point gets me most clearly to one of the essential pitfalls of the whole idea of rules or guidelines (part of the game of Preserve & Prevent). They record thin slices of creative tensions among strategies. The matching counterpoint strategies are omitted, and more importantly, so are the “good reasons” (needs met) by both sets of strategies. And so the beautiful dream of “all needs fully met” is short-circuited, and we settle for and propagate the same old either-or, win-lose-compromise thinking and living we were inculturated with.
I’m going for the dream. Want to join me?
March 9th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Yeah!
So one thought I have is if you think of a game - there are “rules”, because everyone wants to be playing the same game. The difference is there is agreement - everybody says at the beginning “yes, I want to play that game with those rules”. There are times when I’ve agreed to rules that I would never normally agree to because I recognized that if I wanted to play the game, the game came with those rules. And the rules did inform the game, they were purposeful. The created a container within which to play. Without them, there would be no game. And I enjoyed the game, so I agreed to the rules, without resentment or anything.
So, there is something about consent and choice that goes into it.
If you don’t have any guidelines, you don’t meet needs for order and structure and predictability. If one person makes all the rules, you don’t meet needs for autonomy and whatever needs weren’t thought of by that one person. So I don’t want to throw out the whole idea of rules. But I want to change how we think of rules. How we interact with them.
One thing I notice in our culture is that we are taught to be passive. A person suggest a rule, and we follow along. That was my first response to the “Don’t use the NVC word” guideline on CNVC’s site. I thought “That’s dumb”, but I didn’t even consider really to not do it. Because from my cultural training, that’s rebellion. It’s not creative. It’s silly, immature, lots of things that domination culture says about people who don’t follow rules. But you reframed it for me.
So changing this pattern means we have to get ourselves out of the submit/argue/withdraw options and act in a new way: active participation. I see the willingness to participate, to dialog, to get involved and get messy with each other as something we can all learn, practice, and promote that will make alternative-to-rules culture work and grow.
Right now I’m unlearning perfectionism and learning to jump in, mess up, make mistakes, step on people’s toes accidentally so we can have a conversation about where their toes are and where my foot is. Unlearning passivity.
Woot!
March 9th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Hi Emma
Thanks for the game-playing perspective and chiming in in defense of rules of play. I like your distinction between active and passive relationship to rules.
I’m a little alarmed with:
I guess I imagine an unspoken belief that if there are rules in place when I arrive then I don’t get to participate in their evolution, perhaps in some long-awaited change.
One of my heroes is my daughter Charlotte, who cheats at games regularly. If I haven’t played with her for a while, I’ll forget what a naughty cheating fiend she is. I’ll foolishly assume she’s leaving the written and assumed rules unchallenged, as I and other nice people do. Or when I remember, then part of the game for me becomes keeping a sharp eye on her and trying to catch her in the act. Meanwhile, I’m inspired to cheat as well and not get caught, which helps me break out of my limiting self-image and assumptions. And we have a great laugh!
Progress — evolution — depends on breaking rules. Put more mildly, Adlai E. Stevenson said
I think you & I are on the same page: “active participation”, rather than the old “submit/argue/withdraw options”.
Like you, I also enjoy a set of rules that I consciously choose and see value in, to define a space in which to create. For instance, I love Twitter’s 140 character limit, or a conference proceedings’ 12 page limit, or Marshall’s limits of 40 words to convey OFNR and only five words about the past. I love math and severely pure programming paradigms. And I love creating new rules when I want to play elsewhere.
Best wishes with the toe stepping & resulting connections!
Woot!
April 11th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Dear all,
when I read the article beyond rules and guidelines, what hit me most was the idea of missing out the points of possible change by avoiding clashes of rules or people, when trying to regulate any “game” in advance. I loved the idea that the moments of disagreement and discussion are the creative ones, the ones where we might open our hearts and listen to what they have to tell us and others about what we need NOW ( and not at some point in the future or the past). I think Emma’s wonderful image of stepping on each other’s toes in order to find out about other people’s and our own feet goes in a similar direction. Thank you!
What I believe is a major problem with rules altogether, although they might be quite helpful once you know them: Rules have the power to make people afraid - afraid of not being able to know, understand or follow them. And fright is quite a powerful weapon against any kind of playful creativity. Once you allow to question those rules, you will find that it opens a field of exciting interaction and contact with those around you. How often do we sacrifice this opportunity for the sake of what we sometimes call efficiency?
by the way: what does “woot” mean? My knowledge of the English language deserted me at that point
June 1st, 2008 at 12:03 am
Here is where i am at.
I would love to get the msn messenger details of people here so i can chat over msn (maybey using voice) as i dont like reading all this text.
I agree with everything in the origional post, and this leads into a CRUTIAL step to the NVC process that will take it to the next step.
Before i go into that i would like to say that Marshal talks about what he does instead of using grades and certificates (which are very violent to individuals and society- as outlined in Alfie Kohn’s book “Punnished by Rewards”).
He makes a outline of the things that the student can now do- and this is the new “report card”.
I propose a NVC Evolves system of certification in this NVC spirit.
A list of NVC-related things that the individual can do, created as a group but filled out by the individual… after all he knows himself better than anyone and he is the one who will be using that “NVCertificate” to illustrate things he can do.
Unfortunately we live in a world full of people with beliefs that may prevent needs being met (another important aspect of “real life NVC” that i would love to discuss with someone who is interested in it). So instead of stating to customers/employers that the old style of certification is both flawed and essentially violent and harmful we make the new NVCertificate official looking in some way…?
Please anyone wanting to talk about any of this with me please add me in your MSN. My id is three30limit@hotmail.com
June 1st, 2008 at 12:08 am
Ok, onto the CRUTIAL next step of NVC.
Again i would love to discuss this one on one with people- MSN: three30limit@hotmail.com
“The ability to recieve and assimilate feedback.”
I have also noticed the inability for NVC “officials” to recieve feedback, assimilate it, and grow/evolve from it.
If a method is meeting certain needs people often hold onto that particular strategy dispite feedback that it is not meeting other needs in oneself or others.
This feedback may be from others, from logic/reason, from gut-instinct, from emotions, from many places.
I recently spoke with a person who had adopted a christian belief to meet a need for community and understanding, but who would not (could not?) change/adapt/evolve dispite feedback from her friends and her own reason.
To emphasise the significance of this evolution step i will point out that people defend such beliefs violently, and often at the cost of lives. I even wonder if most or all wars are fought over beliefs like this.
Oh crap i have to log off the computer… i will continue this later on. There are 2 other very keen NVC pros who i will be seeing this week one from New Zealand another from Australia, i will get their input before i complete this post.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I have been thinking about this post (the origional one).
It seems to me that someone is trying to set up rules, in order to serve life/meet needs.
This litigious strategy instantly stimulated an uneasy feeling in me.
I thought;
“Well we are NVC people, we dont need rules because we have the ability to voice what is alive in us in a non-violent way… rules or laws are outdated/redundant for us”
There is no way of knowing exactly what gets stimulated in others, but if we can voice what is alive in us then we can connect and play in a fun way.
It seems that the litigious spirit or the use of rules is needed in a group of people who do not/can not connect with each other, therefore to gauge whether actions are meeting needs instead of connecting with others one connects with his thoughts and beliefs (morals/ethics) or his law book (rules/laws).
Not only does this not meet the need for connection and growth but the disconnection would (and does) result in people acting in ways that cause harm to others as they dont get the feedback required to trigger the need to help/enrich life (and thus not harm others.)
Also it opens people up to maipulation by the law-makers.
And is usually enforced by a retributive justice system (punishing those who break the laws.)
Such things of cause are required in a dominative system. Think “devide and conquer”.
One alternative to this would be of cause “facilitate connection”.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
It seems that connection can help in another way that i have not seen addressed in NVC.
Fear.
The emotion resulting from the perception that one’s needs will not be met in the future.
It looks to me that it is a non-present need as the need is not being met in a story playing out in the thoughts about the future.
If i fear not having food next week the need is food, but eating a burger now will not meet that need.
This seems to contradict the NVC line that all feelings result from present needs.
Some have tried to bridge this gap by suggesting that it IS a present need and the present need is for “survival”, “predictability” or “safety”.
BUT!
Survival and safety seem to be by definition “that my needs will be met now and in the future.”
I survive when my needs are being met, and i feel safe when i know that my needs will be met in the future.
So those words are redundant, they dont point to specific needs, rather that specific needs will/are being met… it is like saying “i have a need to meet needs”.
The need for “predictability”?
I dont like this because it means that when others are acting spontaniously then they are encroching on one’s need for predictability.
I think of a teacher who has planned her lesson plan assuming that the student will act in a predictable manner. Then a student becomes awear of a present need and acts against the teachers prediction of what will happen, therefore leaving the teachers need for predictability not met.
(Many teachers in my past think/act according to this belief and was not helpful to me at all).
Predictibility seems to be the idea that the world will act in the future according to my beliefs.
By beliefs i mean the assembled rules about the world put together from my sence experiences, used to PREDICT what will happen.
To me this seems dangerous to put into the need category, as people’s beliefs do not necessarily reflect reality, and when something happens that one does not predict they will think that their needs are not being met. Also if this need can only be met if the world conforms to one’s beliefs then it seems to follow that they will project or force their beliefs on others in order to meet this need.
Another way of looking at the need for predictability is that no one can predict the future. This “need” therefore cannot be met.
So fear still sounds like a non-present need, or at the very least an un-meetable present one.
How do i deal with this?!?
It seems that having strategies or skills to meet needs in future scenarios is one main way of dealing with the emotion.
Usually that is done with money, but i suppose the NVC way of doing it is developing skills of connecting with the natural tendency of others to help meet needs.
I suppose money is the “power-over” model and connection skills is the “power-with” model.
There are other “power-over” manipulation techniques which include the use of roles, images and beliefs to justify why others MUST act in a certain way that would result in needs being met.
Universalisation of preferences.
For example the christain may try and get everyone to follow the ten commandments in order to meet her need for safety.
Also a friend tried to enforce male/female man/wife roles in order to cope with his fear of not meeting sexual needs in the future…
There are also those who go outside those 2 models.
People sometimes surrender to the futility of all life and/or the inevidibility of death. I am reading a book about “spiritual warriors” who adopt this strategy. (Carlos Castaneda is the author)
Others believe that in connection to the true self all needs are met, or transended. So meeting needs is not a necessity, there for no fear.
I have a friend who thinks that many of Marshel’s needs are different levels of “connection”.
Needs for play, intimacy, honesty, expression, to be heard….etc are all sorts of connection to others.
He thinks that this is a psudo way of meeting the ultimate need of connection to oneself (or soul).
And when one has that ability it is no longer necessary to meet that need with others, it can be fun and enjoyable, but not a necessity.
Removing the fear.
The ability to facilitate deep connection to others is one way of dealing with fear.
And if you believe/experience the profound connection to true self then this connection is another way.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Getting back to the second post i made here, talking about;
“The ability to recieve and assimilate feedback.”
(I have also noticed the inability for NVC “officials” to recieve feedback, assimilate it, and grow/evolve from it.)
Here is a 3 step process im working on;
1- Awearness
2- Feedback
3- Adaptability
This seems to be a basic model that allows growth in many environments.
NVC is the ability to
1- Have awearness of what is alive
2- Give feedback to and recieve feedback from others about what is alive in them/you.
3- Not getting attached to strategys for meeting needs, and being able to adapt to what becomes present in the moment
(Marshal Rosenberg: “when we connection to what is alive the solution will find us”)
Teaching environments seem to opperate in helpful ways when there is
1- Awearness of what is alive in students and teacher (ideas)
2- The space for the student to give feedback about ideas that are being taught without fear of being told off by a teacher who thinks she is being “underminded”.
3- The ability to adapt to this input and what becomes present in the classroom (bored or restless students aint gonna learn much)
This even seems to be the basic tools for evolution itself.
The animals that survive are those who can most effectively
1- Be awear of what is happening in their environment
2- Recieve feedback from their actions (internally and externally)
3- Adapt to the changing conditions
So one may say this new “formula” is BETTER than the standard NVC model as it incorperates it as well as many other different subjects. As well as allowing for “the ability to recieve and assimilate feedback.”
It is like the new super ultimate NVC.
Its like NVC got bitten by a radioactive spider and then made a super rad suit of iron with magical lazers and flying powers and then took over the playboy mansion after winning the world cup.
Patent pending too fools.
-Let me know what you think!