Using the name “Nonviolent Communication”
On a mailing list I joined, people brought up their discomfort about using or about not using the term “Nonviolent Communication” (or “NVC”) in their workshop title, as requested by CNVC. I’m writing this blog post in response, so that anyone can read it and participate in a conversation.
The request about not using “NVC” is just a request, right? I’ve pondered this request at length and concluded that (a) I don’t hear an underlying need (despite some pseudo-need language on the site and expressed in person), and (b) clear expression/understanding is better served by my using the term “NVC”, since it clearly conveys what I teach. And I know that whatever the underlying needs are, they can be met with strategies that don’t interfere with my clear expression (and contribution) and my students’ clear understanding (and improved lives). So I decline CNVC’s request, and I use the term freely. If folks in CNVC want to engage in a giraffe dance with me (aimed at connection and meeting all needs fully), I’d be delighted, and I think the organization and I would both benefit.
I have heard the claim that people who hear that someone teaches “NVC” (or “is an NVC trainer”, to use static/to-be language) will assume that the person is certified by CNVC. I don’t believe that claim at all. If I tell you I’m playing Beethoven, would you assume I’m certified by Ludwig van himself, or by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra? Of course not. Certification is just certification. Certification is not NVC. People won’t confuse the two unless their cultural context encourages that confusion. I choose to contribute to clarity, not participate in confusion.
As NVC practitioners, we know that granting a request quickly can result in missing opportunities — opportunities for deep connection at the needs level and consequently meeting needs more effectively than the original request would accomplish. I want to see a deep re-examination and open (to all) dialog about the needs behind CNVC’s strategies of certification and of not using “NVC” in a workshop title. If there were such a re-examination, I’m guessing the beginning would contain familiar old statements like “integrity of the NVC process” or “respect for the copyright”. Given words like “integrity” and “respect”, such statements can be confused with needs, and I imagine a lot of learning and depth would come from dispelling those confusions and going deeper.
Maybe you’ll connect with what I’ve said above, and maybe not. In either case, here’s another angle on the issue — one of my favorite quotes, straight from Marshall’s mouth:
Please do as I requested, only — only if you can do so with the joy of a little child feeding a hungry duck.
Please do not do as I request if there is any taint of fear of punishment if you don’t.
Please do not do as I request to buy my love, that, is hoping that I will love you more if you do.
Please do not do as I request if you will feel guilty if you don’t.
Please do not do as I request if you will feel shameful.
And certainly do not do as I request out of any sense of duty or obligation.
I’d love to hear what’s touched in you in reading this post. If you’re willing to share your response as a comment in this blog post, that’s my preference. If you’d like a more private conversation, you can email me directly.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Hello,
My heart was opened as I read your website. I agree that the positive is so important and as it is a practice, paradigm shift in thinking as well as responding the process requires mindfulness. It is a shift in how we show up in the world. Sharing the concepts and the process for me is about deepening awareness and sharing our human-ness rather than covering it up.
Thank you for sharing your heart.
Carol
February 29th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Heya,
I resonate with this post. When I first got excited about NVC and then decided to learn about how to teach it, I found that exact injunction on the website - “Don’t use the word NVC if you’re not certified by us”. I had a visceral reaction of “yuck”. And I didn’t feel that “ahh” of feeling like I really got what their needs were.
What I guessed was behind that request was a fear of somebody teaching NVC in a way that CNVC did not agree was actually NVC i.e. the consciousness Marshall teaches. The needs I guessed were for clarity and effectiveness. Those needs I do connect with. They really want students to have an NVC experience and learn what Marshall is trying to teach. I get that. I want that too!
So I connect to the needs (I think), but don’t like the strategy. It feels fear-based and authority-based to me. It seems like an attempt to control what perhaps can’t be controlled? And having the authority of CNVC behind it, it’s hard for me not to hear it as a demand. I felt sort of sad after reading it. Like oh, I really was inspired to find out about teaching and after reading it I felt deflated. And annoyed, like what an inneffective thing, teaching something but not calling it what it is. Wouldn’t that confuse people?
I don’t like the certification process due to the costs that you’ve identified here and elsewhere - the bottleneck of assessors, the assesment mindset, the expert/authority mindset. And that it turns off potential teachers of NVC - at least it turned me off.
It seems to come from a worldview where people aren’t good enough unless rubber-stamped as good enough. Instead of knowing that everyone is doing their best and trying to get better all the time - because they genuinely want to contribute, one of the premises of NVC.
Reading this post and the other stuff you’ve written has made me think - oh hey, I could teach NVC! And think of it differently. Instead of asking myself “Could I ever make myself get through that heinous looking certification process?” I started asking “What would I need to do to feel confident and ready to begin to teach NVC to others?” Woah, so much more aliveness in that question! And more focus on real needs - effectiveness, contribution, and how to get there - rather than on jumping through hoops.
Reading this post, I feel hope that the NVC family can start looking at the authority type stuff that seems embedded in the CNVC documentation and go somewhere more inspirational around supporting people in teaching NVC. =)
March 1st, 2008 at 2:50 am
Thank You Conal,
For the reminder of how I want to respond to the request of CNVC regarding certification and use of NVC name:
With more confidence that through dialogue mutual needs will be addressed and equally considered.
What I hope to share with others I practice by remembering …”hungry duck” before I accommodate any one (especially an Institution).
I find it difficult.
I get scared .
Your postings have helped me to examine myself and my habit of avoiding conflict by yessing to demands.
I like the advice to take more time and go deeper.
With Love and Respect (and always a little fear)
Mark Roberts
March 1st, 2008 at 11:27 am
dear Conal,
I love you response to the request to not use NVC and in advertising etc. if one is not certified. I think that your request to go deeper to the needs underneath that request is really life-giving.
I absolutely love putting this request in the context of Marshall’s “Please do not meet my request if…”
I think you’re response really keeps the dialogue life-giving to all involved.
In heart,
Joe Mitchell
May 1st, 2008 at 7:59 pm
So it’s really a demand. This blog is supposed to be about evolving, and to me, using the name NVC anyway is REactive rather than PROactive. How about let’s come up with a name of our own?
I don’t like the name NVC anyway. I totally get the fact that the consciousness is grounded in Ghandian nonviolence. When Marshall articulated his model, nonviolence was a hyphenated word, so NVC made sense as an acronym. It’s been a long struggle to drop the hyphen and have nonviolence accepted as a word with its own wholeness, and I think that’s more important than playing tug o’ war with an acronym that doesn’t even stand for what we want it to stand for!
We can use the expression “nonviolent communication” to describe a model that is entirely different from Marshall’s as long as we don’t capitalize it. And we can use the acronym NVC - yes, even in titles - as long as we put the superscript SM for “service mark.” (I don’t know enough HTML to do that for real.) Isn’t that enough? I’m even willing to give Marshall’s name and credit him with the development and application of the language model that changed my life.
So can we shift the debate and come up with a new name and start articulating some of the ways in which our model is different from his and our way of being in the world is different from CNVC’s? Then we can ;)sneak in the back door when CNVC gets its Synergy Circle going and tie in to the global network anyway!;)
May 1st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Hi Susan:
Using the name NVC for this blog is a choice I’m happy with, based on the values I see in the choice. Call it proactive, reactive, radioactive, participative, or even no evaluation at all, as you prefer.
When I use the term “NVC” or “nonviolent communication”, I do so specifically to refer to Marshall’s ideas, because I want people to know what content I’m referring to. I don’t use the term for its descriptive value, because (a) I don’t think the name conveys the message, and (b) I prefer positive terms to negative.
A second reason I use these terms is as gift: an invitation and encouragement to dance. Offering my partnership in bringing to light the beautiful needs under CNVC’s preferences (and under the standard NVC-ese phrases). Once they and I are deeply connected to the underlying needs, then solutions will arise that better serve their needs and mine.
Considering your choice of “we can”, instead of “cnvc prefers us to”, I guess you’re hearing a demand also.
About “enough”, I wonder: enough for what? In any case, I don’t settle for merely enough, which I hear as another word for acceptable compromise. One of the many gems Marshall has given me is the realization that requests/strategies/preferences are dime-a-dozen. They’re expendable in this abundant universe of infinite possibilities for meeting all needs fully. I enjoy acting from inspiration. The fact that I’m not yet inspired with CNVC’s requests is important feedback to me and to CNVC. Let’s dig for needs, which is the invitation part of my choice to use “NVC”.
I love acknowledging and celebrating Marshall, which I do joyfully and spontaneously.
I’m not sure what you want in asking to “shift the debate”. I’m all for a variety of conversations. The one about using “NVC” seems to capture a lot of interest, especially as people become aware that they’ve been playing Power Under. Meanwhile, let’s also have whatever other conversations people are interested in.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:16 am
I’m excited about this discussion, and want it to be able to continue. So, I’d like to share that folks who want to read the CNVC page about this will find that it’s moved to this url: http://cnvc.org/en/sharing-nvc/guidelines-sharing-nvc
October 9th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Thanks, Angela. I’ve now edited the post to use the new URL.