I read Non-Violent Communication (NVC) after a difficult conversation with a friend last year. I was trying to explain why I didn’t want to go on trips with her any more, and in doing so I upset her. She suggested that I read NVC to be a bit more sensitive in the future, so I did. I found parts of it useful, and parts of it overblown.
About NVC #
Fundamentally, NVC is a useful framework. The core concept is that certain types of communication push people away from us: like criticism, judgements, or accusations.
The alternative that Rosenberg proposes is to reframe communication around observations, feelings, needs, and requests. I like how he explains these concepts through neat translations: for example, from saying “you’re so lazy, you never tidy the apartment” to “I want to feel calm in my home, and having my home orderly helps me feel calm; I feel angry when there is rubbish left lying around”.
This technique runs both ways: you can express yourself using these methods, and you can probe others to understand where they’re coming from.
What I liked #
- NVC encourages taking responsibility for your own feelings and actions. It explicitly discourages saying things like “you make me feel …” or “I have to do …” - not putting your feelings or choices in anyone’s hands but your own.
- Taking precise observations: of the behaviour of others, and of my own emotional responses. The latter is sometimes really challenging - it can be hard to figure out that what’s really going on is “I feel angry” or “I feel afraid”! This is super helpful in many conversations as a foundation for good interaction, to get a common ground of truth.
- I’ve found this approach to building empathy works well. It’s easier to get others to understand problems I have, if I express them in clear observations of the behaviour I see, and clear explanations of what it is that I want.
- The book is really strong on examples. The translations from judgements to observations, or criticisms to expressions of your own needs, are well done.
What I didn’t like #
- It’s over-the-top to call this negative communication “violent”. It may be rude to call someone “lazy” but it’s not a violent act.
- NVC doesn’t deal with emotional regulation. It’s one step to recognise your feelings, but there is also a next step, which is managing them. At minimum it needs pairing with Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, to examine feelings more clearly - checking if a feeling is proportionate, or if it may be a thought distortion.
- The author takes the concept way too far. It’s excessive to think that all conflicts can be solved by the right communication.
- NCV assumes a level of good intent on both parties. It relies on the idea that showing and sharing emotional vulnerability builds bridges; I’m not sure that’s a good idea with someone who is actively trying to hurt you.
Summing up #
Overall I found NVC a useful framework and I’m glad I read the book. Refraining from judgements and criticisms, and instead building a shared understanding of what specifically has happened and how everyone feels about it, is simply more likely to get good results in communication and relationships.
But it’s not the only way. It’s a useful tool in the toolbox, but it’s not a panacea.