provides tools for reviving
"The lost language of humankind, the language of a people who
care about one another and long to live in harmony." Raised
in a turbulent Detroit neighborhood, he developed a keen interest
in conflict resolution and new forms of communication as peaceful
alternatives to the violence he encountered. He gained a Ph.D. in
clinical psychology, but was dissatisfied with the focus on
pathology he found there. His subsequent study of comparative
religions, and his own varied life experience convinced him that
human beings are not inherently violent, and motivated him to
develop the communication process he calls Nonviolent
Communication (NVC).
He has provided training and initiated peace programs in a
number of war-torn areas, including Rwanda, Burundi, Nigeria,
Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, The Middle East,
Columbia, Serbia, Croatia and Northern Ireland.
I talked with him last month (March, 2004) over the telephone
during his recent teaching stay in Quebec City.
Michael Bertrand: You emphasize a language of compassion. I
gather you mean compassion for others as human beings rather than
as enemies or adversaries.
Marshall Rosenberg: Exactly. We could say it's a language of
compassion, but it's really a language of life in which compassion
comes naturally when we connect with it. The mechanics show how to
express what's alive in us and other people. Once we get clear
what's alive we look at what we can do to enrich that life.
By alive you mean what is really at the bottom of what a person
is saying?
In a sense, yes. What's alive is basically two things: what the
person is feeling and how their feelings are connected to their
needs. What's the status of a person's needs right now? If their
needs are being met which ones are met and how do they feel, and
if their needs are not being met, which ones are not being met and
how do they feel? So the language of life is basically the
language of feelings and needs.
It seems that when you pursue that line of communication,
reflecting back what is then said, your examples indicate that
people seem to become less angry or less violent.
I would say it's even more powerful than that. When you get
people connected to with what's alive in each other and you
transform enemy images that imply wrongness, when you get people
out of their heads in these enemy images, and you get them
connected to what everybody's needing, it's amazing how people who
earlier were wanting to hurt one another now want to contribute to
each other's well-being
In our training I try to help both sides see the humanness of
each other and the needs. All human beings have the same needs, so
when people can see the needs of the other person they don't see
an enemy.
We haven't been taught how to communicate that. We've been
taught how to be in touch with life. We've been taught a language
of domination for about eight thousand years that's designed to
get people to obey authority. It's quite a shift for people to
move away from enemy images that define badness in the other
person and to instead just express what's alive in you - what are
your needs that aren't being met? It's a radical paradigm shift.
I read a quote from you that "We have to learn to
communicate because nothing else will protect us from terrorism in
this world."
I don't remember saying exactly that, but I do talk a lot about
terrorism. These terrorists are not just something that popped up
today. It's by not listening to the needs of the people who are
doing it—thirty years in the case of Sept. 11. For thirty years
people in the Arab world have been trying to express deep pain
that they feel when the government uses sacred land for military
bases to protect its oil interests. That's enormously painful to
people who are seriously trying to live in harmony with their
religion. When thirty years ago they expressed it in a kind of
mild way we didn't listen, and its been increasing every since.
You mean the bases in Saudi Arabia?
Yes. And there's many examples of our using areas in those
regions for our economic interests and not really listening to the
pain that creates for people in terms of their spirituality.
The idea, then, is that non-violent communication can work to
defuse a lot of political hot-spots, if they're allowed to?
Yes, if we have enough time we hope to really contribute. I was
brought into Rwanda by a gentleman who studied with me in a peace
studies program in Austria and he told me exactly what was going
to happen in his country if he didn't do something quickly. So I
went there four months before the genocide there started and we
had a two year plan to train people in the hope of preventing the
violence.
We started off with about seventy human rights workers, but we
were there four months before it got started. It was too late to
prevent what happened, but now we have a sustainable program
that's now trying to use our training in reconciliation and to
build for the future. We're also working in other war-torn areas.
Do you also find that looking at the needs that people
invariably works or do you find that with some people it just
cannot?
I've never found anybody we cannot connect with if we have time
and patience and courage. For example, I was working in the
prisons in Sweden. The administrators were very impressed with
what I was doing with the prisoners, because these were pretty
tough guys – long-termers - but they wanted to test it. So they
said to me, "We put a new man in your group today. We know
he's killed five people, some say eight. We want to see how you're
going to work with a guy like this.". I walked in the room
and this guy was big. He had tattoos all over him and he stared at
me in a way that would scare anybody and knowing that he'd killed
these people I was pretty scared. So, I didn't live our process. I
didn't confront him and tell him how scared I was and try to
understand how he felt. He glared at me for two days without
saying anything and I was just inside getting angry at the
officials wondering why they put this monster in my group.
You could say I wasn't successful with him for two days because
I wasn't living the process. I wasn't telling him what was going
on in me and I wasn't trying to connect with what was going on in
him.
Finally, I saw that going on at the end of the second day and
the next day got my courage up and confronted him. I told him how
scared I was and that I needed to know what was going on with him
when he didn't say anything and when I heard what got him into
prison. It made it easy for me to want to avoid him.
Well, he started to open up and be a real person. Once I
started to do my share things started to shift. Whenever I've had
the time and the courage I've yet to see that I'm not going to
like where it ends up.
Patience, time and courage, yes.
For example, in Nigeria I started off with the twelve chiefs
from the Christian side on one side of the table and twelve from
the Muslim tribe on the other. I asked them a question that's
central to our training about needs which was, "I'd like
whoever wants to tell me what needs of yours are not being met in
this conflict." I said I was confident that if everyone could
hear one another's needs that we would find strategies for meeting
everyone's needs.
A chief from the Christian tribe screamed, "You people are
murderers", and they other side replied, "You've been
trying to dominate us." So, I asked for needs and not
surprisingly got a diagnosis of pathology, which is why we have
violence on the planet. We haven't been educated in that way. I
had to work hard to help them to translate these enemy images into
unmet needs.
Our training is based on the assumption that all criticism and
blame is a tragic expression of the needs of the speaker. So,
beneath this murderer, it wasn't too hard to guess that his need
was for safety. I said, "Chief, are you saying your need for
safety isn't met by how things are being dealt with?" He was
shocked because he's not used to talking from inside where his
needs are - he's used to calling people names - but after
reflection he said, "You're damn right."
Then I asked if someone from the Muslim tribe would please
reflect back what the chief said his needs were, so they could see
another human being like them. Of course, they were in too much
pain to do that, so one of the Muslim chiefs screamed, "Then
why did you kill my son." (I'd been told that three people
there knew that someone who'd killed their child was in the room.)
Well, it's not easy to get people not only to say their needs
but to hear each other's needs, but after working hard at this for
about an hour one of the chiefs said to me, when he saw the change
in the atmosphere in the room when we went from calling names to
seeing what everybody's needs were, "If we know how to
communicate this way we don't have to kill each other."
That must have been quite a gratifying moment.
I get a lot of those. I see people who initially want nothing
more than to kill the other person when they come into a room and
I have no doubt that given enough time they'll walk out caring
about each other's well-being. I do this in restorative justice
work, where I might be working with a woman who's been raped by a
man. I have them both in the same room and in the beginning she'd
like to see him killed, but I know that if we can connect them
with each other's needs and understand each other at a certain
level we'll end up with restorative justice. That means harmony
restored - both people will be concerned with each other's
well-being.
Unfortunately that's not how our judicial system is set up.
It's set up to punish people and make them suffer for what they've
done. That's why our network is very strongly supportive of
restorative justice and we work with different groups around the
world to transform our present system.
Would you call the listening and the compassion that it
requires the spiritual component of non-violent communication?
The spiritual component is that we believe it's our nature as
human beings to enjoy contributing to one another's well-being.
There's nothing we love more than that. However, as much as we
love to do that, if we hear a demand to do something it takes all
the joy out of it. If there's any criticism or punishment used to
try to get us to do something it takes all the joy out of it. So,
the spiritual component is that we human beings enjoy nothing more
than contributing to one another's well-being.
Of course, when you say that it can look very naive in the face
of all the violence around the planet, but, as theologian and
anthropologist Walter Wink explains in his writings, that violence
is created by the kind of social structures we've been creating
for about eight thousand years which required us to be educated in
tools of domination. We're living in a society where some people
call themselves superiors and claim to have the right to use
punishment and reward on people to get them to behave properly.
Then we're trying to live in this time in a way that will
counteract an awful lot of societal programming.
An awful lot. It's been going on a long time. For example, in
our schools we use a radically different language. We don't like
teachers to use words like 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', 'have
to', 'should'. When you first suggest this to teachers their eyes
widen and they can't imagine going through a day without using
such language. We then show them how that language is part of the
language of domination and that there are cultures around the
world that do not have such language and have almost no violence.
Just to change the language itself is a big thing, but it's
more than that. It's the consciousness that your objective is to
get people to do what you want them to do. Parents, teachers and
managers see it as their job to make people behave. That's quite a
radically different objective than we're suggesting: create a
connection that will allow everyone's needs to get met. So, it's
not an easy paradigm shift to get people to go through.
Of course it isn't. In schools I suppose people are also coming
from the perspective that we have to do things a certain way
because that's the way things get done.
Except we have some pretty good statistics now that things get
done when people see each other's needs and see how they can
contribute to one another's needs. Children are much more likely
to get the basics in our schools and there's much less violence.
Things get done more willingly out of a natural motivation of
enriching life, which is different than doing things to get
rewards in the form of grades in schools or salaries later on, or
in order to avoid punishment. It's a different world when you see
how it's going to enrich life than to operate from a reward and
punishment motivation.
You're really indicating that our natural nature is to be
compassionate and caring about others, that this is where we
really want to function from and we have this layer over top which
is preventing us from functioning that way. We don't even know, in
a way, that we want to function in the right way.
For about the last ninety years the theory has been that we're
basically animalistic - selfish, violent, like tigers and such -
and therefore have to be controlled by more evolved people who
call themselves superiors. That's where we get into punishment and
reward. We have this belief that human beings are basically
selfish and dangerous.
I work in about forty-five countries and in every one I often
ask to start with this question, just to introduce the group to
our process and its purpose: "I'd like you all to think of
something you did in the last day or so that in some way, little
or big, did kind of enrich someone's life and made them feel
better. Maybe you cooked a meal for someone or just touched
someone. Whatever it was think of something you've done in the
last twenty-four hours or so." Everybody can usually think of
something pretty quickly.
It's hard for them often because so many things we do like this
we don't even think of it, but I get everybody to think of that.
Then I say, "Now, just focus for a second on how you think
that behavior enriched the person? How do you think it made them
feel? What needs got met? " They focus on that.
You can already see just a shift in their eyes just thinking of
that. Then I say, "Now you have that in focus, how do you
feel when you see how your actions enrich the life of other
people?" They usually say they feel wonderful and joyful.
Then I ask them if anybody knows anything that's more fun to do
and in the forty-five countries I've never had anybody tell me
they can find anything more enjoyable to do than to willingly
contribute to people's well-being.
So, it's not that I'm basing my belief that this is natural on
some political statement that we should all be loving. I think
it's in our nature. I think our species depends for its survival
on our getting more joy out of contributing to one another's
well-being than domination, punishment and so forth.
As Gandhi says, to change the world outside you have to live
the change you want to see. So, we usually start with that in
training and then we show people how to do it with their children,
their life partners and people at work. Then we extend to social
change. We get people to see it's a good start to change
ourselves, but we also have to transform the gangs that are
creating the violence on the planet.
I'm not so worried about street gangs, but there are other ones
that call themselves governments or multinational corporations and
they cooperate. The corporations and governments gang up together
and cause much of the violence we have. So, we include the level
of social change in our training, of how to transform
organizations at all levels so they support compassionate giving.
We all know that compassion is how we're meant to live but our
structures don't support it.
That's a whole other topic, to start with individuals but then
move into the greater community. Can you go into the CEO's and
managing directors' offices and start from that level?
We show people how to start at all three levels at the same
time, because most of us in this incarnation are not ever going to
be fully liberate ourselves from what we've incorporated in
childhood up to the present moment. So, if we're going to wait
until we're fully evolved we're not going to be able to contribute
much to transforming the structures.
On the other hand, if we go after the structures out of the old
consciousness we're just going to create more of this. So we show
people how to work at all three of these levels at the same time.