Welcome to part 6 of my series this week on why I am a “Bad Unitarian.” And this one is all about something that just aggravates me, Nonviolent Communication, and Unitarian speak in general.
This is pretty big at my church, so I can only really assume its big at other congregations out there. Look, I understand the positive reasons for it. But it’s just a bunch of BS. (Notice how I purposefully left off the I think there.) I think that it takes the emotion out of our speech, when we have to make sure we self-censor it so it sounds all nice and fluffy. I’m not making a meringue here, I’m trying to speak my mind. Yes, taking a little bit of time to try and word something so the other person isn’t offended is good and all, but sometimes, you just need to tell someone what they just said sucks. I can speak Nonviolent, I can speak corproate-speak which is mightily similar, but I chose not to. At work, I get called blunt and sometimes even curt, but you know what, it works. And people actually respect me for it here at work – my bosses have even called me into situations where they just needed some bluntness.
I remember once during some congregational meeting or another during our interim time where they had someone who does NonViolent Communication give us all a how to at the beginning and passed out a how-to sheet. I rolled my eyes. We can often focus too hard on how to say something that we completely lose what we’re saying. If I get pissed off over what someone says, I don’t want to say “The idea you just expressed I happen to not necessarily agree with,” I want to say, “You just pissed me off, and here’s why.” I teach kids that in essays, throw out the qualifiers. Be arrogant, you’re right and they’re wrong and you need to tell them why. It’s what makes good, convincing writing. Throw in some passion there. Too many qualifiers makes it sound like you don’t know what you really think, and as a result, your audience will ignore it.
It’s Unitarian speak in general that bugs me. I don’t want to invite plants into my home. (I don’t have their email address for the evite.) I will instead go and buy them at Home Depot. Sorry if that makes me a bad Unitarian that I didn’t send an invitation first before buying the snake fern. Yes, there are some times I would say this sort of speech is appropriate, but not very often, and only during deeper part of Sunday Services. I want to hear the emotion behind what people are saying, and I don’t want people to ever censor themselves because they are worried what other people might think of them.
(Another thing, I don’t know where to plug this in, but I happened to go to church for something during our summertime Peace camp. Instead of paying War, you know, the game where the highest card wins, they were given a deck of cards to play Peace wit (which, from what I garnered, was pretty much the same exact game.) That might have been the same summer I was in charge of the games at our now defunct church picnic, and was told no game could have a loser.)
These 10 things for nonviolent communication are taken from the nonviolent communication website.
(1) Spend some time each day quietly reflecting on how we would like to relate to ourselves and others.
(2) Remember that all human beings have the same needs.
(3) Check our intention to see if we are as interested in others getting their needs met as our own.
(4) When asking someone to do something, check first to see if we are making a request or a demand.
(5) Instead of saying what we DON’T want someone to do, say what we DO want the person to do.
(6) Instead of saying what we want someone to BE, say what action we’d like the person to take that we hope will help the person be that way.
(7) Before agreeing or disagreeing with anyone’s opinions, try to tune in to what the person is feeling and needing.
(8) Instead of saying “No,” say what need of ours prevents us from saying “Yes.”
(9) If we are feeling upset, think about what need of ours is not being met, and what we could do to meet it, instead of thinking about what’s wrong with others or ourselves.
(10) Instead of praising someone who did something we like, express our gratitude by telling the person what need of ours that action met.
I’m sorry, but just reading these made me both want to laugh and throw up a little in my mouth. This is not me, and I don’t think this is how society should be. And if that makes me a Bad Unitarian, so be it.
I say we take the youth group approach to communication when talking Unitarian in big groups- the ouch, oops approach. If something you said offended someone, say ouch and the other person says oops. Beyond that, what else is really needed?
Another Hear! Hear!
Boy, I’m enjoying this series!
Glad to hear Paul! I’ve got at least 10 of these planned out.
I’d never heard the term “non-violent communication” before I read this post and it isn’t my impression that it is something most churches need. At least in my church we play it fairly cool about our disagreements, or at least the few people who lose their heads when all those around them are keeping theirs pretty much don’t ever get what they want.
In a church meeting context, I wouldn’t use a phrase like “you pissed me off” that is used much more casually by younger people than older people. I worry that being TOO in-your-face about one’s communication style needlessly ratchets up the temperature in the conversation, perhaps to a point where egos are on the line and people feel insulted and nothing is likely to get done. If anything, I want the other guy to be “in-your-face” in the meeting so I can be polite in response. We Washingtonians like to say “Don’t get mad, don’t get even, get ahead.”
That said, the “Ten Tips” are not unlike what is passed out in law school negotiation classes in regards to interest-based negotiation, though the phrasing is less flowery in law school. There is some good advice in there as focusing on what the other guy wants is usually the best way to end up with what you want and a change of phrase can make all the difference between getting what you want and not.
In less formal communication, I might be more inclined to be in-your-face, and indeed, have been.
CC
God, I wish I’d written these! Oh! Sorry! Those who were offended by my inappropriate language, please understand it was the reflexive interjection of a man raised in the Christian White Patriarchy- substitute the opening expletive of choice; I stand (in body or in spirit) corrected.
CC – I’m glad to hear its not standard at all UU Congregations. My experiences have really been only shaped by the one I attend, and what I’ve read out and about on the blogland. And in defense of my congregation, I haven’t heard a lot about this since our interim period (although I’ve missed a few congregational meetings due to, well, life) Its possible there is some sort of generational difference here – its an interesting thought. I know you’re a youth group leader too – I really do think how youth groups handle disagreements is the way our adults should too.
And Joel – Thanks, I suppose
Joel,
Your using the Lord’s name in vain is forgiven by me, of course, but most people raised in the Christian White Patriarchy would say that I’m not the one you should be worrying about offending there.
CC
Great post Matt!
Needless to say the dreaded Emerson Avenger, Drak Knight of the U*U World, concurs with much of what you have said here. . .
5) Instead of saying what we DON’T want someone to do, say what we DO want the person to do.
Actually a fair bit on “less than non-violent communication” could fall into *that* suggestion. I seem to recall former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney (in)famously telling Senator Patrick Leahy what he wanted Senator Leahy to DO.
More politically incorrect observation courtesy of The Emerson Avenger later. . .
God, Joel! You made me spit my coffee all over the new carpet!
I stand (in body or in spirit) corrected.
I don’t doubt that it is encouraged in churches. I suspect most don’t need it imposed in any formal sense, though I still think that those who use it carefully are going to walk away with a lot more of what they want than those who take a more confrontational approach. (Particularly since UUs can have such a thing about power and people who seem to be openly trying to take it.)
I’m not clear about the difference in youth group and adult conflict resolution that you’re making. Mostly, I would advise youth to do a lot of the same stuff that adults are advised to do about trying to figure out where the other person is coming from and what they want.
As far as generations go, I have certainly observed that different generations interpret swearing REALLY differently, with it being almost nothing to most teenagers and practically a declaration of war to some of their grandparents with a fair amount of variation in between. Ms. Theologian, who used to write “Surviving the Workday”, knew a lot about generations and their differences and would be the real expert.
CC
The thing that strikes me immediately, having never heard the term before, is what a loaded term “violent” is. I know people have the capacity to be blunt, thoughtless, even occasionally abusive—but how many verbal interactions could really be classified as truly violent? Saying “violent” when we really mean “ineffective,” “blunt,” or “thoughtless” seems like overkill to me.
And hey, has anyone ever really told you to “invite plants” into your home? Because that’s high comedy, right there.
Jenny – yes. I’ll email you the story out of respect for someone else out there in the blogland.
Pingback: Why I am a Good Unitarian after all. « Spirituality and Sunflowers
Is the material your congregation using based on Marshall Rosenberg’s non violent communication books? Or something else?
hsofia – I’m have to admit I’m not sure on that one.
I know the one congregational meeting I have in mind was led by a member who was also a trained “Non-Violent Communication Facilitator.” And was having meeting at the congregation at the time training people in how to speak Non-Violently. I can’t say where she got her training at.
I would suggest that it is OK to express our own emotions: “I am pissed off”, but that it is neither true to say “you pissed me off”, nor is it effective.
The pissed off is in our own head. We should own it, not blame it on the other person.
So, what I am hearing you say is that you want to be able to use harsh words to people who “trigger” YOUR anger and construct immediate rules that others must follow? You must have a lot of frustration -and now guilt- for not being able to tolerate many people’s speech and actions. I hope you can find a non harmful way of resolving this.
Allow me to suggest to the NVC trolls to hit up the new site over at http://blog.spiritualityandsunflowers.com/?p=553
Jay – what I’m hearing you say is that you’re frustrated at having to defend something not worth defending and that you want to construct immediate rules that other must follow by speaking nonviolently. You must have a lot of frustration – and now guilt – for not being able to tolerate folks who think nonviolent communication is bullshit. I would assume you were passionate, but after all, speaking nonviolently and constantly self-censoring yourself doesn’t allow for any passion to come through beyond capslock. I hope someday you’re able to speak passionately without feeling guilt.