A week ago, at a friend's party, I met a woman who was very enthusiastic about channeling her religious impulses into political action. She was involved in "missions" of some sort overseas, and complained that all the money they were sinking into some project disappeared. I noted this was an endemic problem with foreign aid, and was probably serving to increase corruption. The response I read from her was sort of as if I'd spoken a from of blasphemy. I backtracked a little. I shouldn't have.

Noting her discomfort, I said I shouldn't talk about politics too much, because I didn't want to alienate her. She retorted that she loved politics: "Come on, I'm moving to Berkeley [CA]!" According to a friend, she also sported the usual unsubstantiated defamatory myths about politicians she hated: George Bush had apparently many times declared himself as God's chosen one. But whether Bush did or didn't, didn't she clearly imply she was personally carrying out God's work?

In passing, she had apparently mentioned she had taken a course in "Nonviolent Communication." Curious, and recalling Orwell's focus on how political groups impose values through controlling communication, I've taken a few minutes to check it out. The process they teach looks like this:

1. Observe without evaluation, judgment, or analysis,
2. Express feelings which these observations evoke,
3. Express needs connected with these feelings,
4. (optional) Make a specific request of another person to help meet an unmet need, and to enrich life of everyone involved. Essential in this is that the other person is to be left free to honor or decline the request.

The Wiki page notes they "they seek to avoid the use of coercion (e.g., inducing fear, guilt, shame, praise, blame, duty, obligation, punishment, or reward)" and teach people to communicate "without use of good/bad, right/wrong judgment."

Now, I want to say (admit?) that I'm partially on board with the goals here. On one hand, I found in my own life it's been very helpful to watch my own use of "you always" and "you never" as keys to tell me when I'm desiring to lash out at someone (since such statements are almost always false). And I find that people are more receptive if you state where you're coming from, and express needs. And certainly the four steps outline above are very useful during a heated discussion: Everyone is forced to LISTEN for a moment to where the other is coming from, to leave room for humanizing their opponent, and to express their own situation in "here's how I'm feeling" terms. In certain situations, such techniques can be helpful, I think.

But I can also see several potential problems.

The underlying assumption here is that conflict is bad, and we should minimize conflict in part by minimizing "good/bad", "right/wrong" judgments. But who said that should be our ultimate life goal? By accepting the technique, and applying it broadly, the participant is also unconsciously accepting the underlying value system.

Although this is being taught in a "Christian" context, such a worldview seems a rather direct contradiction of Jesus's own teachings and example. He didn't attempt understand what the Pharisees were "feeling", and freely resorted to "right/wrong" judgments, sometimes — such as at his own execution — with the intentional goal of enraging those around him. For him, it was often more important to say what was "right" than it was to make sure everyone had a good hug and expressed felt needs. He also promised, rather than inducing good feelings and peace, his followers should expect to be hated and even attacked for conforming to his methodology and outlook.

(Jesus also pointed to the egotistical motives behind conflict, such as when he rebuked his followers for fighting about who would be the greatest, and demonstrated how to humble one's self in response. He also demanded his followers love unconditionally. My point here is not to only focus on the conflict-inducing parts of Jesus's ministry, but to avoid the opposite error.)

Is it better to avoid expressing (or perhaps even thinking) in terms of moral right and wrong? Or are there some "rights" which need to be pursued, including verbally? That's a debate worth having, but is precluded by the linguistic strictures on exchange. Instead, a technique like this bypasses rational judgments, and installs an unevaluated systems of values. However "nice" such a system appears on the surface, that is an inherently coercive and deceptive move, seeking to bypass the person's conscious judgments and free will.

Consider the name itself: "Nonviolent Communication." This is not small stuff. Violence, in our culture, often merits social ostracism and even legal action. So what is "violent" about our communications? "Right/wrong" judgments, apparently! The one offering such is thus mentally equated with a rapist or other violent abuser.* Again, this is profoundly coercive: to even refer to the program by its name, you are forced verbally accept its value judgments.

And consider the implications: The participant is discouraged from saying things are "wrong." In short, they are unconsciously encouraged to accept the core, self-refuting tenant of relativism: It's wrong to say (and possibly believe) something's morally wrong. Though undoubtedly they'd be uber-careful not to SAY it was 'wrong' to say such things, but simply communicate the same value judgment in a thousand other verbal and nonverbal ways.

(* The irony here is that later the person is told to stop categorizing people as "good" and "bad". So a rapist loses his social stigma, but the "good" and "bad" mental slots still remain, now couched in terms like "encourage/discourage" "helpful/unhelpful", and filled with 'systems' or 'modes' of action, and possibly the less-enlightened cretins are aren't playing your particular communication game.)

Finally, the desire to not pidgeonhole people as "good" or "bad" ignores the very real possibility of harmful intent. Israel, for example, is being cited as having adopted these techniques. Elsewhere, pages tout that these techniques have been applied to conflicts in the Mideast. Seriously: how is that working out? Doesn't look too effective from here. Although dialog can help calm down otherwise well-intentioned participants, it can also be used as a stalling tactic to buy time for less noble goals. (Kim Jong Il, for example, is probably glad we're only talking with him about his nuclear weapons program.)

Although sometimes a thing can be viewed separately from its origins, it's also often helpful to examine such. In this case, according to founder Marshall Rosenberg:

Theologian Walter Wink estimates that violence has been the social norm for about eight thousand years. That's when a myth evolved that the world was created by a heroic, virtuous male god who defeated an evil female goddess. From that point on, we've had the image of the heroic good guys killing the bad guys. And that has evolved into "retributive justice," which says that there are those who deserve to be punished and those who deserve to be rewarded. That belief has penetrated deep into most of our societies. Not every culture has been exposed to it but, unfortunately, most have.

Shall we unpack the baggage from this particular psychological train? One is Roseau's belief in the "Noble Savage": man was basically peaceful until civilization (and here, belief in the JudeoChristian God) ruined us. Never mind findings from archaeology that primitive man, long before 8,000 years ago, was in a constant state of brutal, deadly warfare. And never mind that contact with isolated primitive societies tells us the same. (Most of them live in constant warfare until their contact with modern civilization, and specifically, Christianity.) Also don't notice that the idea of an ancient "Goddess"-centered utopia is a modern invention.

What explains the attraction of such beliefs about history? Whatever other factors may contribute, "overwhelming evidence" is not among them.

If you read the interview linked above, and sources such as this article on child-rearing, you'll discover that the precepts buried in "Nonviolent Communication" (NVC) are felt to have societal implications far beyond mere communication skills. Based on similar levels of empirical evidence (i.e. carefully selected anecdotes, apparently): children should be treated as adults and should not be physically disciplined, rapists rape exclusively out of a need for empathy, the nonreligious are more compassionate than the religious, criminals should not be punished for their crimes ("restorative justice" instead, "prisoners just want to apologize"), and people who act well should not be rewarded.

There is undoubtedly some merit buried there. (Some criminals surely do want to apologize. Others, sadly, seem to feel everyone else owes them an apology.) But it's tied up in what seems to be a manipulative, functionality dishonest framework which I see having profoundly negative effects, if applied broadly — however good the motives of those promoting it might be.