Category: Nonviolence

Dr. Marshall B. Rosenberg fits several factors about nonviolence communication on his paper Key Facts about Nonviolent Communication produced by PuddleDancer Press and the Center for Nonviolent Communication. The paper begins with an understanding and meaning of violent communication. He is followed by explaining the ideal way to integrate nonviolent communication in today’s society. He also explains the primary goal of nonviolence communication and its benefits. The paper concludes with an explanation regarding Dr. Marshall B. Rosenberg’s program on how to implement nonviolence communication.

Violence communication, according to Dr. Rosenberg, means communications that hurt or harm. Therefore communication that judging others, bullying, having racial bias, blaming, finger-pointing, discriminating, speaking without listening, criticize others or ourselves, naming calling, reacting when angry, using political rhetoric, being defensive or judging who is ‘good/bad’ or what is right/wrong are all forms of violent communication. What is essential to understand is that this “harmful” communication in many ways is cultural, techniques of persuasion, manipulation, and many governments use cultural penetration in order to keep their population under a permissive state and not contradicting what the government rules. The violent communication passes from generation to generation without been argued or challenged, and in many cultures, not everyone will see violent and nonviolent communication in the same way. Furthermore, many governments manipulate the information passed to the public to create fear leading citizens to believe, rationally, and incorrectly that the way the leaders use communication is the correct way to administrate large democracies.

The authors also explain what integrates nonviolent communication, and he uses four steps. Those steps are consciousness, meaning a set of principles that support living a life of compassion, collaboration, courage, and authenticity. Language, that corresponding to understanding how words contribute to connection or distance. Communication skills are understood how to ask for what we want, how to hear others although not always in agreement, and how to move towards solutions that work for all and last means of influence that the author understands as sharing ‘power with others’ rather than using ‘power over others.’ The four principles sited by Dr. Rosenberg are, although very coherent, are utopic. We currently live in a capitalist society where the core business is to use all the resources available, human and nature, to produce goods that probably will not add value in anyone’s lives, but it will create profit for a small number of people. Therefore, inequality is present in our society, and the mindset of living on a compassion, collaborative, and understandable society is far from what many of us can achieve today. In order to have the balance proposed by Dr. Rosenberg, it would be crucial to change the way our society functions so governments would provide freedom of choices to everyone, regardless of gender, color, religion, or sexual choices.

Dr. Rosenberg has set goals to explain why nonviolence communication is beneficial. According to him, if we provide a space where society can make their own choices, the population will connect in a meaningful way, and the relationships would be more empathetically and satisfying. If the correct environment provides a form of communication where everyone is more satisfied, less stressful, and calm, the way we communicate with one another will change. Unfortunately, humans have emotions, and it is required much self-knowledge in order to control emotions while communicating with one another.

Dr. Marshall B. Rosenberg created a program where anyone can learn and practice nonviolence communication to improve one relationship. Dr. Rosenberg makes a correlation with the way people were raised with the way they communicate. On his model he mentions that our society is educated from the beggining to compete, judge, demand, and diagnose, to think and communicate in equivalence of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. At best, the habitual ways we think and speak hinder communication and create misunderstanding and frustration. Furthermore, this type of communication can cause anger and pain and may lead to violence. Without wanting to, even people with the best intentions generate needless conflicts. Therefore, nonviolence communication helps people to learn and develop a vocabulary of feelings and needs that helps people to express what is going on with themselves and others. He author believes that when people understand and acknowledge their own needs, they can develop a shared foundation for many satisfying relationships. There are many challenges with Dr. Rosenberg’s model. The first challenge is that the nonviolent communicator has his assumption and interpretation regarding a particular behavior.

Additionally, the expression of feelings and needs can be painful to the extent that people do not understand their feelings and needs; this requires a certain level of self-knowledge. Often, the use of the program probably will make people feel awkward, and they eventually desist in using it every day for fear of appearing too soft. Moreover, the expression of a clear, doable, affirmative action demands a high level of nonviolent communication knowledge. It often takes a long time to be able to achieve an appropriate nonviolent communication wording of the affirmative action. It demands time, reflection, patience, and discipline, which many times is not possible to manage in real-life situations.

In conclusion, Dr. Marshall B. Rosenberg’s nonviolent communication model has a more significant potential to change the way society communicates with one another. Nonviolent communication fosters empathy, which is forgotten in today’s society. The nonviolent communication model offers advantages, tools, and processes to anyone willing to learn different ways of communication, providing, therefore, empathy enhancement, conflict resolution skills, communication skills, and relationship improvements. The difficulty is that this model can provide changes for individuals willing to learn and apply the model, but it is challenging to make this model worldwide applicable.

Violence has been used as a way to “solve” issues for a long time. Back in the day when integration was being fought for, segregationist would use violence in hopes to get rid of the possibility of being equal with other races. Although, it didn’t work out for them. See violence is a way for issues to be swept under a rug, it doesn’t truly solve the issue at hand it’s just left there in hopes that it will be forgotten. It is a way for people to not have to deal with the issue face on, either because they are scared to or because they don’t exactly know how to go by doing it. Some may argue and say that WWI or WWII could not have been dealt with without using violence, and I would have to agree with them. There are some qualifiers when it comes to not using violence to solve problems.I believe that violence is mostly wrong and should not be used as a first response, but if needed it should be used as self defense.

Malcolm X was a human rights activist, but he was unlike the usual human rights activist, he believed that violence was necessary in the form of an eye for an eye. He believed if they hurt you, you hurt them back. If they kill one of your kind, you kill one of their kind. Malcolm X once said, “ I don’t advocate violence; but if a man steps on my toes, I’ll step on his.” He also once said, “I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man’s problem just to avoid violence.” To him, violence was a way for blacks to rightfully take what they should already have, freedom and equality. I agree with Malcolm X, they fought back after being abused and enslaved for years, that is when I believe that violence is the most acceptable.

“Normal” human rights activists like Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi believed that nonviolence was the key to peacefulness. King once said, “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals”, and Gandhi once said, “Nonviolence is not to be used ever as the shield of the coward. It is the weapon of the brave.” Martin Luther King took inspiration from the beliefs of Gandhi on how nonviolence is the most powerful weapon in the world, and they used peaceful marches and nonviolent protests to prove it. Although, most peaceful marches and nonviolent protests led to violent acts, which was observed by author Benjamin Ginsberg.

In an article called Why Violence Works, Benjamin Ginsberg states, “It’s true that political leaders espousing nonviolence in those cases – Martin Luther King Jr., Vaclav Havel, and Mahatma Gandhi – played important roles. However, the tactics – strikes, boycotts, demonstrations – that leaders like King and Gandhi used were far from nonviolent.” He then begins to explain how their nonviolent responses were meant to provoke violent responses from segregationists in hopes to gain sympathy from the crowd. That is another reason why I most agree with Malcolm X, he straight up said that he wanted people to be ready to fight back and take back what should be theirs, while King and Gandhi just wanted to gain sympathy and take the easy way.

“Not one hair of one head of one person should be harmed”, this is the motto of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), presided by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who was at the wheel of this instrumental organization.

Dr. King not only witnessed racism and segregation, but experienced it first-hand. Through it all, Dr. King believed that violence should never be utilized for responding to injustice; rather, nonviolent civil resistance should be employed to set in motion constructive movements that help peacebuilding.

I agree with Dr. King, that violence should never be permissible to bring about justice in society; the antidote to injustice is nonviolent civil resistance because of its ability to equip communities to actively engage peacefully and contribute meaningfully in addressing root causes in order to facilitate real change which has been proven in history to also leave enduring legacies.

In Dr. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, Dr. King astutely pointed out that nonviolent actions are the most effective tools to bring about change, redemption, and reconciliation. The tenets that Dr. King advocated are still very much applicable to today’s society. Case in point, discrimination permeates every facet of society and in America it is still very much alive. Reports in the news of police shootings of black people demonstrates that for no other reason, their skin color are regarded as inherently “suspect”. Not only has it been proven and reported that whenever a black person resist arrest and/or meets violence with violence, the person of authority registers the black person as a threat to peace and order and therefore reaffirms the legitimacy of the violent action taken by the person of authority. If the black person applied nonviolent methods, the person of authority would be put in a decision dilemma-applying pain/violence to the nonresistant black person or capitulate, to correctly apply the rule of law and not use violence. Nonviolence in this example, is used to weaken the validity upon which the oppressor’s power rest. History has established that unarmed masses have conquered armed-to-teeth forces by applying only humble methods such as strikes, sit-ins, boycotts, and occupations that resulted in successfully facilitating social and political change, a no mean feat!

One could argue that nonviolent civil resistance is a form of ineffective unobserved martyrdom that resulted in the deaths of millions of Jews in Germany, and could be construed as a sign of weakness as Nietzsche taught, hence the principle, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” as a means of leveling the playing field and to combat injustice, is a necessary evil that is very much pragmatic.

However, research studies conducted by Chenoweth and Stephan proved that nonviolent resistance strategies are twice as effective compared to violent ones (Robson). Clearly, Dr. King is correct in his stance, that nonviolent civil resistance is a judicious course of action that is necessary for change. In particular, the mobilizations of Women’s March and airport rallies signals that resistance to the administration’s plans is strong; would-be protesters, the silent majority, congress- people who implements policies and the people around the world observing can view an administration’s action with more skepticism. Moreover, such example of nonviolent civil resistance can demonstrate to the people around the world that change is possible without using violence, which can harm humanity and endanger the hope of people who are struggling in the progressive movements of late. What’s more, nonviolent civil resistance can be applied personally as a way of life, for transforming conflict.

Unfortunately, we still live in a time that is both tumultuous and have tremendous suffering. Urgency for change is still high and noise must still be made, and therefore we must recommit ourselves to the tenets of nonviolent civil resistance that Dr. King championed. Unquestionably, opposing every manifestation of violence is the only antidote to injustice and disarm the aggressor.

Peace Conference Reflection

Last Tuesday, October 1st, I attended the peace conference here at Seton Hall. Leading up to the event I did not know what to expect. My lecture was the opening lecture on the second day. It was titled, “The Human Person’s Responsibility for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Development.” The speaker was very intriguing as he spoke about efforts made by numerous world leaders to achieve peace through nonviolence. There were representatives from the Republic of Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Colombia at the conferences. Together, they all tried to help the Catholic community try and commit to methods of nonviolence in everyday life. The speaker went on to say that nonviolence is human dignity. The speaker went on to say, “…nonviolence is the power of love in action.” Nonviolence was a virtue found in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Jesus was an epitome of what it meant to be passive. He shared his knowledge and the word of God throughout it all. Jesus Christ is an ideal image of how nonviolence should be practiced in everyday life. We can find prime expressions of his path of nonviolence in the Gospel of Luke.

To begin, in order to bear the virtue of nonviolence in one’s life, you must be willing to accept everyone no matter the circumstance. Race, gender, or religion should not come in between the process of establishing nonviolence. For Jesus, he was willing to go above and beyond to show compassion toward those who needed it. This trait made Jesus successful in what he did; helping to spread God’s word across the land. Jesus performed a multitude of miracles helping those in need. In this instance, he was open to helping cure an individual of their leprosy. At the time, people with leprosy were quarantined and exiled as the disease was very contagious. But Jesus took the man in with open arms willing to help in. Practicing the manner of nonviolence. Luke writes, “And it happened when He was in a certain city, that behold, a man who was full of leprosy saw Jesus; and he fell on his face and implored Him, saying, ‘Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.’ Then He put out His hand and touched him, saying, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.’ Immediately leprosy left him. And He charged him to tell no one, ‘But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded (Luke 5 12-14). Many would have turned their heads at the sight of a leper. But Jesus did the exact opposite in this excerpt from Luke’s Gospel. He gave nothing but open arms to an individual. Nonviolence isn’t all about stopping world wars or ending fights. Nonviolence can be expressed as being amicable to each other as well. That was one of the points that stuck with me at the peace conference. I’m aware that I do not hold much power or authority anywhere to be honest. I know I will not be negotiating with infamous terrorist organizations in Uganda or making plans to end civil wars in Colombia. But I can make an impact in my spiritual community by utilizing effective nonviolent strategies just as Jesus did.

The peace conference was very informational and learned how people are utilizing the ways of nonviolence today. Before the conference, I was unaware of how much work and effort is being done to achieve world peace. Growing up in the United States, I did not believe violence to be much of an issue. But seeing what other places go through to achieve for basic human rights, demilitarization, and freedom, I feel grateful to be raised in an area and time where achieving nonviolence in my community isn’t an issue. But the United States is far from perfect. There is a lot this country needs to work on if we’re to take steps towards the goal of nonviolence. School shooting seems to happen regularly. Violence should not be a solution to anything. Jesus was not popular with many groups of people because of his style of teaching. Through his peaceful works, he was able to gain a following rapidly through nonviolence. I truly believe everyone can do so with the right mindset and attitude towards attaining peace whether it be worldwide or in your local community

The peace conference was an eye-opening ordeal. I was able to listen to an individual who is putting work towards peace in the world. Nowadays, there doesn’t seem to be much of it. These individuals and many others mentioned in the conference is following the footsteps of Jesus Christ and they strive toward making the world a better place for everyone to inhabit through numerous methods of non-violence.

Works Cited

1. The Holy Bible: New International Version. The Gideons International in the British Isles, 2012

Violence and nonviolence movements seek to gain power through the use of force while using different methods to achieve their goals. However, in what situation is violent dissent deemed necessary, only to be used as an act of protection toward those who are using violence? Martin Luther King states that nonviolent dissent is effective in that it forces everyone to acknowledge unequal rights. However, in Malcolm X’s speech at the Founding Rally of the Organization of Afro-American Unity, Excerpted, he asserts that resorting to violence is acceptable as long as changes are made in the end. Adding on to the idea that violent dissent is necessary, in Marcie Bianco’s interview with Angela Davis, Davis stated that people should not blindly act violent, instead, acts of violence should be organized. Violence dissent should be organized, however, it should only be used as an act of self-defense against those constraining protesters standing up for their rights to equality.

Violence can be seen as an instrument for change as it paves way for African Americans to be heard. Violence dissent is necessary to achieve change regarding inequality, as Malcolm X stated, “We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary” (X 162). Violence dissent is acceptable as long as changes are made in the end and inequality should be a thing of the past as everyone should aim to make a difference in the present. However, violent dissent must be organized or it can result in a continuous cycle of fighting. For example, the 20th century is regarded as the most murderous time in history between territorial states or alliances of states. Without organizing these acts of violence, it can result in decades of never-ending bloodshed and peace would be considered nonexistent. Angela Davis mentioned that the idea of nonviolence dissent is an oxymoron as the ends justify the mean (Bianco 165). When protesters are ignored, organized violence is the only form of expression that can result in the issues being acknowledged. The use of violence can help a movement gain attention and opens the eyes of those unaware of the inequality and discrimination of Blacks.

When nonviolent methods prove ineffective, time and time again, against those who are using violence as a means to shut down those who are aiming to change the laws regarding racial inequality, violence can be used as an act of self-defense. Similar to Antifa, a group that ‘views self-defense as necessary in terms of defending communities against white supremacists,” it is the legal right of a person to defend themselves against other acts of violence (Illing 188). Antifa aims to protect protesters against White supremacists but violence dissent should be used by the protesters to protect themselves from other violence acts aimed against them when protesting. Activists have the right to defend themselves in situations that can result in harm, especially when protesting for equal rights. Like Ralph Young said, ‘When [activists] go from nonviolence to violence, it is most often an expression of their exasperation that those in power are not listening to them; that their nonviolent protests aren’t being taken seriously. So, in despair and frustration, they lash out and act violently. Their goal, however, is to reform the system, perhaps even in radical ways, but they are not trying to destroy the system’ (Polychroniou 108). When protesters are not heard and are being harmed while protesting a cause, violence is necessary to defend themselves from any potential harm. Freedom is fought by Blacks, not given despite living in a country where freedom stands. Black has been segregated and treated inhumanely by Whites and overcoming the inequality and injustice of Whites is another obstacle that Blacks must face every day. The use of violence is an act of self-defense and protection against racial discrimination.

Violence dissent can also be viewed as harmful and reckless through the use of physical force to achieve a goal. Despite protest playing an important role in the movement for equal rights, nonviolence dissent is much more effective as it forces people to acknowledge the issues and see the fault in our society regarding the inequality that Blacks face every day without the use of violence. Nonviolence dissent may be effective in forcing people to acknowledge the bigger issue however, “history shows that it’s dangerous to take violence and self-defense off the table” (Illing 188). Violence is necessary in terms of self-defense as it protects the activist from getting harmed during the movement for change. Throughout the 20th century, history have shown that violence is necessary and should be considered as an option when needed. Racial oppression and injustices by Whites can be seen as a threat to Blacks everywhere. As Martin Luther King stated in his speech, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored’ (King 149). Nonviolence dissent facilitates a change that is more powerful than violence dissent as it issues the problem regarding racial inequality towards Blacks. Furthermore, when violence dissent is done, the real problem is not acknowledged because it is seen as an act of physical force. Though violence is seen as a physical force, it can be regarded as an oxymoron; “be nonviolent with those who are nonviolent to you. And when you can bring me a nonviolent racist, bring me a nonviolent segregationist, then I’ll get nonviolent. But don’t teach me to be nonviolent until you teach some of those crackers to be nonviolent” (Malcolm X 160). If others disregard the idea of nonviolence methods, then why should those protesting for equality rights accept that nonviolence is the solution to everything? Until they have learned to respect the idea of nonviolent dissent through their actions, violent dissent is necessary to protect dissenters from harm as a means of self-protection. Furthermore, violent acts of dissent can potentially result in decades of bloodshed and war that will only end badly on both ends in the end. This has been shown throughout history with multiple deaths due to activists resorting to violence as a means to be heard.

Thomas Jefferson himself said ‘The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.’ The line between violence and nonviolence can be difficult to define due to the fact that both methods of protesting have had successful results in the past. However, freedom is not free and it must be fought for at whatever cost is. Through the use of violence dissent, it should not be used blindly, rather it should be organized with precautions and a plan.

Insight

Nonviolence is what I chose for my topic because I feel it is a great tool that anyone can use in any situation. Nonviolence can be a weapon we choose to equip against injustice and was created to bring about change but in a kind and loving way. I believe that if we wield these tools that are given to us we can truly change the world and change how we handle conflict. I was personally influenced by nonviolence and I hope to use it in practice.

Overview

Nonviolent communication (NVC) was founded by Marshall Rosenberg. It is also known as compassionate communication for the way it models giving and listening to other people’s needs. NVC is a way of speaking where you intently listen and try to find out what the other person’s basic needs are. It goes to say, that all humans have needs we must have met, and if we are compassionate and try to meet these needs genuinely for each other than we engage in a more meaningful way (Rosenberg, 2015). The king’s philosophy also believes that we should respond out of kindness and love, never hate. The ideals of this philosophy are based on Christian beliefs of treating others how Jesus would, with unconditional love. Dr. King believed nonviolence “seeks to defeat injustice, not people… seeks to win friendship and understanding… chooses love instead of hate” (The King). These are some of the six principles that are believed in King’s philosophy. Dr. King believed that society could be changed and believed that we had to act to do it. Both focus on the nonviolent approaches to communication and to life.

Relation to diversity and social justice

Dr. King is greatly known as a civil rights activist and his philosophy reflects that. His philosophy also reflects how important diversity is. It is against racism as well as poverty and militarism (The King). These issues are extremely controversial and Dr. King wanted to bring it out in the open that things could be changed, we have the resources to do so but, we need to get together and make a plan. Dr. King and his ideals are so important to diversity and to social justice and the seeking of making our country better. Nonviolent communication contributes more to social justice but at the same time encourages diversity. It provides grounds for peaceful discussions between people and organizations. It encourages a more considerate way of speaking and communicating. NVC lends a great deal of wisdom to leaders and social justice warriors because it can lead to change without resorting to any violence. It guides people to ask for their needs to be met in a way that is not manipulative or spite. Think back on a recent topic of gun control. The Parkland students did not resort to violence when they wanted to make a change, they went to speak to the senators and to those who were in power to talk about what they wanted to see changed. These students displayed great courage and they did it in a peaceful way. Both resources were birthed because there was an injustice. There were needs that needed to be met but were not. The leaders of these movements wanted to impact how people treat each other and how we treat conflict.

My interest

I became interested In NVC when we were talking in class about it. I learned that I get very defensive when I argue. “As NVC replaces our old patterns of defending, withdrawing, or attacking in the face of judgment and criticism, we come to perceive ourselves and others, as well as our intentions and relationships, in a new light” (Rosenberg, 2015). This really stuck out to me because I wanted to find a way where I could respond in a better way, keep my automatic reactions to myself and find a way to respond better. I was getting frustrated at myself for the way I communicated with people and when this was brought up in class it all clicked. I suddenly realized what I was missing in my day-to-day conversations. I wanted to learn more about nonviolence and the way it works. I then also was inspired by Dr. King’s philosophy. I thought that nonviolence was just a way to seek social justice but it is a way of life, truly. It is rejecting the hate and the racism and all the violence and choosing to love. I as a Christian became further inspired by Dr. King than I already was before. I wanted to model how genuine the love shown by both approaches all the more because it reminded me of Jesus and how he loved people and how He responded to hate and violence.

Application and Advocacy

Strategies

One strategy I have is to be a better listener and to listen without any bias. I want to be able to listen to someone speak without feeling insulted if they said something I did not like. I think that I could learn to be a better listener by understanding different cultures, and different diverse topics. The more I learn about things that are different from what I think and believe I think it will empower me to be a better listener. I feel that by having better listening skills I could be a better social worker. I think this because as a social worker you already need to have good listening skills but if you are just good at listening but still get defensive, frustrated, or start to go off in a tangent in your head then you are not truly listening. You end up listening absent-mindedly and can then no longer give good advice and cannot empower them.

The second thing I plan to do is read more books about nonviolent communication as well as listen to some of Dr. King’s sermons and his philosophy. When I do this, I will become more knowledgeable on nonviolence. I hope to, in the future, bring this into my professional life and be an advocate for this. I am considering doing international social work and what with tense polarization on immigration policy I think this will be a very good tool to have in my belt. Not only will I improve my personal relationships but I will be able to help improve relations with others on a macro level.

Strengths

One strength I believe I have is self-awareness. Because I am aware of things that need to be included and changed in my personal life, I can bring it to my professional life. I think all social workers should be self-aware because without that, how can we truly help others? There is the famous saying, how can we help others if we cannot help ourselves? With nonviolence, it’s important to know what your own personal needs and desires are and to know what it is that may trigger you so that you can prevent violence.

Another strength I believe I have is my love and compassion for people. Because I love people, it is what attracted me to this topic. I think that if I just focus on loving people and fighting against injustice like Dr. King mentions (2015) then I can help others. If I did not have love I would not be able to carry out the ideals for these philosophies.

Conclusion

Nonviolence is a lifestyle both Marshall Rosenberg and Dr. King carried out and I want to learn more and empower others to live their life in a peaceful and loving way. I want to be better at resolving conflict and carry on the torch that these two leaders have lit.