I learned what non violent communication is a day ago and I’m using it to mend a friendship.
Have you however used it at the workplace?
I find it unpractical: there are so many things to do at the workplace and the last thing stressed people with deadlines need is to have a conversation about feelings, but maybe I’m wrong?
A question for nurses working bedside: do you actually use non violent communication at your ward with your patients and actually have time to do your other duties, like charting, preparing infusions and meds, dealing with providers, insurance, the alcoholic who fights you, the demented one who constantly tries to leave the unit, the one who wants to leave ama (against medical advice)?
Thank you for a thoughtful comment, unfortunately I don’t have time right now to read it as carefully as I would like, but I have two short points:
I think you misread the first guy (or one of us did). I understand the statement is not “nonviolent communication is violent” but rather calling distasteful communication “violent communication” both increases the threat posed by words alone and decreases the value of the word “violence” in a physical context. Basically it is better for me to call you an asshole than to punch you in the face, so let’s not equate them with terminology.
It may also be possible that your time in psych and corrections makes you more likely to see sociopathy when you’ve potentially misread or misunderstood which is, itself, potentially harmful to getting a message across.
I will basically never tell someone “seek help for XXX” unless I’m being wildly sarcastic or intentionally combative in either case.
Gotta get my kids but I’ll be around later.
Edit:
Basically speech and violence are inherently different things, and I agree with the original poster that I would prefer not to equate them.
Sure, lots of people here on Lemmy may say “obviously words are violence”, but I’m not inclined to trust commentary here to be a representative sample. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, flipping this around, would you expect to get tased and sent to jail for calling a cop a pig, just like if you punched him in the face? If no, then it seems to me there’s an opportunity for nuance. Sure, this is conflating violence and assault, but if we aren’t going to specifically define violence, then it seems to me that’s as good a definition as any other. Otherwise what? Any form of meanness is violence? I don’t buy it.
There is every reason to communicate directly and succinctly to actually make a point, which precludes tone or particular wording that is offensive, no complaints there. But I would say that by giving a common platform to words and actions we are putting a fair amount of weight behind what I will call “manufactured fragility”. It would be great to have the entire world adopt fair and equitable discourse, but that just isn’t going to happen with a fingersnap. And in the meantime we are going to ascribe the same verbiage to both mean posters on the Internet and people who batter their children? I see that as an insulting trivialization of “actual” (physical) violence.
This discussion HAS to start with a recognition and definition of terms, and assimilating terminology tastes bad in this case.
Hey, sorry. I actually work and had no time to follow up. Thanks for the insightful response. Even though I still don’t agree with most of your point. You are, indeed, conflating all of violence and reducing it to just assault. Which is hurtful and trivializes the suffering of victims of harassment, rape, and many more. Yours is the same logic by which rapists argue that it was not “actual” rape.
The confusion seems to derive from a desire of making violence be a binary flip. Violence or not violence. And that is just not how any professional working with victims and aggressors ever thinks about violence. Violence is a gradient.
Of course that hitting a child in the face is not equivalent with calling them a racist slur. But, the point is, that although they are of different degrees, they are both acts of violence. Is it better being called an asshole than being punched? absolutely. But this doesn’t make it a good thing to do. It was still psychological violence.
It’s an atrociously disingenuous strawman to pretend like I, or anyone here, equates verbal violence with life threatening physical violence. Because it is just not what I have suggested, anywhere, ever. But only mentally ill people think it is alright to verbally abuse people as a normal and appropriate response to any situation. Again, I’m not using metal illness like a binary flip concept. Mental illness is also a (multidimensional) gradient. I’ve met very nice and well adjusted sociopaths in my practice. With family and a thriving social circle. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t need help and support from professionals to get there, or that they didn’t occasionally struggled and needed help to point out morally dubious or potentially dangerous behaviors.
I agree, nuance is much needed. But your position is not one that provide such. As it relies on Manichean, all or nothing, good vs. evil, logic. Reality is much more complex than that. I’m offering nuance, you are just arguing about where the line lies, I’m telling it’s not a line.
I was not considering violence as a spectrum. Since your last comment, I did some background research and saw that “nonviolent communication” has its roots in a book that came out at the same time that non-violent protest was being put to effective use. In that context it does make sense.
To make sure I wasn’t crazy, I did just google the definition of violence and the top definition is here:
violence /vī′ə-ləns/ noun Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury.So I appreciate the idea, I don’t prefer the terminology, but I suppose I shouldn’t be hung up about it.
I do take issue with this though:
My point is the opposite. I think the trivialization goes the other way. Suppose we have a group session for victims of violence. This gradient point now means that a rape survivor, the domestic abuse survivor, and the victim of some race related beat down sit with someone who gets called names on XBox Chat. Are they all victims? Absolutely. Can they be reasonably lumped into the same group? I would think no, but then this is not my area of expertise.
Not to nitpick, but a dictionary definition has no bearing. When I have more time I could share part of the scientific literature on violence that has a more integral and exhaustive definition. For example: in psychology we differentiate between violence and aggression. Violence being the umbrella term, and aggression—the specific acts of physical violence, and further we add extreme aggression.
On this point:
And they are not. No one is proposing that. Again, it is a strawman of your own creation.
Just to point out. This trivialization that you fear, does not happen. But the trivialization of victim’s experiences because they didn’t suffer “actual” violence, is widespread and happens all the time.
EDIT: I offer you the following articles on the complexities of working with the topic of violence. There’s a nice discussion about the cultural, sociological, methodological and ethical challenges of defining violence. But this is, I think, a nice opening for where I’m coming from (emphasis is mine):
The world report on violence and health, WHO (2002)
Methodological and ethical challenges in violence research
The dictionary definition reflects common usage, and we are only having this discussion because I backed up someone else who had the same thought based on, you know, common usage. I’m happy to hear the trivialization for the scenario I described doesnt happen based on your experience. I still don’t like the wording, but then, I don’t have to.
This whole post—not just this comment thread—is precisely the definition of “my ignorance is equal to your expertise”. Bunch of people spouting opinions from common understanding on things they don’t understand. It’s not the first time that common usage of groups of people is entirely off with scientific facts. Like, the whole point of OP is that they disagree with something because they don’t understand it. It’s a tale as old as time itself. If we only followed common usage you would not be using soap and treatment for fever would still be bloodletting.
I will also say I like the part where I gave you the win in a cordial thread of the no stupid questions community wherein I admitted I understand the historical value of the term now even though I don’t like it, but you couldnt accept. When you can’t convince me to like it you just gotta tell me what my problem is, downvote every comment, and go home.
The problem here may well be opinion vs expertise, but every time someone brings up skilled and unskilled labor (for example) I do it. As do all of us experts who have an important message, and we should be doing it patiently and without judgement.
So let me, at the close, suggest to you that you go back to the very top and see how your attempt at direct, nonviolent communication came up way short. I think there is value in the approach and there’s value in expertise, but for an “expert” in the field, I find this exchange to be equal parts tone deaf, insightful, and ultimately officious/petulant/immature. This sure felt like some undergraduate level dick measuring bullshit to me 🤷.
Next time I hope you try to destigmatize mental health issues broadly not specifically, and someone calls you out in the same way every time you short circuit a discussion by suggesting that’s why whoever you’re addressing “doesn’t get it”.
Have a great day!
I’m sorry, What?
I invite you to go to the top of the thread too. The part where I made a comment to a third person, not you BTW, and then you decided to interject with aggression and insults. You tell me who is the petulant child. Because I did gave you the benefit of the doubt and attempted to deescalate this idiotic conversation being patient and reasonable. But you had to win the conversation, didn’t you?
You gave me the win? Do you think all conversations are about win or lose conditions? That’s the most immature and stupid way to go about communication in general, and specially the internet. This is precisely the kind of Manichean worldview I identified and referred to previously. I don’t need your win, not everything is win-lose, not everything is black and white.
Then you try and give me a lesson? Yes, I have downvoted the whole conversation because after the second reply or so, this whole thread has not contributed at all to Lemmy as a whole and I regret the time I have invested in trying to educate a childish doorknob. I will not be replying anymore. Have a day.
Let it be a lesson when you write your book to choose a better name, then. You won’t have to work against the grain. It will also go easier if you don’t suggest that anyone who disagrees with you has some form of mental health disorder, but that would be nit picking.