Can One be a Transformative Mediator and a Non-Violent Communicator at the Same Time?

As Transformative Mediators we are interested in conflict, what it is, how people experience it and how as mediators we feel it is appropriate to respond to it. These themes are also addressed in Marshall Rosenberg's work on Non-Violent Communication (hereafter NVC). It is therefore likely that as transformative mediators we may be curious about what NVC has to offer. Indeed NVC itself has provided the foundation for models of conflict resolution; however what I am interested in exploring in this paper is whether one can practise Transformative Mediation (hereafter TM) whilst incorporating aspects of NVC, or whether they are incompatible as practices and as philosophies. I shall be making a case for the latter. This is not because of any criticism of either theory. I merely wish to make the case that if you stand TM next to NVC then you start to realise how they have different ways of seeing the world, viewing conflict interaction and what to do about it.

We do not mediate on the basis of learning, skills or techniques. Rather one's mediation of conflict emerges from the way one sees the world and the way in which one has internally realised the philosophical principles of mediation. This is why it is important to bring the differences of TM and NVC into sharp focus. If one tries to mediate from two mutually inconsistent philosophical attitudes to conflict, then one's practice will become confused and so too will clients and referrers. 

 

Comparing models is a hazardous business. There are all sorts of difficulties regarding weather one ought to analyse theory or practice. NVC is a particularly ephemeral ideas base. This is because it is utilised across a range of contexts and practices, e.g. mediation, education, relationship advice, etc. Therefore it has numerous incarnations. There will always be exceptions and counter examples to any one interpretation that one makes of a model. What I hope to do in this paper is begin a discussion that is very much needed for practitioners. By evoking in people some appreciation of the difference between NVC and TM I feel I would have done my job, the fine details can come later.

Attitudes to Judgement and Criticism

For Rosenberg, judgmental communication is one of the things that make an interaction violent. Many of us may intuitively agree with this conclusion. For it seems that when people feel attacked they tend to close up and become defensive, which then leads to a breakdown of trust and a greater feeling of estrangement in the relationship. However, this is not the reason that Rosenberg thinks that personal judgements are destructive to one's relationship. Instead he emphasises that moral judgements are an expression of what he calls life-alienated interaction. One might wonder what does this mean. Although I do not have time to outline the whole NVC framework in this paper I will now briefly explain what it means to be “life-alienated” in NVC.

For Rosenberg our judgements of others are really a manifestation of our unexpressed needs and feelings. For example, if I were to say “the police are racist” what I really mean is that I feel hurt to see the police arresting more non-whites than whites because I have a need for inclusion. The same applies to positive judgements; for example, when I say “my father is a good man” what I really mean is that he helps me feel relaxed when he gives me money, as I have a need for financial security. When one says “the police are racist” or “my father is a good man”, one is distant from one's own needs and feelings in the situation. By not articulating one's needs and feelings, one is not taking responsibility for one's responses in the situation. This is what it means to be involved in a life-alienating interaction.

So the reason that might ordinarily be supposed for the destructive quality of judgements (that it leads to defensiveness, estrangement and distrust) is not the same reason for which NVC finds judgements to be harmful. For Rosenberg it is more the case that when expressing judgement and criticism we are not standing in healthy relationship to our self. In fact, Rosenberg’s claim goes deeper than this. He believes that humans are essentially compassionate in nature. When we express our needs and feelings, we are affirming this nature. However, when we express judgement instead of needs and feelings, we are going against this nature. For Rosenberg, to make a judgement or criticism is always destructive because it always involves alienation from one's own human nature.

In the transformative model of mediation, it is not the case that personal judgements are always destructive. For TM, what is destructive about conflict is that it throws people into a state of weakness, i.e. they feel a loss of control over their situation and their emotions and how to go about dealing with their situation. TM says that when human beings feel such a loss of power, they become more self-absorbed. When both parties are self-absorbed they are each unable to see beyond protecting themselves. At this point they understand the object of their conflict only inasmuch as they understand how they themselves immediately feel about it. There is no broader understanding. In an attempt to defend themselves during their state of weakness and vulnerability they react to one another with hostility, suspicion and anger. This can be an expression of what is referred to as “demonising” in TM – a stage at which the parties see each other as “the problem” or “the enemy” and they don’t regard the other with a humanised perspective. This demonising of each other produces an alienating effect that serves to further the parties' feeling of weakness. In turn their self-absorption is reaffirmed and the vicious circle continues. 

 

It is of course true that personal judgements and criticisms could be an expression of demonising and may well lead to weakness and self-absorption. However, it is not necessary that they do so. For Rosenberg all moral judgements are negative because they display an alienation from one's true nature as a compassionate being. TM does not an essentialist view of human nature, rather F&B regard human beings as possessing the capacity to show a responsiveness and empowered decision making in their own lives even if this capacity is not currently displayed. This does not entail that a transformative mediator thinks all judgements are destructive. For TM a judgement or criticism is only destructive to the extent that it leads to, or comes from weakness and self-absorption.

At this point one might question weather there are any criticisms that do not lead to weakness and self-absorption. Can we ever tell someone that they are wrong without damaging the relationship? I would like to suggest that not all judgements are damaging. Some in fact can be an expression of a healthy and positive relationship. Let us imagine a couple, Fred and Sally, who have had difficulty because Fred can sometimes be inconsiderate to Sally's feelings. They talk about this at great length. Fred knows that it is because he is overworked and becomes insensitive when he is stressed. They both wish to change the situation. They decide that Fred will try and cut down his work hours to become less stressed but also that Sally must point out when Fred is being inconsiderate, as he doesn’t always know when he is doing it. Therefore at times Sally expresses the judgement “Fred, you are being inconsiderate” yet this is not destructive to their relationship. On the contrary, Fred feels very grateful that he has been given an opportunity to recognise his behaviour and improve his relationship. He feels as though he is being treated like a human being who is capable of responsibility and agency.

Situations like Fred's and Sally's are rare, but they nonetheless serve my purpose in showing that one may express a judgement and not damage the quality of one's relationship, according to the transformative philosophy. In NVC this is never the case. For Rosenberg, Sally would be alienated from her needs and feelings were she to say “Fred, you are being inconsiderate.”

Aims and Objectives

Aside from the theory, what about the spirit of NVC? Is it not just the same as TM? Do both not aim at improving relationships, allowing people to communicate in a way that they might be heard? Both encourage openness, responsiveness and both aim to give individuals a feeling of strength and confidence about difficult relationships in life. Rosenberg talks about living in such a way that one is “giving from the heart”, whereby one can enjoy maximum freedom and kindness in relationships. For this he suggests that we learn to say what we want, so that we are not acting out of duty or coercion. Is this not the same as what goes on in TM whereby empowered agents act with confidence, expressing what they feel and what they want? Is “giving from the heart” not another way of talking about the trust and openness that parties can find in a transformative mediation?

This apparent similarity between TM and NVC is superficial, and does not imply that one could incorporate NVC practices into one's transformative practice. There are two key ways of interpreting the objectives of NVC, and that neither interpretation is consistent with the transformative philosophy.

Interpretation one: NVC as Reframing

When Rosenberg talks about judgements and criticism, he tells us what they really mean. That is to say that there is a true psychological meaning to my words that I am not aware of at the time, namely that my judgements are, in fact, unexpressed feelings and needs. As a consequence of understanding the world this way, NVC prescribes that one reframe one's words to fit their true meaning. For example, “he is vicious” really means that when I see him thumping people it makes me feel pain because I have a need for those around me to be free from physical danger.

This stands in stark contrast to F&B's comments on the role of confusion in TM:

“[a] hallmark of transformative practice is allowing, and sometimes even encouraging, the parties to explore the sources of their confusion and uncertainty. In practical terms, this means that the intervener is willing to “follow the parties round” as they talk through and discover for themselves what is at stake, how they see the situation, what they believe the other party is up to and how they see viable options. The mediator is happy with having the parties take considerable time to sort through what the conflict is about; and he can accept the lack of closure, if the disputants cannot settle on a clear sense of what the past has been about and what the future should be.”

Thus, client confusion is not something that the mediator should feel uncomfortable with or that he needs to fix. It might be valid to reflect the parties' own sense of confusion back to them, but this is very different to prescribing how they may reframe their words.

Interpretation Two: NVC as Exemplifying Positive Communication

Even if NVC involves reframing, that is not the whole picture. It seems to be about much more than just a process of language. What if Rosenberg was trying to say that NVC is less about learning a script and more about building an image to represent the spirit of an open and honest communication? This interpretation seems most likely when looking at Rosenberg’s distinction between requests and demands. When one learns to request rather than demand, one understands that what distinguishes a request from a demand is not in the semantic content of the language. Rather it lies in the NVC-er’s willingness to hear yes, no or maybe. That is to say, a true request is determined by a certain spirit of trust, openness and compassion for someone else’s choices. One cannot reframe one's demand into a request by merely tweaking one's language. Therefore, maybe it is crude to suppose that NVC is asking us to merely edit, correct or reframe our communication. The interpretation that I am making is that NVC offers us an example of the ideal communication that is full of responsibility, freedom and compassion.

However, this interpretation still does not imply that a transformative mediator could incorporate NVC methods into her practice. For a transformative practitioner does not aim at her clients adopting the ideal communication. It is for the disputants to decide where they wish to go. Then it is the mediator's role to support the clients in their desire to get to where they want, but it is not the mediator's responsibility to get the parties to where they themselves think that the parties would best be. Following the parties means yielding control and allowing the parties the opportunity for agency. Central to the transformative philosophy is this idea that people can make their own choices with clarity and confidence.

The Disputants' Expectations

NVC frequently pitches itself as the “win-win” approach to resolving conflicts. If I were to make a literal-minded interpretation of what it is that underlies the use of “win-win” rhetoric then I would say that NVC assumes that human beings see the value of human social interaction in cost-benefit terms. As is the case in game theory, an agent only engages in human relationship inasmuch as it to their gain. When a relationship's losses outweighs its gains, then we are not interested. Therefore by pitching “win-win” solutions, NVC appeals to people’s implicit desire to win.

However, this interpretation is surely too literal. Consider for example how NVC's “giving from the heart” involves opening up, being vulnerable and creating trust. Such states cannot be conjured when someone is playing a game whereby one tries to beat one's opponent. I believe that the most sensible interpretation of NVC’s use of “win-win” rhetoric is that it tries to present an image of conflict resolution whereby both disputants can feel as though their needs are met, or at least counted as important. As opposed to a win-lose scenario whereby one person's needs or rights trump another’s.

On the subject of what clients most want when dealing with conflict, TM gives the following contrast:

“According to transformative theory, what people find most significant about conflict is not that it frustrates their satisfaction of some right, interest, or pursuit, no matter how important, but that it leads and even forces them to behave towards themselves in ways that they find uncomfortable and even repellent. More specifically it alienates them from their sense of their own strength and their sense of connection with others, thereby disrupting and undermining the interaction between them as human beings.”

As an account of client motivation this is nowhere near as specific as asserting that people wish for win-win situations. The claim is more general than this – that there is an impulse for agency and connection that clients have (to greater and lesser degrees) when involved in mediation. Nonetheless in practical terms this still entails that a transformative mediator's role is to listen to what the client wants from a mediation and then to support her in following that. His role is not to decide that what she wants is a “win-win” outcome.

Granted, within transformative mediation there is talk about having a positive conception of human beings. However, this does not mean that a mediator is to assume that his clients have the best intentions. One does not suppose that having a positive conception of clients' motives implies that they actually have the best of intentions for mediation, but rather they have the capacity for a transformative interpersonal interaction. This is to say that one does not suppose that a self-absorbed client is somehow fundamentally self-absorbed. Self-absorption is temporary, and people can become more responsive. TM makes no such commitment to second-guessing the motives of client. In the way that NVC appeals to people's “win-win” motivation.

Is Conflict Morally Undesirable?

TM explains conflict as "a crisis in human interaction." As we have seen earlier, NVC views conflict interaction as a state of alienation from one's compassionate nature. From this it would be easy to make the assumption that NVC and TM feel that conflict ought to be avoided or minimised. However, once you dig deeper you begin to see that NVC places an evaluation on conflict, whereas TM does not make any judgements as to the value of conflict. Although phrases like "crisis in human interaction" seem to cast conflict as something morally undesirable, I believe that this would be to take a superficial reading of the TM framework. When one reads F&B's writing further, one sees a deeper meaning. Whilst they are not hiding from the fact that conflict is disruptive and unpleasant, they are not committing themselves to a normative position. They talk about how conflict is temporary in that they acknowledge that human beings do have a capacity for anger, cruelty and defensiveness, but humans also have a capacity for openness, reflection and responsiveness. A conflict interaction is just an expression of one of the many human capacities and so should not be taken to mean anything definitive about the moral connotations of conflict. The only moral position taken by F&B in this way is the idea that conflict is an opportunity for moral development, e.g. empathy, clarity and decision making are all essential to ones ethical practices. However this idea does not come at the expense of demonizing conflict or viewing it as an expression of a fallen state. 

 

Another point to further the interpretation that F&B do not place an evaluation on conflict is that they recognise that conflict is inevitable. For them conflict will naturally be incurred in any world in which there is difference. Where Rosenberg views conflict to be a betrayal of our human nature, for F&B it is an expression of one particular aspect of the fact that we live in the world with others and we are only human.

In order to amend the damage of conflict, Rosenberg thinks that it is best to view conflict as negative. For him, if one can understand how one is "life-alienated" during the conflict, then one will be moved to act in a way that is "life-affirming" by practising NVC. However, a transformative mediator supports conflicting parties without making any such evaluation. In other words, for Rosenberg there is a motivational function for deeming conflict as “life-alienating”, whereas a transformative mediator does not seek motivation from a position that conflict is somehow wrong.

The implications of withholding any evaluation of conflict in TM can be clearly seen when F&B describe there being “facts in the feelings” of the disputants. Here they say that a transformative mediator ought not to try to stifle or avoid expressions of conflict. Instead the mediator should think that there is something meaningful in the parties' heated interaction, especially when it comes to making interventions. They encourage that one ought not to see anger, hurt and frustration as a kind of noise that is obscuring the 'real issues'. On the contrary, the very purpose of a transformative mediator's work is directed towards the quality of interaction. Therefore a transformative mediator is especially interested in anger, hurt and frustration, he does not see these emotions as secondary.