Today I went in to see a counselor I am currently working with, and we talked about how in my family, people are pretty scared of anger, so much so that if I express any anger, my aunts get pretty triggered and start talking about only wanting to be around happy people. During our discussion I remembered an insight I had a few years ago, about how for most people anger and violence are so linked, they seem almost synonymous. So much so, that I have caught myself saying, "I want to slap that person," when I was angry, even though I didn't really want to. I had just learned (mainly from another particular aunt who frequently made such statements) that that is how you express anger. But if you really look at it, they don't have to be linked! They are not the same thing.
In doing social change work, part of the journey is working with intense emotions. Anyone who has gone to a big rally of any sort will know that. There is yelling on both sides, from the protesters and counter-protesters. (Anger is not the only feeling present for activism--there are others just as important, if not more so, hidden underneath the anger, such as fear and grief and pain for all those who suffer at the hands of our current economic/political systems, but I would like to come back to this more in another blog.)
Activists who embrace nonviolence have already realized that although they are angry, they don't want to express it in ways that perpetuate more and more pain. We tend to think, though, that violence is only a physical act. However, most activists would agree that when a president gives an order for bombs to be dropped on civilians living near an alleged terrorist hideout, the president was being violent. He did not participate in the physical violence. His words led to it, even the thought process that led him to think that bombing people was the best response to the situation.
Over the past 7 years I have become thoroughly convinced that how we think about conflict as well as every word we utter has a profound impact on the degree of violence we experience in our lives and in the world. That is why I am so inspired when I sit with a group of people who have committed themselves to the path of Nonviolent Communication, for example the NorCal NVC Steering Committee of which I am a part. When I sit in a circle with these people, whether for empathy or business, sometimes I get this thrilling feeling that is a cousin to falling in love--the thrill of actually having hope for the world.This is because I have seen how we respond to conflict nonviolently, or at least tried our damnedest, with each other and others in our lives. If what is true on the microcosm is also true on the macrocosm, then forming more circles of people such as this gives me hope for a miracle.
A few years ago I got really into reading Derrick Jensen for a few months with my roommate at the time. Although I feel a true sense of companionship to that man in terms of intense care for the world, I realized after a while why I was so uncomfortable with his response to the world's problems. He truly believed in the victim/perpetrator model of human interaction, and applied this model to the state/corporations and the Earth, which of course isn't exactly a new idea. But the longer I've lived my life, the more I've seen that the victim/perpetrator model is not one that accurately represents reality. Just one of many examples: with my current partner, who is one of the most communicative men I've ever met, I have had friends and even professionals encourage me to end the relationship, because I complained about some aspect of it.
One time I called a support hotline, because I just needed someone to talk to, and the woman was very quick to label my partner as emotionally abusive. In NVC we call this "feeding the fire"--fueling the person's judgments and resentment, contributing to the clouding of their best discernment. This woman had no idea of what was really going on in my life--she heard my unprocessed version of events, when I was angry in a particular moment, and jumped to all sorts of conclusions based on this model she thought was universally applicable. I imagine if Jonah had called and given her his version of events, she would have said that I was the emotionally abusive one! This way of thinking is all about taking sides. But any marriage/relationship therapist will tell you, "You can be right, or you can be happy." Making relationships work is all about cooperation, collaboration, and seeing the other's humanity--not proving who is wrong.
While we can choose who we want to work through intimate relationship challenges with, we don't get to choose who we share the planet with--unless of course you just kill those you don't like, obviously a popular response currently. I think there may be some other, dare I say better?, ways to deal with our interpersonal conflict, on all scales. There is much talk these days of moving from an individualist culture to a collectivist one, because collectivist cultures in general are more sustainable, ecologically and psychologically. For this reason, I invite you to join me for the online and teleconference course "Sharing Power & Advocating Effectively," offered through the University of Earth and starting for the first time March 27th 2013. To register contact Rich Silver at rich@uofearth.org or 530-638-6325. Space is limited so call now!
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Fighting the Republican Terrorists
A few years ago I had this amazing experience. I was standing in line at the movie theatre with my partner, waiting to see Avatar, and somehow the woman behind us started talking to me about politics. It seemed we generally disagreed at first, but I did something I'd wanted to do for a long time--I used my empathy skills, to triy to connect with her fears and concerns.
With the tools of NVC I was able to do this without indicating agreement or disagreement, simply giving her the experience of being heard. If I noticed any points of agreement, I made sure to highlight those. Then, once I sensed some openness in her, I occasionally inserted a question or perspective of my own that was somewhat challenging her ideas on how to deal with the country's problems--and I had the miraculous experience of being listened to instead of argued with! She met my respectful listening with the same.
By the time the line started moving to go into the movie, I had the sense that I had just had one of the most meaningful conversations of my life. I had dreamed of this for years, ever since I heard of NVC--using empathy to navigate political conflicts--but until that moment I hadn't really applied it. This was partially because I tend to surround myself with friends who agree with me politically, so there was never a chance. It wasn't until a year and a half later that I would actually seek out this kind of challenging conversation.
This was when some local Tea Party activists were trying to pass Measure A in my town, which would have changed the election dates for city council members to a few weeks after finals--discouraging university students from swinging the vote towards the liberal end of the spectrum. My whole town was fired up about this; name calling was spewing from all sides, and even my roommate who was working on the No on A campaign could vent for hours about the evils of the Republicans.
At the time I was partnering with Jonah, my boyfriend from paragraph one, to facilitate a group called Grounding Spirit, which was designed as a safe space for people to process their overwhelm and other feelings about the state of the world with all its crises. After one particularly cathartic evening of this, it came to me that the best thing I could do was approach the Measure A proponents and attempt to converse with them nonviolently, to reconcile with each other's humanity, even if we disagreed politically.
I went up to their booth at the next Farmer's Market, and had a very pleasant interaction, despite firmly stating my intention to vote No on the measure. These people were actually quite friendly to me and I enjoyed talking with them. One member, who was also the president of the university's Republican club, agreed to meet with me to discuss how we could make local politics more respectful and collaborative. Although nothing immediately tangible came of it, I feel that I made a very friendly acquaintance, and we continue to amicably chat with one another when we run into each other around town or on campus. I am hopeful that I can build more relationships such as this, that this can contribute to a peaceful revolution--one where, through dialogue, we--liberals, conservatives, anarchists, and everyone else--admit that things are not working very well for most people, and together find new ways of doing things.
I find myself discouraged when I see the very same people who are opposing war with bombs and bullets abroad waging war at home with verbal attacks. I wonder how we will ever have peace if we don't find a way to respond to conflict peacefully, no matter how passionate we are about a cause. When "fighting the Republicans" becomes as sacrosanct a mission as "fighting the terrorists," I don't think we are really changing anything.
I would love to find more people who want to delve deep into communicating nonviolently for social change. If this is you, I invite you to join me for the class, "Sharing Power and Advocating Effectively" that I am offering through the grassroots wisdom school University of Earth starting March 27th. For more information or to register you can contact Rich Silver: rich@UofEarth.org / 530 368-6325. Space is limited so sign up soon!
With the tools of NVC I was able to do this without indicating agreement or disagreement, simply giving her the experience of being heard. If I noticed any points of agreement, I made sure to highlight those. Then, once I sensed some openness in her, I occasionally inserted a question or perspective of my own that was somewhat challenging her ideas on how to deal with the country's problems--and I had the miraculous experience of being listened to instead of argued with! She met my respectful listening with the same.
By the time the line started moving to go into the movie, I had the sense that I had just had one of the most meaningful conversations of my life. I had dreamed of this for years, ever since I heard of NVC--using empathy to navigate political conflicts--but until that moment I hadn't really applied it. This was partially because I tend to surround myself with friends who agree with me politically, so there was never a chance. It wasn't until a year and a half later that I would actually seek out this kind of challenging conversation.
This was when some local Tea Party activists were trying to pass Measure A in my town, which would have changed the election dates for city council members to a few weeks after finals--discouraging university students from swinging the vote towards the liberal end of the spectrum. My whole town was fired up about this; name calling was spewing from all sides, and even my roommate who was working on the No on A campaign could vent for hours about the evils of the Republicans.
At the time I was partnering with Jonah, my boyfriend from paragraph one, to facilitate a group called Grounding Spirit, which was designed as a safe space for people to process their overwhelm and other feelings about the state of the world with all its crises. After one particularly cathartic evening of this, it came to me that the best thing I could do was approach the Measure A proponents and attempt to converse with them nonviolently, to reconcile with each other's humanity, even if we disagreed politically.
I went up to their booth at the next Farmer's Market, and had a very pleasant interaction, despite firmly stating my intention to vote No on the measure. These people were actually quite friendly to me and I enjoyed talking with them. One member, who was also the president of the university's Republican club, agreed to meet with me to discuss how we could make local politics more respectful and collaborative. Although nothing immediately tangible came of it, I feel that I made a very friendly acquaintance, and we continue to amicably chat with one another when we run into each other around town or on campus. I am hopeful that I can build more relationships such as this, that this can contribute to a peaceful revolution--one where, through dialogue, we--liberals, conservatives, anarchists, and everyone else--admit that things are not working very well for most people, and together find new ways of doing things.
I find myself discouraged when I see the very same people who are opposing war with bombs and bullets abroad waging war at home with verbal attacks. I wonder how we will ever have peace if we don't find a way to respond to conflict peacefully, no matter how passionate we are about a cause. When "fighting the Republicans" becomes as sacrosanct a mission as "fighting the terrorists," I don't think we are really changing anything.
I would love to find more people who want to delve deep into communicating nonviolently for social change. If this is you, I invite you to join me for the class, "Sharing Power and Advocating Effectively" that I am offering through the grassroots wisdom school University of Earth starting March 27th. For more information or to register you can contact Rich Silver: rich@UofEarth.org / 530 368-6325. Space is limited so sign up soon!
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
How Do We Create An Egalitarian Society?
Last Fall, on the one-year anniversary of the Occupy movement, C.T. Butler spoke with our local Occupiers about the importance of egalitarian decision-making structures, among other things. I have long been a fan of the consensus process, on which he wrote the book, and I'm in complete agreement with him on the importance of collaborative communication processes. There was one thing that I disagreed with him about though: the idea that in order to be an effective movement, we have to define who is in the movement and who is not. He said this would be demarcated by goals or values, that it doesn't make sense to try to collaborate with people who have different goals.
While I see his point in terms of efficiency, order, and perhaps even safety for the members of a cause, I think any kind of exclusion defeats the purpose of the Occupy movement, and in general the kind of movement I would like to see happen--one where as an entire society, we come together with our neighbors and community members to re-evaluate how we are going about business as usual, and see how we could do it better--for all of us. I don't think consensus alone is going to work for this endeavor, because it automatically excludes people who are more familiar and trusting of "power-over" decision-making methods such as majority rules (democracy) or executive orders (dictatorships).
Unfortunately I don't think there is an easy, painless way to go about including everyone, but I think the tools of Nonviolent Communication (NVC) can help, because unlike consensus, NVC does not require buy-in from all parties to facilitate egalitarian conflict resolution and decision-making. Certainly these things would be easier if all parties were using NVC, but not downright impossible as in the case of the consensus-based GA's, where those not skilled in the process with a lot to say could disrupt an agenda so much the best solution we could think of locally (and in many other places, that I've heard) was to ask them to leave.
What I love about Nonviolent Communication is that it offers tools to work collaboratively with whoever shows up, even if they are initially unfamiliar or uncomfortable with egalitarian models of decision-making. Because how can we truly have a successful society if we don't include everyone? Then those people who aren't included will just organize into a warring faction...legally, verbally, or physically.
For example take someone who is against the environmental movement. It might be easy to think that those of us who value the integrity of our ecosystems cannot work with someone who does not. However, NVC would teach us to identify the universal human needs that both parties share. These may be: hope for the future, security & safety, freedom/choice/autonomy, respect, and consideration (of self or others, including other species). Many of these would needs would apply on both sides of the debate, so that at this point it stops being an either/or dilemma where one side is asked to sacrifice for the other (either jobs and the economy or wildlife and habitat) but a process of integrating the concerns of all affected beings.
Obviously this is actually quite similar to consensus in principle and in ideal outcomes; the process is simply different and more inclusive because even one highly skilled person using NVC could direct a group towards this kind of conversation, without all of them agreeing to participate in any particular structured process. NVC has a bit more flexibility in terms of negotiating specific situations.
Of course I still value consensus a lot and think it's a crucial tool for sustaining an egalitarian culture, which is why I'm including it in the upcoming distance-learning class I'm facilitating for the University of Earth, in which I will mainly be sharing Nonviolent Communication and how to apply it for social change. This has been my passion for many years, ever since I learned of Marshall Rosenberg (founder of NVC) and his work doing mediation in war-torn areas such as the Middle East and Rwanda. With NVC, I have sincere hope for the possibility of a better future.
If this you would like to learn more about NVC, I invite you to join me for this combination online/teleclass called "Sharing Power & Advocating Effectively: Essential Tools for Sustaining an Egalitarian Society," which will go from March 27th to May 30th. For more info contact me (Meagan, 530-205-3569) or to register contact Rich at University of Earth (rich@UofEarth.org / 530 368-6325).
While I see his point in terms of efficiency, order, and perhaps even safety for the members of a cause, I think any kind of exclusion defeats the purpose of the Occupy movement, and in general the kind of movement I would like to see happen--one where as an entire society, we come together with our neighbors and community members to re-evaluate how we are going about business as usual, and see how we could do it better--for all of us. I don't think consensus alone is going to work for this endeavor, because it automatically excludes people who are more familiar and trusting of "power-over" decision-making methods such as majority rules (democracy) or executive orders (dictatorships).
Unfortunately I don't think there is an easy, painless way to go about including everyone, but I think the tools of Nonviolent Communication (NVC) can help, because unlike consensus, NVC does not require buy-in from all parties to facilitate egalitarian conflict resolution and decision-making. Certainly these things would be easier if all parties were using NVC, but not downright impossible as in the case of the consensus-based GA's, where those not skilled in the process with a lot to say could disrupt an agenda so much the best solution we could think of locally (and in many other places, that I've heard) was to ask them to leave.
What I love about Nonviolent Communication is that it offers tools to work collaboratively with whoever shows up, even if they are initially unfamiliar or uncomfortable with egalitarian models of decision-making. Because how can we truly have a successful society if we don't include everyone? Then those people who aren't included will just organize into a warring faction...legally, verbally, or physically.
For example take someone who is against the environmental movement. It might be easy to think that those of us who value the integrity of our ecosystems cannot work with someone who does not. However, NVC would teach us to identify the universal human needs that both parties share. These may be: hope for the future, security & safety, freedom/choice/autonomy, respect, and consideration (of self or others, including other species). Many of these would needs would apply on both sides of the debate, so that at this point it stops being an either/or dilemma where one side is asked to sacrifice for the other (either jobs and the economy or wildlife and habitat) but a process of integrating the concerns of all affected beings.
Obviously this is actually quite similar to consensus in principle and in ideal outcomes; the process is simply different and more inclusive because even one highly skilled person using NVC could direct a group towards this kind of conversation, without all of them agreeing to participate in any particular structured process. NVC has a bit more flexibility in terms of negotiating specific situations.
Of course I still value consensus a lot and think it's a crucial tool for sustaining an egalitarian culture, which is why I'm including it in the upcoming distance-learning class I'm facilitating for the University of Earth, in which I will mainly be sharing Nonviolent Communication and how to apply it for social change. This has been my passion for many years, ever since I learned of Marshall Rosenberg (founder of NVC) and his work doing mediation in war-torn areas such as the Middle East and Rwanda. With NVC, I have sincere hope for the possibility of a better future.
If this you would like to learn more about NVC, I invite you to join me for this combination online/teleclass called "Sharing Power & Advocating Effectively: Essential Tools for Sustaining an Egalitarian Society," which will go from March 27th to May 30th. For more info contact me (Meagan, 530-205-3569) or to register contact Rich at University of Earth (rich@UofEarth.org / 530 368-6325).
Monday, February 4, 2013
Healing = Empathy
I was looking through the journals that are a part of the curriculum for the Bay NVC Leadership Program, and came upon this question: What is your understanding of NVC empathy? I have answered this question so many times that I just glossed over it, as I would a worksheet with the question: 2 +2 = ?. I have such an emotional feel for what empathy is, that the word and the feeling that goes along with it are one and the same, just as 2 + 2 and 4 actually feel like the same exact thing, there is no difference between them, so its pointless to translate.
As I continued to look through the journal prompts, though, I felt some discomfort arise in me. If I want to teach NVC, I better be able to explain what empathy is verbally, since I can't communicate this felt sense telepathically. So I started trying to write how I felt when I thought of NVC empathy. What came up to the surface is that empathy is healing. Soon I realized that to me, they seem like synonyms. Empathy is healing and healing is empathy.
What is healing? Think of all the healing tools you've ever heard of: massage, EFT, even a hug. All of these things have an empathic element to them. They allow space. They say yes, when they are effective. The massage therapist says "yes" to the pain, by being gentle with what hurts, providing movement and touch that works with the pain, rather than against it. EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) also says yes, yes to our realities, loving and accepting all our of our thoughts, feelings, and sensations. And a hug definitely says "yes," definitely allows space.
Empathy is spaciousness, spaciousness for whatever is real, and in that space, healing occurs. I might go so far as to say that it is the only time when healing can occur. Other treatments--approaches that say "no" to the experience, such as certain types of affirmations, or any type of healing arts practitioner that says no, don't work, they make it worse. Think of a massage practitioner who keeps applying pressure when you say it hurts--not only would that be wildly out of standard protocol, most people experiencing it would probably not go back to that therapist, not feeling physically safe with them.
Similarly, listening, to be empathy, must say "yes." Not agreement, as we always say in the NVC community, but validation of the person's experience. Agreement that they are having that experience, feeling what they feel! That is why when I think of empathy, I think of healing. Because skilled NVC empathy, in my experience, can accomplish what all these other approaches can, combined--its not specialized like some healing arts, its broadly applicable. It can give a sense of healing to almost any sort of emotional pain, whether a harsh word from a co-worker or the trauma of childhood abuse
Of course NVC teaches techniques to convey this sense of "allowing" using words, and they are very supportive. It's hard to know how to say yes to someone's experience without agreeing with their perspective, if you don't have the tools. If you would like to experience the healing power of saying yes to our experience, and you live in Chico or surrounding areas, join NorCal NVC for one of our upcoming events. I'm doing the following intros this month (February 2013):
"But I Don't Communicate Violently!"
An open introduction to NVC's basic concepts and consciousness. Feb. 16th 5-7:30pm, 2155 Park Ave
Needs Awareness for Direction & Empowerment
Feb. 20th, 2:30-5pm, 2155 Park Ave. A 9 week series will follow this free introduction.
Weekly Drop-in Class: Honoring the Antsy Mind
An empathic meditation class, Fridays (Feb. 8th, 15th, 22nd) 5-6:30pm
For other events that are more current (if you are reading this in the future! Woah time travel!) check out norcalnvc.org
As I continued to look through the journal prompts, though, I felt some discomfort arise in me. If I want to teach NVC, I better be able to explain what empathy is verbally, since I can't communicate this felt sense telepathically. So I started trying to write how I felt when I thought of NVC empathy. What came up to the surface is that empathy is healing. Soon I realized that to me, they seem like synonyms. Empathy is healing and healing is empathy.
What is healing? Think of all the healing tools you've ever heard of: massage, EFT, even a hug. All of these things have an empathic element to them. They allow space. They say yes, when they are effective. The massage therapist says "yes" to the pain, by being gentle with what hurts, providing movement and touch that works with the pain, rather than against it. EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) also says yes, yes to our realities, loving and accepting all our of our thoughts, feelings, and sensations. And a hug definitely says "yes," definitely allows space.
Empathy is spaciousness, spaciousness for whatever is real, and in that space, healing occurs. I might go so far as to say that it is the only time when healing can occur. Other treatments--approaches that say "no" to the experience, such as certain types of affirmations, or any type of healing arts practitioner that says no, don't work, they make it worse. Think of a massage practitioner who keeps applying pressure when you say it hurts--not only would that be wildly out of standard protocol, most people experiencing it would probably not go back to that therapist, not feeling physically safe with them.
Similarly, listening, to be empathy, must say "yes." Not agreement, as we always say in the NVC community, but validation of the person's experience. Agreement that they are having that experience, feeling what they feel! That is why when I think of empathy, I think of healing. Because skilled NVC empathy, in my experience, can accomplish what all these other approaches can, combined--its not specialized like some healing arts, its broadly applicable. It can give a sense of healing to almost any sort of emotional pain, whether a harsh word from a co-worker or the trauma of childhood abuse
Of course NVC teaches techniques to convey this sense of "allowing" using words, and they are very supportive. It's hard to know how to say yes to someone's experience without agreeing with their perspective, if you don't have the tools. If you would like to experience the healing power of saying yes to our experience, and you live in Chico or surrounding areas, join NorCal NVC for one of our upcoming events. I'm doing the following intros this month (February 2013):
"But I Don't Communicate Violently!"
An open introduction to NVC's basic concepts and consciousness. Feb. 16th 5-7:30pm, 2155 Park Ave
Needs Awareness for Direction & Empowerment
Feb. 20th, 2:30-5pm, 2155 Park Ave. A 9 week series will follow this free introduction.
Weekly Drop-in Class: Honoring the Antsy Mind
An empathic meditation class, Fridays (Feb. 8th, 15th, 22nd) 5-6:30pm
For other events that are more current (if you are reading this in the future! Woah time travel!) check out norcalnvc.org
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The Freedom of Interdependence
I've been contemplating for weeks what I could write a blog about relevant to my workshop this weekend, Living Oneness in a Divided World. The inspiration for this workshop is the spirituality of Nonviolent Communication, but for me, NVC is so inherently 'spiritual' it's difficult to even explain how so.
What I love about NVC is how the people who are drawn to it seem to either already have or eventually develop an appreciation for our interdependence as humans, and more broadly as living beings. I had heard the word interdependence used in other contexts before I came across NVC, I think, but it isn't necesarily a commonly used word.
Two much more common terms are independence and co-dependence, the false dilemma of our times. I remember being told at fourteen years old, when I was sad about something a friend had said to me, that I was being co-dependent. I didn't even know what that meant, except that it obviously implied something was wrong with me. The meaning I made of this short interaction was that it wasn't OK for me to have any feelings about what someone else did, because then people wouldn't accept or respect me. Instead I should "not take things personally," be emotionally independent, or self-sufficient.
I took this so seriously that even after a major break-up two years later, I could hardly bring myself to confide in a close friend about my heartbreak, because I felt so guilty for having any emotions related to another person's actions at all. I was afraid of being once again labeled as co-dependent.
It has been incredibly liberating to me to learn the consciousness of Nonviolent Communication, which honors our feelings and our heart's desires, without making other people responsible for them. I have learned that acknowledging how others' actions have impacted me is not the same as blaming them or 'taking it personally' (thinking I am the cause of their actions).
This makes a lot of sense to me in terms of interdependence, or the more religious phrases oneness or unity. To try to live as though I am impervious to the world around me, unmoved in the face of any and all stimuli, is to reinforce the illusion of a separate, distinct self--the very definition of ego.
Instead, I like to think that when we have a response to the people in our lives, it is the same as my heart speeding up because my legs are running, or a tree's leaves drying out because there aren't enough water around its roots-- or a mudslide occurring because an area was clearcut.
There is definitely a balancing act in seeing this interconnectedness while also releasing blame of others. I certainly have not mastered it, and believe I will work on it for the rest of my life. However I find it highly preferable to trying to pretend that I can somehow ignore my feelings about what others are doing and all that is going on in my life if I simply chastise myself to stop being co-dependent. In fact, the irony is that the more I attune with the energy of interdependence, the more inner resources I have to be independent at times.
If you would like to explore this growing edge of being a human with me, I invite you to come to my workshop this Sunday, at the Living Light Studio, 2155 Park Ave, Chico, CA, from 2-4:30pm. Whether you attend or not, I invite you to comment below on what this article did for you or how you relate to the concepts of interdependence and oneness.
What I love about NVC is how the people who are drawn to it seem to either already have or eventually develop an appreciation for our interdependence as humans, and more broadly as living beings. I had heard the word interdependence used in other contexts before I came across NVC, I think, but it isn't necesarily a commonly used word.
Two much more common terms are independence and co-dependence, the false dilemma of our times. I remember being told at fourteen years old, when I was sad about something a friend had said to me, that I was being co-dependent. I didn't even know what that meant, except that it obviously implied something was wrong with me. The meaning I made of this short interaction was that it wasn't OK for me to have any feelings about what someone else did, because then people wouldn't accept or respect me. Instead I should "not take things personally," be emotionally independent, or self-sufficient.
I took this so seriously that even after a major break-up two years later, I could hardly bring myself to confide in a close friend about my heartbreak, because I felt so guilty for having any emotions related to another person's actions at all. I was afraid of being once again labeled as co-dependent.
It has been incredibly liberating to me to learn the consciousness of Nonviolent Communication, which honors our feelings and our heart's desires, without making other people responsible for them. I have learned that acknowledging how others' actions have impacted me is not the same as blaming them or 'taking it personally' (thinking I am the cause of their actions).
This makes a lot of sense to me in terms of interdependence, or the more religious phrases oneness or unity. To try to live as though I am impervious to the world around me, unmoved in the face of any and all stimuli, is to reinforce the illusion of a separate, distinct self--the very definition of ego.
Instead, I like to think that when we have a response to the people in our lives, it is the same as my heart speeding up because my legs are running, or a tree's leaves drying out because there aren't enough water around its roots-- or a mudslide occurring because an area was clearcut.
There is definitely a balancing act in seeing this interconnectedness while also releasing blame of others. I certainly have not mastered it, and believe I will work on it for the rest of my life. However I find it highly preferable to trying to pretend that I can somehow ignore my feelings about what others are doing and all that is going on in my life if I simply chastise myself to stop being co-dependent. In fact, the irony is that the more I attune with the energy of interdependence, the more inner resources I have to be independent at times.
If you would like to explore this growing edge of being a human with me, I invite you to come to my workshop this Sunday, at the Living Light Studio, 2155 Park Ave, Chico, CA, from 2-4:30pm. Whether you attend or not, I invite you to comment below on what this article did for you or how you relate to the concepts of interdependence and oneness.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Harry and Ron Reconcile Early!
This is a double-posting from my new blog at myhogwarts.com, a forum for Harry Potter nerds enthusiasts like myself. This will make a lot more sense if you have read the HP books, at least through book 4. If you have not, be warned that this contains spoilers!
I have contemplated the meeting point of the Harry Potter series and Nonviolent Communication for many years. I have been reading HP since I was 10 and studying NVC since I was 16. When I re-read the books after learning NVC, I noticed this deep pain in my heart at how difficult a time the characters had connecting through conflict. I so wanted them to hear each other and make up! One of the applications NVC has is mediation, and how I wished I could mediate them through their disputes. This is really my personal motivation for applying NVC in this way, to sort of pretend like I can do that, although it is probably a good way to study NVC as well. (For more info on NVC, look up Bay NVC and The Center for Nonviolent Communication).
So today I will start with one of the biggest and most painful fights in the whole series - when Harry, mysteriously chosen by the Goblet of Fire to be the fourth Hogwarts champion in the Triwizard Tournament, is then seemingly abandoned by Ron, who has apparently lost all trust in Harry's claims to ignorance about the matter.
What does Hermione have to say about this? Here is the exchange the she and Harry have the day after he is chosen.:
So we do have a pretty clear understanding of the situation, via Hermione. Now to put this into NVC terms, I will pretend that one of the two DO actually approach their best friend to attempt to make ends meet, and, let's say with NVC skills. Let's say it's Harry. What might he say? I will do this to immerse you, my blog reader, in NVC language, with only minimal notes on how its all put together.
(That scene where Harry comes into the dorm and Ron is either asleep or pretending to be. Instead of flopping down himself, he wakes Ron up.)
Harry: Ron, I really can't stand us fighting right now, will you talk to me for a moment? Come on, you're not really sleeping are you?
Ron: Why should I talk to you? You went behind my back and entered the Tournament without me!
Harry: (reflection/empathy) So you're suspicious about how my name got in there, and wishing for a friend you can trust?
Ron: (long pause) Well, I did think you would have told me how you did it! I mean, I can't even understand why you wouldn't tell me.
Harry: (reveals himself transparently) It's so hard to hear you say that Ron. I am having such a hard time right now. I really miss our friendship, especially right now with all the negative attention I'm getting. I wish you could trust me that I'm telling the truth.
Ron: (struck by this, but now having other, deeper stuff coming up to the surface) Even if you didn't put your name in, do you really mind all this 'negative' attention? You're probably going to win anyway. Then you'll get all the glory, as usual.
Harry: I think I understand what's going on, Ron. It's hard to be my friend, when I get so much attention all the time, even when we do things together, and you would like to be appreciated and respected for your own accomplishments?
Ron: Yeah, it's not easy being ignored all the time, shoved to the side as just another Weasley, or Harry Potter's sidekick.
Harry: (mourning) I'm really sorry that that's how things are for you Ron. I'm sorry that you thought I'd lied to you, or went behind your back, or tried to exclude you. I'm sad that there isn't more trust between us. You're my best mate and I want you to trust me. I appreciate Hermione, you know, but it's not the same without you.
Ron: (shifting, magically gaining NVC skills) I'm sorry Harry. I believe you. I really didn't think you put your name in, except for a bit at first. It just brought up all this stuff for me about being invisible. It's not your fault though. This must be hard for you too. Especially with me not talking to you.
Harry: (now revealing more, trusting Ron will hear him) Yeah, you know, I'm jealous of you too Ron. I know you don't believe me, but fame isn't all that great. No privacy, no room for failure because people have such high expectations of me.
Ron: (reflecting) It is hard for me to relate to not wanting to be recognized, but I think I can understand. With everyone always watching you, you probably just want a chance to relax.
Harry: Hah! Wouldn't that be nice! You're lucky to have some privacy, not to mention your family.
Ron: (empathizing) That's pretty painful, huh? That you're famous for something that happened because your parents died?
Harry: Believe me it is.
Ron: Thanks for waking me up Harry. I wasn't really sleeping, you know.
Harry: I didn't think so. Thanks for answering. It's nice to have you talking to me again.
Ron: Same here.
(And then, Ron reaches over and gently caresses Harry's face, tucking a lock of hair behind his ear as he leans forward....)
Oops. Just kidding. No, this is not one of *those* stories. But as you can see, a certain kind of intimacy is created by this sort of conversation, although it definitely does not have to be a romantic intimacy. Anyway, did you see how this kind of listening and expression could lead to quicker resolution of conflict, while still maintaining honesty? Or did you find it to be unrealistic? I actually do too, but I have been at the computer for hours and want to go stretch in the sunshine, so I did the quickie version. In real life (no pun intended) both of them might have spent a lot more time listening and reflecting what the other person is saying.
Please share any comments or questions below. And if you have a certain conflict from HP you'd like to see translated into NVC, let me know!
I have contemplated the meeting point of the Harry Potter series and Nonviolent Communication for many years. I have been reading HP since I was 10 and studying NVC since I was 16. When I re-read the books after learning NVC, I noticed this deep pain in my heart at how difficult a time the characters had connecting through conflict. I so wanted them to hear each other and make up! One of the applications NVC has is mediation, and how I wished I could mediate them through their disputes. This is really my personal motivation for applying NVC in this way, to sort of pretend like I can do that, although it is probably a good way to study NVC as well. (For more info on NVC, look up Bay NVC and The Center for Nonviolent Communication).
So today I will start with one of the biggest and most painful fights in the whole series - when Harry, mysteriously chosen by the Goblet of Fire to be the fourth Hogwarts champion in the Triwizard Tournament, is then seemingly abandoned by Ron, who has apparently lost all trust in Harry's claims to ignorance about the matter.
What does Hermione have to say about this? Here is the exchange the she and Harry have the day after he is chosen.:
- Quote, Ch. 18, Goblet of Fire:
"Oh Harry, isn't it obvious?" Hermione said despairingly. "He's jealous!"
"Jealous?" Harry said incredulously. "Jealous of what? He wants to make a prat of himself in front of the whole school, does he?"
"Look, " said Hermione patiently, "it's always you who gets all the attention, you know it is. I know it's not your fault, " she added quickly, seeing Harry open his mouth furiously. "I know you don't ask for it... But--well--you know, Ron's got all those brothers to compete against at home, and you're his best friend, and you're really famous--he's always shunted to one side whenever people see you, and he puts up with it, and he never mentions it, but I suppose this is just one time too many..."
"Great, " said Harry bitterly. "Really great. Tell him from me I'll swap any time he wants. Tell him from me he's welcome to it... People gawping at my forehead everywhere I go... "
"I'm not teiling him anything, " Hermione said shortly. "Tell him yourself. It's the only way to sort this out."
"I'm not running around after him trying to make him grow up!" Harry said, so loudly that severa lowls in a nearby tree took flight in alarm. "Maybe he'll believe I'm not enjoying myself once I've got my neck broken or--"
"That's not funny, " said Hermione quietly. "That's not funny at all. "
So we do have a pretty clear understanding of the situation, via Hermione. Now to put this into NVC terms, I will pretend that one of the two DO actually approach their best friend to attempt to make ends meet, and, let's say with NVC skills. Let's say it's Harry. What might he say? I will do this to immerse you, my blog reader, in NVC language, with only minimal notes on how its all put together.
(That scene where Harry comes into the dorm and Ron is either asleep or pretending to be. Instead of flopping down himself, he wakes Ron up.)
Harry: Ron, I really can't stand us fighting right now, will you talk to me for a moment? Come on, you're not really sleeping are you?
Ron: Why should I talk to you? You went behind my back and entered the Tournament without me!
Harry: (reflection/empathy) So you're suspicious about how my name got in there, and wishing for a friend you can trust?
Ron: (long pause) Well, I did think you would have told me how you did it! I mean, I can't even understand why you wouldn't tell me.
Harry: (reveals himself transparently) It's so hard to hear you say that Ron. I am having such a hard time right now. I really miss our friendship, especially right now with all the negative attention I'm getting. I wish you could trust me that I'm telling the truth.
Ron: (struck by this, but now having other, deeper stuff coming up to the surface) Even if you didn't put your name in, do you really mind all this 'negative' attention? You're probably going to win anyway. Then you'll get all the glory, as usual.
Harry: I think I understand what's going on, Ron. It's hard to be my friend, when I get so much attention all the time, even when we do things together, and you would like to be appreciated and respected for your own accomplishments?
Ron: Yeah, it's not easy being ignored all the time, shoved to the side as just another Weasley, or Harry Potter's sidekick.
Harry: (mourning) I'm really sorry that that's how things are for you Ron. I'm sorry that you thought I'd lied to you, or went behind your back, or tried to exclude you. I'm sad that there isn't more trust between us. You're my best mate and I want you to trust me. I appreciate Hermione, you know, but it's not the same without you.
Ron: (shifting, magically gaining NVC skills) I'm sorry Harry. I believe you. I really didn't think you put your name in, except for a bit at first. It just brought up all this stuff for me about being invisible. It's not your fault though. This must be hard for you too. Especially with me not talking to you.
Harry: (now revealing more, trusting Ron will hear him) Yeah, you know, I'm jealous of you too Ron. I know you don't believe me, but fame isn't all that great. No privacy, no room for failure because people have such high expectations of me.
Ron: (reflecting) It is hard for me to relate to not wanting to be recognized, but I think I can understand. With everyone always watching you, you probably just want a chance to relax.
Harry: Hah! Wouldn't that be nice! You're lucky to have some privacy, not to mention your family.
Ron: (empathizing) That's pretty painful, huh? That you're famous for something that happened because your parents died?
Harry: Believe me it is.
Ron: Thanks for waking me up Harry. I wasn't really sleeping, you know.
Harry: I didn't think so. Thanks for answering. It's nice to have you talking to me again.
Ron: Same here.
Oops. Just kidding. No, this is not one of *those* stories. But as you can see, a certain kind of intimacy is created by this sort of conversation, although it definitely does not have to be a romantic intimacy. Anyway, did you see how this kind of listening and expression could lead to quicker resolution of conflict, while still maintaining honesty? Or did you find it to be unrealistic? I actually do too, but I have been at the computer for hours and want to go stretch in the sunshine, so I did the quickie version. In real life (no pun intended) both of them might have spent a lot more time listening and reflecting what the other person is saying.
Please share any comments or questions below. And if you have a certain conflict from HP you'd like to see translated into NVC, let me know!
Friday, August 17, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)