Is the intention of giving empathy the only thing that matters?
“Behind every concept of right and wrong, there is a field. I’ll meet you there”
A famous quote by the poet Rumi, which captures the essence of NVC (nonviolent communication). In NVC, the premise is to connect. To see the humanness; the feelings, needs, and values behind every opinion, judgment, and behavior. I love Rumi's quote, and I love this about NVC. The process allows us to connect first, to listen deeply. To make the person we perceive as an enemy feel heard and seen even though we don´t agree with them. I was a regular on reflective listening circles for a while, which covered mostly political topics. I listened to people with different opinions express their views on environmental issues, privilege, and immigration. The focus was to learn how to make the other person feel heard first and then self-express. It taught me about nuance; complex issues don´t have straight answers. It also taught me to see the human behind the opinion.
To see the humanness in people in regard to opinions and conflict in an already established relationship is a valuable resource. It´s more conducive to focus on connecting first in these aspects. But sometimes, I see NVC practitioners and teachers taking it too far. I´ve seen teachers put newbies in zoom breakout rooms to practice empathy, with vague guidance, “there is no right or wrong” and “just have the intention to hold space”. Maybe these teachers don´t want to scare beginners away, maybe they want to make sure that these newbies feel that they are good enough, and maybe the teachers are uneducated in the process. But what happens when people don´t get clear guidance on what to do? When they don´t know what is expected of them? When they have different opinions on what empathy is? No clear direction and no common strategy. It´s like serving them conflict. I don´t know how many empathy exchanges I´ve had where I went out thinking, who taught this person about NVC empathy? I´ve seen people end up triggered because they gave for example unsolicited advice, the person receiving it told them that they only want empathy, and now they feel hurt, defensive, confused, and even insulted. They now need empathy. And from what I´ve seen, they are not told that advice blocks empathy, so they repeat. It could have been prevented with clear guidance.
Nowadays, when I hear a practitioner or teacher say “there is no right or wrong” I use different strategies to manage the situation.
- I leave
2. If I have space, I lower my expectations. People are not gonna be skilled here so I need to only ask for empathy on topics that are not very vulnerable to me.
3. I offer to teach or only to listen to people, and not share anything myself.
4. If I know people in the group who are skilled, I try to end up with them for empathy.
I remember listening to a video by Liv Larsson, a Swedish NVC teacher, author, and veteran in the process, doing a quick introduction, explaining ( paraphrasing ) “some people say that NVC is only about intention, and it's NOT. It’s a specific process” And I was like:
Halleluja. I´m validated.
Because, to be honest, hearing somebody say “there is no right and wrong” when it comes to learning something new has felt really off. I´m gonna use the example of teaching people to play football. You don´t give them a ball and say “kick on it, there is no right and wrong. It’s the intention of playing football that counts” and leave them to figure things out on their own. Sure, maybe they are gonna have fun, kicking the ball. But some of them are maybe gonna start throwing it around or even run away with it. Maybe one person is gonna monopolize the ball, not including anyone. Maybe they will try doing what they´ve seen on TV, but end up in disagreement because there are no rules, no right or wrong. It’s the intention that counts.
It sounds weird, doesn´t it? This is what a lot of NVC practitioners/teachers do. And then people wonder why NVC is not working, why some in the community can´t get along.
“The road to hell is paved by good intentions”
I often think of that quote when I encounter NVC practitioners/teachers that say that the intention is the only thing that matters. I doesn´t. Skill matters. Knowledge matters. Consent matters. Clear requests matter. A common strategy matters. How many hurtful things have been done in the name of “I had good intentions?” The intention has very little significance with no skill or knowledge. According to studies published in the Swedish paper Illustrerad vetenskap, humans misjudge their empathic capabilities. A great reason to not focus on intention and more on skill. And we are talking about empathy here, not football. Giving empathy and listening to people in pain is a very delicate process. I´m amazed that people go into empathy sessions, with very little skill and knowledge, and then get hurt because it didn´t feel good to the other person. Are these people aware of what it means to open up and be vulnerable? I´m amazed at how careless practitioners/teachers are approaching this enormous responsibility you have when giving empathy.
Learning something new is HARD, and being corrected is a part of it. It involves a little bit of shame and a lot of “oops”. If you think learning is gonna be all fluffy puffy, easy peasy, connecting, with no difficult emotions involved, you are in for banging your head against a wall. Learning involves pain, sweat, and time. If you want to be good at something and get results, you need to learn it the right way. If I´m lifting weights and it hurts, do I get defensive, scream and blame the machine and demand it feel sorry for me, and then go about doing it exactly as I did, again? What I see in the NVC community is a lot of enabling incorrect use of the process, in the name of “there is no right or wrong”. That concerns me.
So, shouldn´t we connect with these people first, and see their humanness? Well. I think that a lot of NVC people want to view this as the “correct” approach. But if we don´t start with a shared knowledge of what empathy and NVC is and what it´s not, it´s gonna create unnecessary rifts. The conflict that practitioners/teachers are trying to avoid by not giving clear guidance and correcting people when it’s not followed, is gonna create more conflict in the long run. We need a right and wrong here. That does not mean that we are horrible if we get it wrong. It just means that we need more practice. We are gonna feel uncomfortable until we learn. It’s just a part of walking a new path.
If somebody runs around with a football in their arms, it’s not playing football. If somebody doesn´t want to study the main pillars of NVC and prefers doing whatever they want, it’s not NVC. You don´t see a football player screaming and crying at a football game, because the rules are limiting his authentic expression, making him unfree. If he feels like running around the fence and make duck sounds, that’s what he´s gonna do. Because he wants to go with the flow. Right? So why do we allow NVC ers to run around like hens with no heads?
