Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

Nonviolent Communication Part 1 Marshall Rosenberg Erőszakmentes Kommunikáció 1.rész Marshall Rosenbeng

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
I started from the question of "How come some people enjoy other people's suffering, so that it makes violence enjoyable, so that people find it heroic to punish people that they judge as bad?" And then: "How come other people in the same society are just the opposite, they get their joy not in believing that there's bad people that need to be punished, but they get their joy in contributing the people's wellbeing?" So I then saw, that there was quite a different language, and quite a different consciousness on the part of people who behaved in the violent way as opposed to the compassionate way. And I decided to try to clarify that what is the nature of communication that helps us to connect in a way in which we enjoy contributing to each other's wellbeing. And how is that process of communication different in the people who contribute to the violence of others. Then after I developed Nonviolent Communcation which is the language and could be power usage that I saw contributing to compassionate interactions, I then wondered where the hell did we learn this other approach and then I got interested in where did it all begin where we learned the way of thinking and communicating that contributes to violence on our Planet And here scolars and scientists like Walter Wink, the theologian, in his book "The powers that be...? and others who share his perspective trace this back to about 8000 years ago

and various things happened I won't go into now, but we came out of it with organizing ourselves in terms where a few people who claimed to be superior, dominate others. Sometimes they based their superiority claiming that their family is born closer to God so they controlled on the basis of the divine rights of kings. But whatever it is, we started to live in cultures in which a few people claiming to be superior, dominated others. And that requires a language of domination. A language in which we classify people in terms of what they are, if they are peons or they are royalty, are they good, are they bad, are they normal, or abnormal. That way of thinking goes with domination because in the domination structure the people who claim to be on the top claim to know what is right and what is wrong, and they maintain their power through the use of power-over tactics, such as punishment, reward, guilt, shame, and so they need a language that justifies the use of punishment and reward, the language of retributive justice, in which you make judgements of what the other person deserves, and that is depending on how you judge them: are they good or bad, right or wrong, and so forth. So that's how I think it all began at about 8000 years ago, when we started to have domination structures in which a few people dominated many, before that when we were more in a hunter-gatherer style of society, people that I trust in their studies antropologically tell me, we didn't have violence in a way that we have since. So Nonviolent Communication now tries to get us back to what I take as a more natural way of communicating. I think, where we have gotten is an evolutionary snag where we have gotten stuck on the basis of some unfortunate learning over 8000 years and Nonviolent Communication helps us come back to life. back to a more natural way of living where there are evaluations around the basis of how our needs are served, are we meeting our needs and the needs of others. Rather than who is what, who is right or who is wrong, who's good and who's bad, no. Our needs getting met, and if not, what can we do, so that everyones needs get met. That's the language of Nonviolent Communication. Our training is based on the assumption that the kind of beliefs and judgements that people have, that led them to dehumanize one and other, and to deny each others rights, that language rethinked is a distortion of need language that people are trying to say: it is our needs are in danger. Some of our needs are in danger. But they are not given a language that helps them to say that so they go to justifying this on the basis of what their interpretation is, of what words were there written down centuries before, the Bible says, or the Koran says, and they then try to use these documents as justifying that they are right and the other side is wrong. So when I am mediating between two groups that are thinking that way, who are at war with each other, each time they use that kind of thinking I translate it into an unmet need. So when I'm working in two groups, sich as two tribes that I was working with in Northern Nigeria that were at war with each other, and I asked, what needs of yours are not being met, and I am confident that if we can get everybodies needs clarified, we'll find a strategy for meeting the needs of people on both sides. And a member, a chief from the Christian tribe immediately screams across the table: "These people are murderers!" The other people screamed back: "These people have been dominating us for 80 years." You see? I asked for needs, and they both gave me an analysis of the other side's pathology. Sometimes the analysis takes the form of: "Our Constitution says...", and the other side says: "No, it doesn't say that, it says...". Or "the Bible says no, but the Koran says..." So when people are... when I ask for needs, and they immediately go into these intellectual judgements that justifies their position, I translate that into what needs are here being expressed through that. So when the chief screamed that people are murderers, I said: "Chief, are you saying that your need for safety isn't being met?" You see, so I hear the need behind the analysis. And if I guess wrong, he can help me, but I am looking for needs. But I haven't to guess right, that's not too hard to guess what the need might be. He said: "Oh, that's exactly what I am saying!" "Ok". Then I try to get the other side to hear the need. So I said to the chief on this side: "Please tell me what you heard this chief said his needs were? The chief on the other side of the table screamed across the table: "Why did you kill my son?" I am totally ahead of time, but 3 people in the room knew that somebody who had killed a member of their family was in the group. So it's not easy even when you get people to express the needs, it's not easy to see that in the other person. When you have these enemy images. So I had to work hard to get the chief on the second side just to hear that, just to tell me, that : "What are you hearing me say?" "He is saying, yeah, he has a need for safety." Just even that makes a big difference, you see? We are out of this intelectual analysis justifying position, and we are connecting at the level of human needs. Then I helped the other side get clear what their needs were. And who would buy the first side. And at that point, that one of the chief that hadn't said anything jumped up and said: "If we know how to speak this way, we don't have to kill each other!" It can take long, even this culture, to prevent, this one chief at least to see, that if you can just talk about your needs and not run into analysis of who's right or wrong, we can solve anything! So we not only have to get one side to say clearly what's alive in them, what needs of yours are not getting met, then I have to get the other side to connect with that. And that's not easy, even if it is a simple message, because if the other side's brain has been programmed to be diagnosing the pathology on this person, even if I have said this person says he has a need for safety, I had to ask that person at least 3 or 4 times to repeat it back, after I repeated it, because his first reaction is "Then why did you kill my son?" And then thing next was: "You can't trust these people, they'll say anything!" And then it took a while before I could give him the understanding he needed, to be able to just to hear a simple phrase a man said, that he has a need for safety and that isn't being met. By the way, some of the conlicts have been end over. Huhh, that took a lot of work, just to get that far, but once I adopt it, so the empathy is the second party is seeing this other person's humanness in a way we see this humanness is by seeing the needs without these enemy images clouding them. It's not easy to do that. That requires full presence to what is alive in this other person.

Video Details

Duration: 9 minutes and 36 seconds
Country: United States
Language: English
Producer: quebabe39
Views: 350
Posted by: szemereorsolya on Jun 7, 2011

Nonviolent Communication Part 1 Marshall Rosenberg
Erőszakmentes Kommunikáció 1.rész Marshall Rosenbeng

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.