Nonviolence and Pacifism >>>
Walter Wink, a theologian and influence to Marshall Rosenberg (founder of NVC), hints at the role of the courage I’m talking about in describing the difference he sees between pacifism and nonviolence.
For Wink, pacifism connotes responding to conflict by allowing others to dominate over oneself (or to be the ‘losing end’ of a “power-over” relationship — more on that later). You can imagine, for instance, a stranger coming up to me and demanding that I give him my car, with little or no force, to which I acquiesce for the purpose of avoiding confrontation or further conflict with him.
On the other hand, nonviolence (in my words) describes an active role toward confrontation on the part of the practitioner. Rather than avoid confrontation or conflict, the confrontation is converted into an opportunity for emotional reflection and needs assessment. The reflection and assessment may not even be expressed aloud but nonetheless becomes an automatic response to aggression or demanding energy, approaching it with empathy (another simple but challenging way of being) and vulnerability.
Let’s say that instead of allowing the stranger to just have my car, or engaging him aggressively to protect what I own against him, I engaged him in a grave but open manner through honest and caring dialogue. With empathy, I might note and express with curiosity the urgency and aggression I am seeing in him, and see if he corrects me with what’s really going on. He may be in an emergency and needing a way to rush to the hospital. Or he may be extremely intent on getting at least one thing in the world he’s wanting, whatever that is, and is willing to take it from someone else to get it. Following that, I might express my own vulnerability by telling him how distraught I am by the idea of no longer having my car.
Even if in the end he ends up still trying to take my car without my permission, I’ve at least offered a possibility for choice and mutual understanding — that is, for authentic human connection — before making any decision about defending my car from him or giving it up. Chances are that if I’ve engaged him with openness and authenticity, a number of more viable strategies will open up to us around what we’re both wanting in the situation.
I guess would be as Kierkegaard (spelling?) an authentic person. He gives an example of an authentic person as: a man taking a walk before dinner. As he walks he thinks of his wife who is cooking him dinner. He envisions her making a pot roast with potatoes. He relishes the idea of the pot roast, since it is his favorite. He then returns home to find a meat loaf on the table for dinner. He sits down and eats the meat loaf with al the relish he would have had if it was pot roast and praises his wife’s cooking as if she had prepared pot roast. As an ‘Authentic Man’ his needs were met either way and there were no regrets.
OR
A man falls through thin ice on a lake. As he clings to life a crowd gathers. The crowd discusses what to do to save the man, going over many options. One man seeing the man in the lake grabs some rope rushes out on the lake and saves the drowning man. The saviour did not pause to think of his own safety or go over the best options, rather he acted.
I guess I would not spend so much time thinking of what my needs are but accepting the circumstances of the situation. Because the situation will almost always turn out OK, or perhaps give me a learning experience from which I can profit in some way. Or dictate the course of action necessary.
It is not that I don’t have needs but that when I am in a situation with other people I tend to think, for the most part, about their needs. After all, true love is about the other not the self.
Although this may not be the best way to look at things it is how I do so. And how I do , is usually the best Way of Being. Diverse Wanderer
Jim! Great to get a comment from you! 🙂
I’m curious where you read about that story in Kierkegaard — do you recall? I’m interpreting it as “being authentic is linked with having no regrets” (which I greatly disagree with), but I’m not certain that that’s what either you or he are trying to convey… Would you let me know what it is that you see in the way the man responds to his wife’s cooking as authentic (perhaps keeping in mind that when we’re talking about authenticity in NVC, we’re partly referring to the honesty in expressing what’s really coming up for us to someone else — to varying lengths)?
I also am hearing what you’re saying in the second story as that there are times when taking time to think/feel through things could result in disaster. I totally agree with this. How we (very) consciously program ourselves in non-life-threatening situations to respond, however, may very well affect how we end up responding in life-threatening situations; so while I believe in the power of unconscious responsiveness in situations when the time to respond with effectiveness to saving or serving life is short, there’s still a lot of in-between moments when the time for careful, conscious consideration may be more life-serving than instant (“less-mindful”) reactivity. And those mindful moments could very well enhance or change our inner programming for the better so that our unconscious-response moments are all the more effective or life-serving. How does this thought land in you?
Peace to you, my friend!
The little boy came down the stairs for breakfast and announced,
“I had two bad dreams and twenty-thirty good ones.”
“What were the good dreams about,” his father asked.
“Dragons” the little boy replied.
“And what were the bad dreams about?” his father asked.
“Dragons” the little boy replied.
I love this little anecdote, Howard ^_^ Would you be willing to explain just a bit for me why this came to you (I’m guessing while reading this post)?
Missing you guys — hope all’s well out there!