What is a Domination Structure?
18 views
Skip to first unread message
nvctrainer
Mar 21, 2008, 2:04:05 PM3/21/08
to NVC Evolves
Greetings, Friends,
I've been scanning this group during the IIT when I have a few minutes
and have been enjoying the lively discussion.
Emma wrote, "I've wondered this too - how could people steeped in NVC
not see the obvious domination structure of CNVC?"
This question brings up a few things in me that I would like to get
some clarity about.
1. First, I question the presupposition that "people steeped in
NVC" (and I think Emma is referring to the leadership of CNVC, here)
do not see the "obvious domination structure". I feel worried
whenever I assume that I know what is going on in another person. I'm
working to train myself to stay observational or empathic in
relationship to others. I cannot know what "the leadership" sees or
believes unless they tell me. How do you feel when you hear me say
that?
2. I'm perplexed by the diagnosis of "obvious domination structure of
CNVC" because my need for clarity is not met.
I feel amused by how perplexed I feel, because in the past I have
heard a similar judgment come out of my own mouth, that "CNVC is a
domination structure." That statement obviously emerges from my own
domination structure. The clue is in the passive, diagnostic, and
static use of the verb to be, i.e. "x is y". Truth more likely
emerges when we, as a community, move toward some clarity on:
a. how do we define the characteristics of a "domination structure"?
What behaviors constitute domination?
b. how do I perpetuate "domination structures" through my own
unconscious, robot-like habit patterns of submission and rebellion?
c. how do I participate in transforming domination structures in a
life-serving way? What is the desired state? How can I contribute to
building a partnership culture within CNVC and in the broader world?
I'm not clear, in the moment, that CNVC "is" a domination structure.
The obviousness escapes me. I have been thinking about it deeply
since our GCC meeting in Munich this past January. We have decided,
within the GCC, to look deeply at how we use power and assess
ourselves during every teleconference.
For me, domination structures would include behavioral expressions of
violent, power over through punishment (or reward) that emerges from
institutionalized policy. For example, if a "not yet certified
trainer" used the phrase "Nonviolent Communication" in a way
inconsistent with CNVC's requests, then CNVC would take legal action
to stimulate "the offender" to cease and desist and then be punished
by paying a civil penalty. I'm not aware of anything like that ever
happening, not even at the level of "coercive threat". Are you?
I'd enjoy hearing a crisp and clear, observation-based definition of
domination structure. Walter Wink, often cited by Marshall and, who I
believe coined the phrase "domination system", offers examples of
domination systems in his book The Powers that Be, then describes the
characteristics: "It is characterized by unjust economic relations,
biased race relations, patriarchal gender relations, hierarchical
power relations, and the use of violence to maintain them all."
I feel open and curious, and wonder, can anyone provide an observation
that shows that CNVC leaders have behaved violently or punitively,
justifying those behaviors because of "policy" or some other
ampsprache? Would someone be willing to share some observations
indicating that CNVC falls into Wink's definition?
Or, would you be willing to provide a different, clearer definition of
"domination structure" and then show behaviors that fit that
definition? Fulfilling any of these requests would contribute, I'm
hoping, to my own clarity and learning, and lead to a deeper sense of
connection with you all. I'm also hopeful it would help me to guide
and support CNVC's leadership toward fulfilling our vision of creating
and sustaining a partnership culture within CNVC, especially within
the GCC.
Warmly,
Jim
I've been scanning this group during the IIT when I have a few minutes
and have been enjoying the lively discussion.
Emma wrote, "I've wondered this too - how could people steeped in NVC
not see the obvious domination structure of CNVC?"
This question brings up a few things in me that I would like to get
some clarity about.
1. First, I question the presupposition that "people steeped in
NVC" (and I think Emma is referring to the leadership of CNVC, here)
do not see the "obvious domination structure". I feel worried
whenever I assume that I know what is going on in another person. I'm
working to train myself to stay observational or empathic in
relationship to others. I cannot know what "the leadership" sees or
believes unless they tell me. How do you feel when you hear me say
that?
2. I'm perplexed by the diagnosis of "obvious domination structure of
CNVC" because my need for clarity is not met.
I feel amused by how perplexed I feel, because in the past I have
heard a similar judgment come out of my own mouth, that "CNVC is a
domination structure." That statement obviously emerges from my own
domination structure. The clue is in the passive, diagnostic, and
static use of the verb to be, i.e. "x is y". Truth more likely
emerges when we, as a community, move toward some clarity on:
a. how do we define the characteristics of a "domination structure"?
What behaviors constitute domination?
b. how do I perpetuate "domination structures" through my own
unconscious, robot-like habit patterns of submission and rebellion?
c. how do I participate in transforming domination structures in a
life-serving way? What is the desired state? How can I contribute to
building a partnership culture within CNVC and in the broader world?
I'm not clear, in the moment, that CNVC "is" a domination structure.
The obviousness escapes me. I have been thinking about it deeply
since our GCC meeting in Munich this past January. We have decided,
within the GCC, to look deeply at how we use power and assess
ourselves during every teleconference.
For me, domination structures would include behavioral expressions of
violent, power over through punishment (or reward) that emerges from
institutionalized policy. For example, if a "not yet certified
trainer" used the phrase "Nonviolent Communication" in a way
inconsistent with CNVC's requests, then CNVC would take legal action
to stimulate "the offender" to cease and desist and then be punished
by paying a civil penalty. I'm not aware of anything like that ever
happening, not even at the level of "coercive threat". Are you?
I'd enjoy hearing a crisp and clear, observation-based definition of
domination structure. Walter Wink, often cited by Marshall and, who I
believe coined the phrase "domination system", offers examples of
domination systems in his book The Powers that Be, then describes the
characteristics: "It is characterized by unjust economic relations,
biased race relations, patriarchal gender relations, hierarchical
power relations, and the use of violence to maintain them all."
I feel open and curious, and wonder, can anyone provide an observation
that shows that CNVC leaders have behaved violently or punitively,
justifying those behaviors because of "policy" or some other
ampsprache? Would someone be willing to share some observations
indicating that CNVC falls into Wink's definition?
Or, would you be willing to provide a different, clearer definition of
"domination structure" and then show behaviors that fit that
definition? Fulfilling any of these requests would contribute, I'm
hoping, to my own clarity and learning, and lead to a deeper sense of
connection with you all. I'm also hopeful it would help me to guide
and support CNVC's leadership toward fulfilling our vision of creating
and sustaining a partnership culture within CNVC, especially within
the GCC.
Warmly,
Jim
Conal Elliott
Mar 21, 2008, 4:05:30 PM3/21/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
Hi Jim,
I'm feeling pretty disappointed after reading your note. I guess you're picking at low hanging fruit here, challenging the label of "obvious domination structure", rather than responding to a good deal of substantial content in Emma's notes, mine, and others. And alongside of my disappointment, I also notice some compassion for you, imagining you might be overwhelmed with the substance of the dialog and so would like an easy place to start.
Distrust gets triggered in me with your response #1. I guess I have an inner dissonance between the form I read (disclosure) and the intent I infer (teaching).
I'm confused about the bulk of the message. I wonder you're defending a judgment that CNVC is a partnership structure. Maybe you're asking for help in your own ongoing process of wrestling with your own evaluation of CNVC on the domination/partnership spectrum. I can't quite decipher where you're going for here in terms of relationship with this group. Do you mind sharing? If your intent is to defend a position, then knowing that will help me choose to invest my energy elsewhere. If it's to get help exploring your own uncertainty about CNVC and domination, then I'd like to hear more disclosure about your domination suspicions, which would help me to trust you. At this point, it's still easy for me to see you as Defender of the Church.
I appreciate Emma's uncensored style, and I'd like her to keep it up. Personally, before I hit "send", I tend to work a good deal toward the kind of crispness/clarity I understand you to be asking for. While I like the results I get, something is lost that Emma's style retains, namely a spontaneity and relatability. I bet a lot of people can tune into this discussion, read Emma's note and immediately recognize their own undertanding, confusion, and disappointment with regard to CNVC. And I bet they'd get a lot of relief, learning that some someone else shares their sense that 'something just doesn't smell right' (as the saying goes) about the communications that come out of CNVC. And more than relief, I'd like to support people really questioning CNVC (and any centralized structure with external policies and certification systems). When people's inner sense conflicts with official outer statements, I expect that people are more likely to respect and nurture connection to their inner sense when they know that they're not alone.
I'd like to see Jim gain depth and clarity in the struggle he's having in relating to CNVC. If this group can help with clear observations, then cool. I'd also like Jim to hear and respond to the clear observation that I think Emma is meaning to express, which is the *obviousness* to her of CNVC's domination structure. Not an observation about CNVC but about the immediacy and compelling strength of her own conclusion that there is a deep inconsistency between CNVC's control strategy vs NVC Consciousness. And her puzzlement that other NVC people even more steeped in NVC than Emma (particularly CNVC folks) might not read the same data and draw the same conclusions. And perhaps wondering if those people do indeed draw those conclusions and choose to look the other way, to silence their inner discomfort. I certainly wonder about these questions with CNVC, just as I wonder about how the Christian church came to be what it is, despite its origin.
And, Jim, I think if you read back through these messages, you will find concrete observations about CNVC's communications, particularly statements that you quoted to us. Statements that Emma and I and some others don't know how to interpret other than as show of control, authority and threat. I'm open to gaining new understandings and I have been for quite a while. So far, none of my interactions with CNVC folks, including yourself, have helped me shift my interpretation. I'm still hopeful that your participation in this group may lead to something new for us and for CNVC.
Blessings, - Conal
I'm feeling pretty disappointed after reading your note. I guess you're picking at low hanging fruit here, challenging the label of "obvious domination structure", rather than responding to a good deal of substantial content in Emma's notes, mine, and others. And alongside of my disappointment, I also notice some compassion for you, imagining you might be overwhelmed with the substance of the dialog and so would like an easy place to start.
Distrust gets triggered in me with your response #1. I guess I have an inner dissonance between the form I read (disclosure) and the intent I infer (teaching).
I'm confused about the bulk of the message. I wonder you're defending a judgment that CNVC is a partnership structure. Maybe you're asking for help in your own ongoing process of wrestling with your own evaluation of CNVC on the domination/partnership spectrum. I can't quite decipher where you're going for here in terms of relationship with this group. Do you mind sharing? If your intent is to defend a position, then knowing that will help me choose to invest my energy elsewhere. If it's to get help exploring your own uncertainty about CNVC and domination, then I'd like to hear more disclosure about your domination suspicions, which would help me to trust you. At this point, it's still easy for me to see you as Defender of the Church.
I appreciate Emma's uncensored style, and I'd like her to keep it up. Personally, before I hit "send", I tend to work a good deal toward the kind of crispness/clarity I understand you to be asking for. While I like the results I get, something is lost that Emma's style retains, namely a spontaneity and relatability. I bet a lot of people can tune into this discussion, read Emma's note and immediately recognize their own undertanding, confusion, and disappointment with regard to CNVC. And I bet they'd get a lot of relief, learning that some someone else shares their sense that 'something just doesn't smell right' (as the saying goes) about the communications that come out of CNVC. And more than relief, I'd like to support people really questioning CNVC (and any centralized structure with external policies and certification systems). When people's inner sense conflicts with official outer statements, I expect that people are more likely to respect and nurture connection to their inner sense when they know that they're not alone.
I'd like to see Jim gain depth and clarity in the struggle he's having in relating to CNVC. If this group can help with clear observations, then cool. I'd also like Jim to hear and respond to the clear observation that I think Emma is meaning to express, which is the *obviousness* to her of CNVC's domination structure. Not an observation about CNVC but about the immediacy and compelling strength of her own conclusion that there is a deep inconsistency between CNVC's control strategy vs NVC Consciousness. And her puzzlement that other NVC people even more steeped in NVC than Emma (particularly CNVC folks) might not read the same data and draw the same conclusions. And perhaps wondering if those people do indeed draw those conclusions and choose to look the other way, to silence their inner discomfort. I certainly wonder about these questions with CNVC, just as I wonder about how the Christian church came to be what it is, despite its origin.
And, Jim, I think if you read back through these messages, you will find concrete observations about CNVC's communications, particularly statements that you quoted to us. Statements that Emma and I and some others don't know how to interpret other than as show of control, authority and threat. I'm open to gaining new understandings and I have been for quite a while. So far, none of my interactions with CNVC folks, including yourself, have helped me shift my interpretation. I'm still hopeful that your participation in this group may lead to something new for us and for CNVC.
Blessings, - Conal
Niklas Wilkens
Mar 21, 2008, 4:26:18 PM3/21/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
Hi Jim,
I'm grateful for your comment. Reading this helps me to remind myself of how much I value specific and clear observational statements to have clarity. And how the thinking in "is"-statements curiously covers this up everytime it is used. Very much in the way of "If you see a jackal, you're a jackal."
I'm looking forward to the responses.
Kindly
Niklas
--
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
Conal Elliott
Mar 21, 2008, 4:54:49 PM3/21/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
I just remembered a vision and experiment I've been wanting to play with as part of evolving NVC (not just the "Evolving NVC" group). I'll start here.
This note is a record of my own internal reactions to reading Jim's note. Just in case it's not perfectly clear below, I'm not stating what I believe to be true or certainly what I want you to believe. I'm sharing my own internal reactions.
> Emma wrote, "I've wondered this too - how could people steeped in NVC
> not see the obvious domination structure of CNVC?"
Smiling, remembering how I enjoyed reading Emma's note and particularly that statement. I bet a lot more people can relate to her writing style and experience than to mine. So I'm glad she's here also. Also appreciating my own style, for its penetrating clarity. Happy for diverse community!
> This question brings up a few things in me that I would like to get
> some clarity about.
> 1. First, I question the presupposition that "people steeped in
> NVC" (and I think Emma is referring to the leadership of CNVC, here)
> do not see the "obvious domination structure". I feel worried
> whenever I assume that I know what is going on in another person. I'm
> working to train myself to stay observational or empathic in
> relationship to others. I cannot know what "the leadership" sees or
> believes unless they tell me. How do you feel when you hear me say
> that?
Massive "Ick" reaction, building to a crescendo at that last sentence. A bit of confusion and lots of distrust. I re-read to address the confusion. Oh -- okay, in the form of Jim's words, I read self-disclosure, and yet progressively I suspect his intention is not closeness through vulnerable self-disclosure but rather teaching -- making a point. Then he asks "how do you feel", I hear him asking for my vulnerability when I think he's just deceived me with false vulnerability himself. Then I imagine that he deceived me *in order* to gain my vulnerability, attempting to bypass my external-authority/teacher filters. Those filters are really important to me, so my initial distrust is pretty amped up now.
> 2. I'm perplexed by the diagnosis of "obvious domination structure of
> CNVC" because my need for clarity is not met.
Yuck. I'm so sick of hearing this sort of phrase. I don't believe it, and my heart is sick about what NVC teachers are modeling to students. I imagine there's something going on in Jim that he's just not willing to share with us. Some kind of fear, hidden behind a pat formula. Probably hidden in part even to Jim, but especially to us.
> I feel amused by how perplexed I feel, because in the past I have
> heard a similar judgment come out of my own mouth, that "CNVC is a
> domination structure."
Smile. Relax.
> That statement obviously emerges from my own
> domination structure.
Oops -- distrust starting to mount again. Disappointment in losing connection with Jim's vulnerability so soon!
> The clue is in the passive, diagnostic, and
> static use of the verb to be, i.e. "x is y". Truth more likely
> emerges when we, as a community, move toward some clarity on:
Gah. More lecture. And especially to bring out "x is y" while labeling himself as being an "nvc trainer". I cringe whenever I hear that jackal label, which is pretty often with CNVC-influenced folks. I remember how much confusion and disappointment I experienced in Seattle with the CNVC-influenced folks there. Despite my idealistic expectations, I discovered time after time that they mostly used "NVC trainer" in the jackal sense of being rather than doing. And not only *being*, but *being* by virtual of external authority. Double Yuck! And when I brought it to their attention, I don't think they could hear what I was saying. A lot of sadness for me. I didn't want to believe that the heart of Marshall's message could be missed so fundamentally by those blessed to pass it on. And then later to discover that the authority-being meaning is widely propagated by CNVC folks. Despair. I'd like to carry hope for CNVC and at the same time maybe not.
> a. how do we define the characteristics of a "domination structure"?
> What behaviors constitute domination?
> b. how do I perpetuate "domination structures" through my own
> unconscious, robot-like habit patterns of submission and rebellion?
> c. how do I participate in transforming domination structures in a
> life-serving way? What is the desired state? How can I contribute to
> building a partnership culture within CNVC and in the broader world?
> I'm not clear, in the moment, that CNVC "is" a domination structure.
> The obviousness escapes me. I have been thinking about it deeply
> since our GCC meeting in Munich this past January. We have decided,
> within the GCC, to look deeply at how we use power and assess
> ourselves during every teleconference.
A bit more hope. Reluctance to set myself up for more disappointment.
> For me, domination structures would include behavioral expressions of
> violent, power over through punishment (or reward) that emerges from
> institutionalized policy. For example, if a "not yet certified
> trainer" used the phrase "Nonviolent Communication" in a way
> inconsistent with CNVC's requests, then CNVC would take legal action
> to stimulate "the offender" to cease and desist and then be punished
> by paying a civil penalty. I'm not aware of anything like that ever
> happening, not even at the level of "coercive threat". Are you?
I really enjoyed this part. Surprised about Jim's example. I've wondered whether CNVC would take legal action. Is the language about legal service mark and government agencies there as an idle threat? That's been my guess, as actually carrying through with legal enforcement would be hard not to notice as inconsistent with NVC principles.
So, curiosity and distrust. Does Jim hope we'll be so relieved and grateful that we won't notice the sublter coercion in the form of a threat? Still wondering what another explanation might be for the legal language.
> I'd enjoy hearing a crisp and clear, observation-based definition of
> domination structure. Walter Wink, often cited by Marshall and, who I
> believe coined the phrase "domination system", offers examples of
> domination systems in his book The Powers that Be, then describes the
> characteristics: "It is characterized by unjust economic relations,
> biased race relations, patriarchal gender relations, hierarchical
> power relations, and the use of violence to maintain them all."
> I feel open and curious, and wonder, can anyone provide an observation
> that shows that CNVC leaders have behaved violently or punitively,
> justifying those behaviors because of "policy" or some other
> ampsprache? Would someone be willing to share some observations
> indicating that CNVC falls into Wink's definition?
Confused and distrustful again. Jim's saying "I'd enjoy hearing ..." and then he gives what I guess he thinks is such a thing. (It's certainly not to me, depending on subjective, moralistic labels.) So I guess Jim really means he wants to hear a definition *from us*. If that's the case, then I imagine he's positioning and defending, cloaked by collaborative phrasing.
> Or, would you be willing to provide a different, clearer definition of
> "domination structure" and then show behaviors that fit that
> definition? Fulfilling any of these requests would contribute, I'm
> hoping, to my own clarity and learning, and lead to a deeper sense of
> connection with you all. I'm also hopeful it would help me to guide
> and support CNVC's leadership toward fulfilling our vision of creating
> and sustaining a partnership culture within CNVC, especially within
> the GCC.
I liked that last bit. I guess because I wish it to be true.
> Warmly,
> Jim
This note is a record of my own internal reactions to reading Jim's note. Just in case it's not perfectly clear below, I'm not stating what I believe to be true or certainly what I want you to believe. I'm sharing my own internal reactions.
> Greetings, Friends,
> I've been scanning this group during the IIT when I have a few minutes
> and have been enjoying the lively discussion.
I like hearing "enjoying the lively discussion.". Smiling.> I've been scanning this group during the IIT when I have a few minutes
> and have been enjoying the lively discussion.
> Emma wrote, "I've wondered this too - how could people steeped in NVC
> not see the obvious domination structure of CNVC?"
> This question brings up a few things in me that I would like to get
> some clarity about.
> 1. First, I question the presupposition that "people steeped in
> NVC" (and I think Emma is referring to the leadership of CNVC, here)
> do not see the "obvious domination structure". I feel worried
> whenever I assume that I know what is going on in another person. I'm
> working to train myself to stay observational or empathic in
> relationship to others. I cannot know what "the leadership" sees or
> believes unless they tell me. How do you feel when you hear me say
> that?
> 2. I'm perplexed by the diagnosis of "obvious domination structure of
> CNVC" because my need for clarity is not met.
> I feel amused by how perplexed I feel, because in the past I have
> heard a similar judgment come out of my own mouth, that "CNVC is a
> domination structure."
> That statement obviously emerges from my own
> domination structure.
> The clue is in the passive, diagnostic, and
> static use of the verb to be, i.e. "x is y". Truth more likely
> emerges when we, as a community, move toward some clarity on:
> a. how do we define the characteristics of a "domination structure"?
> What behaviors constitute domination?
> b. how do I perpetuate "domination structures" through my own
> unconscious, robot-like habit patterns of submission and rebellion?
> c. how do I participate in transforming domination structures in a
> life-serving way? What is the desired state? How can I contribute to
> building a partnership culture within CNVC and in the broader world?
> I'm not clear, in the moment, that CNVC "is" a domination structure.
> The obviousness escapes me. I have been thinking about it deeply
> since our GCC meeting in Munich this past January. We have decided,
> within the GCC, to look deeply at how we use power and assess
> ourselves during every teleconference.
> For me, domination structures would include behavioral expressions of
> violent, power over through punishment (or reward) that emerges from
> institutionalized policy. For example, if a "not yet certified
> trainer" used the phrase "Nonviolent Communication" in a way
> inconsistent with CNVC's requests, then CNVC would take legal action
> to stimulate "the offender" to cease and desist and then be punished
> by paying a civil penalty. I'm not aware of anything like that ever
> happening, not even at the level of "coercive threat". Are you?
So, curiosity and distrust. Does Jim hope we'll be so relieved and grateful that we won't notice the sublter coercion in the form of a threat? Still wondering what another explanation might be for the legal language.
> I'd enjoy hearing a crisp and clear, observation-based definition of
> domination structure. Walter Wink, often cited by Marshall and, who I
> believe coined the phrase "domination system", offers examples of
> domination systems in his book The Powers that Be, then describes the
> characteristics: "It is characterized by unjust economic relations,
> biased race relations, patriarchal gender relations, hierarchical
> power relations, and the use of violence to maintain them all."
> I feel open and curious, and wonder, can anyone provide an observation
> that shows that CNVC leaders have behaved violently or punitively,
> justifying those behaviors because of "policy" or some other
> ampsprache? Would someone be willing to share some observations
> indicating that CNVC falls into Wink's definition?
> Or, would you be willing to provide a different, clearer definition of
> "domination structure" and then show behaviors that fit that
> definition? Fulfilling any of these requests would contribute, I'm
> hoping, to my own clarity and learning, and lead to a deeper sense of
> connection with you all. I'm also hopeful it would help me to guide
> and support CNVC's leadership toward fulfilling our vision of creating
> and sustaining a partnership culture within CNVC, especially within
> the GCC.
> Warmly,
> Jim
Emma McCreary
Mar 21, 2008, 7:18:00 PM3/21/08
to NVC Evolves
Hi Jim,
1. Yes, that feels good. Yes it felt weird to me to suppose about
someone(s) who weren't in the conversation.
I find myself very curious of what people who consider themselves the
leadership of CNVC think about leadership in general. I'd love to see
an open dialog on how leadership could work from an NVC framework, ie
be about supporting rather than dominating. If these people (whoever
they are LOL) do see problems with top-down leadership approaches, I
haven't gotten that impression from how CNVC presents itself through
their website (that's the only contact I've had with CNVC thus far,
besides you being here and asking us not to use the word NVC in our
name). So I'm eager to hear anything you could offer on that to help
me widen my awareness of what CNVC thinks about their own structure.
2. Yes, I'm curious too as to what this phrase means, "domination
structure". I know from my bodily responses to my interactions with
CNVC that something is going on. I didn't feel the openness and
inspiration reading CNVC's site that I got reading Marshall's book,
for instance. I'm less clear specifically what those two words
"domination" and "structure" mean together.
I'm not sure if it's helpful, or if it's unhelpful in the ways that
labels and diagnoses are unhelpful. I notice I don't feel particularly
inspired by the phrase "domination structure". I feel clenchy inside
when I use it.
Moving on to the observation piece. I'm not aware of anyone using
legal action against someone using the term NVC. However when you
mentioned the fact that NVC was a legal trademark or what have you, in
your initial letter, I took that to be the meaning - I thought you
were referring to the legality because you wanted to use the force/
violence behind the legal structure in our country to reinforce your
"request". I felt in my body all the reactions as if someone had
threatened to sue me for doing something "wrong". I realize that might
not have been your intent. I'm wanting to share an awareness that it
was the result, regardless of the intent. So I did experience you
mentioning the legal trademark as a coercive threat. So in that way,
yes, I am aware of that happening. I'm also aware that because of the
history and weight of legal system, it's not necessary to actually
prosecute someone in order for them to be coerced. Threats are enough
to enact domination. That's the awareness I'm wanting to see CNVC have
and I'd love to see them change the way they talk about their requests
so they don't feel "backed" by legal action. The request to not use
the word NVC doesn't feel clean at all to me. It feels icky and like
I'll be punished if I don't comply. Either legally, or through
invalidation or social ostracism.
What I'm offering here really is my own reaction, and the needs that
weren't met for me. I don't feel particularly inspired by the requeest
to give a clear definition of "domination structure". I know a lot of
people have written about that so those are out there. I'm more
interested in offering you my visceral reactions so you know how CNVC
is being experienced, so you know what needs it is or isn't meeting.
I'm hoping this is interesting to you!
I feel an openness to you and a general sense of hope that we can
reach understanding here. =)
Observing myself, I think I've been making CNVC into a monolithic
structure and creating enemy images out of this which I don't wish to
do. So I really appreciate this opportunity to dialog with you as a
person and reality check my assumptions that went "how could those
people write that document on the website? they must be
<label><diagnosis><etc>". At the same time I feel an ongoing
uneasiness about "breaking the rules". I'm wanting to acknowledge just
how hard it is internally to against my training to be obedient and
just say "yes sir, I won't use the word NVC" and suppress any internal
qualms.
I also want to acknowledge and honor the pain Conal is expressing
around his history with CNVC, and offer empathy. Conal, my heart goes
out to you when I hear about your experiences with CNVC trainers in
Seattle. I hear that you felt deeply disappointed that your needs to
be heard were not met. I'm hearing that you had some expectations
about how it would be to interact with CNVC folks and your experience
did not jive with those? I am hearing a layer of suspicion there too.
You are not sure whether it will be any different now? You don't want
to re-experience that level of disappointment again and want to know
that if you put your heart out here that you will be met with a
genuine desire to connect and understand, rather than be met by
education. Is this right?
Conal, I also want to express gratitude and inner smileyness at your
appreciation of my writing/disclosure style. =)
Happy to be dancing,
Emma
1. Yes, that feels good. Yes it felt weird to me to suppose about
someone(s) who weren't in the conversation.
I find myself very curious of what people who consider themselves the
leadership of CNVC think about leadership in general. I'd love to see
an open dialog on how leadership could work from an NVC framework, ie
be about supporting rather than dominating. If these people (whoever
they are LOL) do see problems with top-down leadership approaches, I
haven't gotten that impression from how CNVC presents itself through
their website (that's the only contact I've had with CNVC thus far,
besides you being here and asking us not to use the word NVC in our
name). So I'm eager to hear anything you could offer on that to help
me widen my awareness of what CNVC thinks about their own structure.
2. Yes, I'm curious too as to what this phrase means, "domination
structure". I know from my bodily responses to my interactions with
CNVC that something is going on. I didn't feel the openness and
inspiration reading CNVC's site that I got reading Marshall's book,
for instance. I'm less clear specifically what those two words
"domination" and "structure" mean together.
I'm not sure if it's helpful, or if it's unhelpful in the ways that
labels and diagnoses are unhelpful. I notice I don't feel particularly
inspired by the phrase "domination structure". I feel clenchy inside
when I use it.
Moving on to the observation piece. I'm not aware of anyone using
legal action against someone using the term NVC. However when you
mentioned the fact that NVC was a legal trademark or what have you, in
your initial letter, I took that to be the meaning - I thought you
were referring to the legality because you wanted to use the force/
violence behind the legal structure in our country to reinforce your
"request". I felt in my body all the reactions as if someone had
threatened to sue me for doing something "wrong". I realize that might
not have been your intent. I'm wanting to share an awareness that it
was the result, regardless of the intent. So I did experience you
mentioning the legal trademark as a coercive threat. So in that way,
yes, I am aware of that happening. I'm also aware that because of the
history and weight of legal system, it's not necessary to actually
prosecute someone in order for them to be coerced. Threats are enough
to enact domination. That's the awareness I'm wanting to see CNVC have
and I'd love to see them change the way they talk about their requests
so they don't feel "backed" by legal action. The request to not use
the word NVC doesn't feel clean at all to me. It feels icky and like
I'll be punished if I don't comply. Either legally, or through
invalidation or social ostracism.
What I'm offering here really is my own reaction, and the needs that
weren't met for me. I don't feel particularly inspired by the requeest
to give a clear definition of "domination structure". I know a lot of
people have written about that so those are out there. I'm more
interested in offering you my visceral reactions so you know how CNVC
is being experienced, so you know what needs it is or isn't meeting.
I'm hoping this is interesting to you!
I feel an openness to you and a general sense of hope that we can
reach understanding here. =)
Observing myself, I think I've been making CNVC into a monolithic
structure and creating enemy images out of this which I don't wish to
do. So I really appreciate this opportunity to dialog with you as a
person and reality check my assumptions that went "how could those
people write that document on the website? they must be
<label><diagnosis><etc>". At the same time I feel an ongoing
uneasiness about "breaking the rules". I'm wanting to acknowledge just
how hard it is internally to against my training to be obedient and
just say "yes sir, I won't use the word NVC" and suppress any internal
qualms.
I also want to acknowledge and honor the pain Conal is expressing
around his history with CNVC, and offer empathy. Conal, my heart goes
out to you when I hear about your experiences with CNVC trainers in
Seattle. I hear that you felt deeply disappointed that your needs to
be heard were not met. I'm hearing that you had some expectations
about how it would be to interact with CNVC folks and your experience
did not jive with those? I am hearing a layer of suspicion there too.
You are not sure whether it will be any different now? You don't want
to re-experience that level of disappointment again and want to know
that if you put your heart out here that you will be met with a
genuine desire to connect and understand, rather than be met by
education. Is this right?
Conal, I also want to express gratitude and inner smileyness at your
appreciation of my writing/disclosure style. =)
Happy to be dancing,
Emma
E.G Hornfield
Mar 21, 2008, 7:43:39 PM3/21/08
to NVC Evolves
Conal,
wow, Im so into your multi response. I smile invigoratingly in
reading your DOUBLE YUCK and most of your reaction / response.
what your going through around Jim's post, It meets my needs for blah
blah blah. sigh.... I like realness. I like honesty. I like
awareness. I like being facetious sometimes, or at least i think it
can be funny in certain contexts.
Jim or nvctrainer
Justification?
Defend?
Fear of sharing something going on for you?
Upholding some paternal authority, "i was there once", "when in the
reading.
More like NVC seems to be built upon a domination structure, and in
domination:
domination |ˌdäməˈnā sh ən|
noun
1 the exercise of control or influence over someone or something, or
the state of being so controlled
I can rewrite the many examples ive cited in other posts?
Im uneasy thinking that you really are into me defining domination
structure? Im telling myself something isnt "right". Meaning, not
meshing, not clear, not in sync, vauge and muddy. Im going to read
over Conals response . perhaps, it will shed some light.
eZ
On Mar 21, 1:54 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> I just remembered a vision and experiment I've been wanting to play with as
> part of evolving NVC (not just the "Evolving NVC" group). I'll start here.
>
> This note is a record of my own internal reactions to reading Jim's note.
> Just in case it's not perfectly clear below, I'm not stating what I believe
> to be true or certainly what I want you to believe. I'm sharing my own
> internal reactions.
>
wow, Im so into your multi response. I smile invigoratingly in
reading your DOUBLE YUCK and most of your reaction / response.
<I hear him asking for my vulnerability when I think he's just
deceived me with false vulnerability himself.
Oh i love i hearing your process!!!!!!! Thanks for being real with
deceived me with false vulnerability himself.
what your going through around Jim's post, It meets my needs for blah
blah blah. sigh.... I like realness. I like honesty. I like
awareness. I like being facetious sometimes, or at least i think it
can be funny in certain contexts.
Jim or nvctrainer
Justification?
Defend?
Fear of sharing something going on for you?
Upholding some paternal authority, "i was there once", "when in the
past I have
heard a similar judgment come out of my own mouth, that
"CNVC is a
domination structure.", is not the clear critique im
reading.
More like NVC seems to be built upon a domination structure, and in
domination:
domination |ˌdäməˈnā sh ən|
noun
1 the exercise of control or influence over someone or something, or
the state of being so controlled
I can rewrite the many examples ive cited in other posts?
Im uneasy thinking that you really are into me defining domination
structure? Im telling myself something isnt "right". Meaning, not
meshing, not clear, not in sync, vauge and muddy. Im going to read
over Conals response . perhaps, it will shed some light.
eZ
On Mar 21, 1:54 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> I just remembered a vision and experiment I've been wanting to play with as
> part of evolving NVC (not just the "Evolving NVC" group). I'll start here.
>
> This note is a record of my own internal reactions to reading Jim's note.
> Just in case it's not perfectly clear below, I'm not stating what I believe
> to be true or certainly what I want you to believe. I'm sharing my own
> internal reactions.
>
Eric Mosley
Mar 22, 2008, 12:47:08 PM3/22/08
to NVC Evolves
Hi Jim;
I am enjoying this discussion because I believe it addresses choices we all make in how we relate to others.
I've edited your post below to focus on several questions you posed concerning the definition of domination structure and how CNVC might or might not fit into that definition.
I'll begin with the definition of domination structure, and since you quoted Walter Wink, I'll start there.
Wink is a Christian theologian. This is a point I wish to be clear about, because I'm concerned that some might question or discount his validity, or question the motive of citing him, either because he comes from a religious perspective, or from a Christian perspective, and I would like to know what reaction these distinctions might trigger in others up front. I'm comfortable with Wink's theology and am aware that not all will be. In looking for Wink's definition of domination structures, I have not found (in "The Powers That Be") a clear definition. He uses story and spiritual metaphor, and in the chapter titled The Domination System spends the bulk of his time discussing what he calls The Myth of Redemptive Violence. So I'll go with your quote below that Wink defines a domination system as; "It is characterized by unjust economic relations, biased race relations, patriarchal gender relations, hierarchical power relations, and the use of violence to maintain them all." (Could you point me to the page where you found that? I would like to read more of the context that definition is placed in.)
Riane Eisler (she was an attorney and does not come from a theological perspective) also talks about domination systems. In "The Power of Partnership" she constructs a model that I think is personal, political, and cultural. Her model is a continuum with domination (or control) at one end and partnership (respect) at the other. So the question is not so much an either or question or are we dominators or partners, but where on the continuum do we fall? What characteristics of domination and partnership do we exhibit? Eisler's characteristics of domination are authoritarianism, male dominance, socially accepted violence, and a set of teachings and beliefs that perpetuate domination as just. The characteristics of partnership are male female equality, less violence because violence is not used to enforce existing social structures, and teachings and beliefs that support empathic and mutually respectful relationships.
If we define domination systems specifically, then it seems to me we are likely to end up in a Monty Python-esque argument. "CNVC's a domination structure, because ..." "No it isn't because ..." "Yes it is." "No it isn't." etc. etc. :)
Instead, from the two sources above, I propose that instead of defining domination systems as a pure set of clearly defined behaviors in opposition to partnership as a clearly defined set of behaviors, we begin from a view that all human behaviors and structures lie somewhere on a domination/partnership continuum. Where a particular person or organization falls on the spectrum is probably somewhat fluid over time and situations, and would be both objectively and subjectively defined. The domination end of the spectrum is characterized by hierarchy (a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority), authoritarianism (favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, esp. that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom • showing a lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others), enforcement of the status quo through systemic beliefs, training, and often coercive violence. The partnership end of the spectrum is characterized by egalitarian (of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities), mutually respectful and affirming relationships, with teachings and beliefs that teach and value empathy and understanding.
If we accept this continuum definition rather than a set in stone black and white either or definition, I think we can agree that all of us, and all institutions fall on this continuum, tending toward one end or the other, and probably never at either absolute extreme?
Your next question I would like to address, and I'm going to rephrase it slightly, because you referenced Wink in your question, is; Can you show me an example of an action by CNVC that might fall more toward domination (authoritarian hierarchy) than partnership (eqalitarianism)?
So, now I'm wondering how you are reacting to my definition of domination/partnership as a continuum for personal and structural evaluation, and I'm wondering how you are reacting to the way I've posed your question? I'm feeling very open and interested in your reactions.
My answer to "your" question the way I have posed it is"
One example of CNVC's hierarchical authoritarianism is the unilateral cessation of the trainer certification process without discussion with or involvement of all who were effected by the decision. When that happened I felt surprised and shocked that such a decision could be handed out as a fait accompli by an organization that professes to value empathy and connections. So for me, that action pushes CNVC somewhere closer to domination than partnership, and causes me to question whether it is an organization that I trust to live out the values of partnership and egalitarianism I cherish.
I'm complete on my response and look forward to your thoughts, feelings, and investigation.
with love, and gratitude for this opportunity to explore together,
Eric
On Mar 21, 2008, at 2:04 PM, nvctrainer wrote:
Greetings, Friends,
This question brings up a few things in me that I would like to get
some clarity about.
nvctrainer
Mar 23, 2008, 6:58:59 PM3/23/08
to NVC Evolves
Hi Jim,
Hi, Conal,
I like the way you responded with life and vulnerability to my post,
so I thought I'd join your strategy...I put my <responses in
brackets.>
I'm feeling pretty disappointed after reading your note.
<Wow I'm surprised and disappointed reading that. I thought he would
really get me. Crap.>
some understanding that I got stimulated by Emma's words, that she
helped me contact something stirring in me that actually motivated me
to focus on a response rather than on the 1000 other choices in my
life. I'd like some consideration of my autonomy, some acceptance of
my choice. I'm guessing Conal's disappointment emerges from an
expectation that I would respond in a juicy way to something he wrote,
guessing he'd like connection and contact.>
And alongside of my
disappointment, I also notice some compassion for you, imagining you
might
be overwhelmed with the substance of the dialog and so would like an
easy
place to start.
<Ah, you do see me. I do need ease, and I want you to see that Emma's
words moved me! Defining domination is not insubstantial!>
Distrust gets triggered in me with your response #1.
<I hate it when people don't trust me. This is about the biggest
button that I live with. I want to be seen as trustworthy, and I'd
like to be seen for my positive intention, that everything I do is in
the service of my needs and (hopefully) that will contribute to your
well-being as well. >
form that my honesty takes sometimes is sharing what has benefited
me. I like sharing my learning with others. That's why I enjoy the
role of "trainer".
I'm confused about the bulk of the message. I wonder you're defending
a
judgment that CNVC is a partnership structure.
<Hmmm. I feel baffled by that. I certainly experience that CNVC
aspires to partnership. I'm questioning and eager for feedback about
how we are doing. If CNVC is to survive, we need clear alignment
between our vision and our action. We need feedback to know when we
come close to our vision and when we fall short. How else will we
learn? I don't want to defend. I don't want to be diagnosed as a
"defender". I'm hungry for feelings and needs.>
<Its also clear to me that we are at the steep end of the learning
curve of building a partnership culture. There is a lot of pain to
heal to make that possible.>
Maybe you're asking for help
in your own ongoing process of wrestling with your own evaluation of
CNVC on
the domination/partnership spectrum.
<Yes! I do need help on so many levels! Thank you! I am engaged in
that assessment on an ongoing basis.>
I can't quite decipher where you're
going for here in terms of relationship with this group. Do you mind
sharing?
<I want an equivalent partnership with the members of the group. I
see the group as an opportunity to live the process in a community
with a common aim of exploring the evolution of NVC. Is there more
you would like from me? I'd like your specific questions, if you need
more.>
If your intent is to defend a position, then knowing that will
help me choose to invest my energy elsewhere.
<I don't like being labeled "defender". Wanting to be seen as a
human.>
<I want understanding that I might get triggered here in the group. I
have a unique view of CNVC from the inside and from the outside. I've
become attached to some of the "players", especially some of the folks
in the office. I've been on a roller coaster since becoming involved
with CNVC, first as a "student" of Marshall's, then a "community and
workshop organizer", a "wonderer", wondering whether or not to move
into partnership with CNVC as a Certified Trainer, then as "trainer",
then "husband" of "interim director","volunteer" in the CNVC office,
then "elected leader" of the GCC and "IIT organizer"...I remain in
"wonderer", considering what role I want to play next, even as I
remain committed to the vision and mission of CNVC. I do not want to
get addicted to the strategy of working within CNVC, or even of CNVC
continuing to exist in its present form. I want to be open to
outcome.>
If it's to get help exploring
your own uncertainty about CNVC and domination, then I'd like to hear
more
disclosure about your domination suspicions, which would help me to
trust
you. At this point, it's still easy for me to see you as Defender of
the
Church.
<I'm guessing there is a lot about you that I do not yet know. I
wonder if you're carrying pain about your relationship with CNVC or
other organizations, wondering if you are healing from past trauma.
Guessing that hierarchy, domination, "leaders", "trainers" , etc
stimulate fear and caution in you, that you want to remain alert to
protecting your needs, maybe worried that others do not care for your
needs...that you also deeply care about the well-being of others who
may have been oppressed in the past, or are presently being
oppressed...>
<Shit there's another free diagnosis..."Defender". Damn it, stop
pigeon-holing me. I feel frustrated and need to be seen.>
I appreciate Emma's uncensored style,
<me too, but sometimes I lose focus with so many words, not just
Emma's, but yours, and mine, and Jori's, and others...need ease.
I also like it when people "take care of their jackals" and do the
inner work of translation/transformation before publishing/speaking,
because it contributes to my connection and well-being. And I like it
when folks (like John M) warn me in advance so that I can take care to
install my giraffe ears. I also want to cultivate the skill to keep
my giraffe ears on however someone speaks. Tha'ts the world I want to
live in... people, including me, working to speak from a giraffe
consciousness when possible, and working to keep giraffe ears on no
matter how another person delivers their message.>
and I'd like her to keep it up.
<I treasure authenticity and self-expression, too!>
Personally, before I hit "send", I tend to work a good deal toward the
kind
of crispness/clarity I understand you to be asking for.
<Thanks! I deeply appreciate your efforts. I long for clarity! I
want brevity to. I'm amazed at how many words I've already written.
I'm worried you will get lost in all these words.>
While I like the
results I get, something is lost that Emma's style retains, namely a
spontaneity and relatability. I bet a lot of people can tune into
this
discussion, read Emma's note and immediately recognize their own
undertanding, confusion, and disappointment with regard to CNVC. And
I bet
they'd get a lot of relief, learning that some someone else shares
their
sense that 'something just doesn't smell right' (as the saying goes)
about
the communications that come out of CNVC.
<Yes, i'll bet her words do resonate for some...>
And more than relief, I'd like to
support people really questioning CNVC (and any centralized structure
with
external policies and certification systems).
<Yes, I like asking the questions of CNVC/centralized structures,
too. I'm also learning how important it is for me to question my own
domination thinking. One of my heroes is Timothy Leary, and I have
adopted one of his slogans to support me in staying awake...TFYQA -
Think for Yourself, Question Authority. I think that's part of what
attracted me to Marshall---his questioning of authority. I
desperately want the questions to emerge from observations, feelings
and needs, rather than analysis.>
When people's inner sense
conflicts with official outer statements, I expect that people are
more
likely to respect and nurture connection to their inner sense when
they know
that they're not alone.
<I like the reminder that my feelings are giving me important
information about my needs. I want to "keep going" to action and
connection requests. I like the sense of community. I feel scared
about cultivating enemy images. I want support from my community in
doing the inner work to transform my jackal thinking and get connected
to life.>
I'd like to see Jim gain depth and clarity in the struggle he's having
in
relating to CNVC. If this group can help with clear observations,
then
cool.
<I'm still hungry for that feedback. I don't like the label
"struggler". I'm surprised at how sensitive I feel, hearing labels
where they may not be intended. I need to be seen as a human being
and a human doing.>
I'd also like Jim to hear and respond to the clear observation that I
think Emma is meaning to express, which is the *obviousness* to her of
CNVC's domination structure. Not an observation about CNVC but about
the
immediacy and compelling strength of her own conclusion that there is
a deep
inconsistency between CNVC's control strategy vs NVC Consciousness.
<I don't have that clarity. I get that Emma has feelings and needs.
I get that she is observing them. I get that she wants things to be
different. I don't yet get what she is responding to. I'm sad about
that. I really want to connect with the observation...something
happened that affected you, Emma. What is it?>
<I don't like that diagnosis of a "control strategy". I feel scared.
It reminds me of gas ovens and burning human flesh. Nazi's used enemy
images of "controlling Jewish bankers" to foment world war and
holocaust. My government and some of my fellow citizens continue the
tradition today with other "scape goats" (terrorists).
<What I want is clear observations of what CNVC is doing (or not
doing) that does not meet your need for autonomy.>
<I actually get scared about "NVC Consciousness", too. I have been in
the presence of people who assess others "NVC Consciousness". (I feel
sad remembering participating in this, even passively. I feel sad
noticing that I do this inside. I want to become free of this form of
jackal diagnostic thinking. This reminds me of inquisitions past and
present. Hallucinating the intent or consciousness of someone else
seems life alienating to me, scary. My need for safety is
triggered....I feel scared that someone with more power than me will
assess me as "unworthy" and excommunicate me to an island where I will
die of disconnection and starvation.>
And her
puzzlement that other NVC people even more steeped in NVC than Emma
(particularly CNVC folks) might not read the same data and draw the
same
conclusions.
<You're puzzled that the same "data" could be interpreted in a
different way? You're needing some sense of ease that comes from
sharing a "reality"?>
<Conclusions, in general, scare me. I can't seem to escape them in my
self. I want to wake up to the act of concluding and transform it
into a more dynamic awareness of the flow of life. I want to question
the authority of my own conclusions. I want you to do that too.>
<Conal probably thinks I'm teaching again. I'm just responding to
life and reporting what comes alive in me. I feel vulnerable.>
And perhaps wondering if those people do indeed draw those
conclusions and choose to look the other way, to silence their inner
discomfort. I certainly wonder about these questions with CNVC, just
as I
wonder about how the Christian church came to be what it is, despite
its
origin.
<This stimulates a hunger in me to hear from "those people", needing
more connection. Who are they? What do they think? What do they
feel? What do they want?>
<I feel scared hearing the generalization "Christian church". I feel
concern reading the phrase "those people".>
And, Jim, I think if you read back through these messages, you will
find
concrete observations about CNVC's communications, particularly
statements
that you quoted to us.
<Yipes, that's a lot of words. I need ease. and support. I don't
need 13 pages of observations. A few words would help!>
Statements that Emma and I and some others don't
know how to interpret other than as show of control, authority and
threat.
<Wow, sounds like these observations stimulate fear in you. I do not
want to contribute to that fear. I want to find strategies that work
to help people feel safe in relationship to CNVC. I believ this
requires continuous self-assessment by CNVC's leadership>
I'm open to gaining new understandings and I have been for quite a
while.
<That's a relief to hear. It confirms my guess that you are motivated
to deepen your understanding and integration of NVC. I notice you
seem to pour your life into creating clarity about NVC for yourself
and contributing that to others.>
So far, none of my interactions with CNVC folks, including yourself,
have
helped me shift my interpretation.
<Sounds like you feel hopeless that "CNVC folks" can contribute to
your safety and connection. I feel sad hearing that. I hate the
diagnosis CNVC folks. Sounds like you utter it with a sense of
disgust, resentment, hopelssness that you could ever have a quality of
connection with "them". What could I do that could help you shift?
What is your request?>
<This brings tears to my eyes. I feel scared being one of them. I
long for community.>
I'm still hopeful that your
participation in this group may lead to something new for us and for
CNVC.
<I'm in the same wonder. Will this meet any needs? Does it now?>
Warmly,
Jim
(Uncensored, almost unedited I did a spell check and some editing for
clarity...feeling a little worried about what I've written and how it
will be received. Wondering how I will feel when I read it
again...shifting to open to outcome.)
Blessings, - Conal
Same to you!
Hi, Conal,
I like the way you responded with life and vulnerability to my post,
so I thought I'd join your strategy...I put my <responses in
brackets.>
I'm feeling pretty disappointed after reading your note.
really get me. Crap.>
I guess you're
picking at low hanging fruit here, challenging the label of "obvious
domination structure", rather than responding to a good deal of
substantial
content in Emma's notes, mine, and others.
<I'm not liking that diagnosis (lazy). I feel irritated. I'd like
picking at low hanging fruit here, challenging the label of "obvious
domination structure", rather than responding to a good deal of
substantial
content in Emma's notes, mine, and others.
some understanding that I got stimulated by Emma's words, that she
helped me contact something stirring in me that actually motivated me
to focus on a response rather than on the 1000 other choices in my
life. I'd like some consideration of my autonomy, some acceptance of
my choice. I'm guessing Conal's disappointment emerges from an
expectation that I would respond in a juicy way to something he wrote,
guessing he'd like connection and contact.>
And alongside of my
disappointment, I also notice some compassion for you, imagining you
might
be overwhelmed with the substance of the dialog and so would like an
easy
place to start.
words moved me! Defining domination is not insubstantial!>
Distrust gets triggered in me with your response #1.
button that I live with. I want to be seen as trustworthy, and I'd
like to be seen for my positive intention, that everything I do is in
the service of my needs and (hopefully) that will contribute to your
well-being as well. >
I guess I have an
inner dissonance between the form I read (disclosure) and the intent I
infer
(teaching).
<I have both alive in me. I want to be vulnerable and honest, and a
inner dissonance between the form I read (disclosure) and the intent I
infer
(teaching).
form that my honesty takes sometimes is sharing what has benefited
me. I like sharing my learning with others. That's why I enjoy the
role of "trainer".
I'm confused about the bulk of the message. I wonder you're defending
a
judgment that CNVC is a partnership structure.
aspires to partnership. I'm questioning and eager for feedback about
how we are doing. If CNVC is to survive, we need clear alignment
between our vision and our action. We need feedback to know when we
come close to our vision and when we fall short. How else will we
learn? I don't want to defend. I don't want to be diagnosed as a
"defender". I'm hungry for feelings and needs.>
<Its also clear to me that we are at the steep end of the learning
curve of building a partnership culture. There is a lot of pain to
heal to make that possible.>
Maybe you're asking for help
in your own ongoing process of wrestling with your own evaluation of
CNVC on
the domination/partnership spectrum.
that assessment on an ongoing basis.>
I can't quite decipher where you're
going for here in terms of relationship with this group. Do you mind
sharing?
see the group as an opportunity to live the process in a community
with a common aim of exploring the evolution of NVC. Is there more
you would like from me? I'd like your specific questions, if you need
more.>
If your intent is to defend a position, then knowing that will
help me choose to invest my energy elsewhere.
human.>
<I want understanding that I might get triggered here in the group. I
have a unique view of CNVC from the inside and from the outside. I've
become attached to some of the "players", especially some of the folks
in the office. I've been on a roller coaster since becoming involved
with CNVC, first as a "student" of Marshall's, then a "community and
workshop organizer", a "wonderer", wondering whether or not to move
into partnership with CNVC as a Certified Trainer, then as "trainer",
then "husband" of "interim director","volunteer" in the CNVC office,
then "elected leader" of the GCC and "IIT organizer"...I remain in
"wonderer", considering what role I want to play next, even as I
remain committed to the vision and mission of CNVC. I do not want to
get addicted to the strategy of working within CNVC, or even of CNVC
continuing to exist in its present form. I want to be open to
outcome.>
If it's to get help exploring
your own uncertainty about CNVC and domination, then I'd like to hear
more
disclosure about your domination suspicions, which would help me to
trust
you. At this point, it's still easy for me to see you as Defender of
the
Church.
wonder if you're carrying pain about your relationship with CNVC or
other organizations, wondering if you are healing from past trauma.
Guessing that hierarchy, domination, "leaders", "trainers" , etc
stimulate fear and caution in you, that you want to remain alert to
protecting your needs, maybe worried that others do not care for your
needs...that you also deeply care about the well-being of others who
may have been oppressed in the past, or are presently being
oppressed...>
<Shit there's another free diagnosis..."Defender". Damn it, stop
pigeon-holing me. I feel frustrated and need to be seen.>
I appreciate Emma's uncensored style,
Emma's, but yours, and mine, and Jori's, and others...need ease.
I also like it when people "take care of their jackals" and do the
inner work of translation/transformation before publishing/speaking,
because it contributes to my connection and well-being. And I like it
when folks (like John M) warn me in advance so that I can take care to
install my giraffe ears. I also want to cultivate the skill to keep
my giraffe ears on however someone speaks. Tha'ts the world I want to
live in... people, including me, working to speak from a giraffe
consciousness when possible, and working to keep giraffe ears on no
matter how another person delivers their message.>
and I'd like her to keep it up.
Personally, before I hit "send", I tend to work a good deal toward the
kind
of crispness/clarity I understand you to be asking for.
want brevity to. I'm amazed at how many words I've already written.
I'm worried you will get lost in all these words.>
While I like the
results I get, something is lost that Emma's style retains, namely a
spontaneity and relatability. I bet a lot of people can tune into
this
discussion, read Emma's note and immediately recognize their own
undertanding, confusion, and disappointment with regard to CNVC. And
I bet
they'd get a lot of relief, learning that some someone else shares
their
sense that 'something just doesn't smell right' (as the saying goes)
about
the communications that come out of CNVC.
And more than relief, I'd like to
support people really questioning CNVC (and any centralized structure
with
external policies and certification systems).
too. I'm also learning how important it is for me to question my own
domination thinking. One of my heroes is Timothy Leary, and I have
adopted one of his slogans to support me in staying awake...TFYQA -
Think for Yourself, Question Authority. I think that's part of what
attracted me to Marshall---his questioning of authority. I
desperately want the questions to emerge from observations, feelings
and needs, rather than analysis.>
When people's inner sense
conflicts with official outer statements, I expect that people are
more
likely to respect and nurture connection to their inner sense when
they know
that they're not alone.
information about my needs. I want to "keep going" to action and
connection requests. I like the sense of community. I feel scared
about cultivating enemy images. I want support from my community in
doing the inner work to transform my jackal thinking and get connected
to life.>
I'd like to see Jim gain depth and clarity in the struggle he's having
in
relating to CNVC. If this group can help with clear observations,
then
cool.
"struggler". I'm surprised at how sensitive I feel, hearing labels
where they may not be intended. I need to be seen as a human being
and a human doing.>
I'd also like Jim to hear and respond to the clear observation that I
think Emma is meaning to express, which is the *obviousness* to her of
CNVC's domination structure. Not an observation about CNVC but about
the
immediacy and compelling strength of her own conclusion that there is
a deep
inconsistency between CNVC's control strategy vs NVC Consciousness.
I get that she is observing them. I get that she wants things to be
different. I don't yet get what she is responding to. I'm sad about
that. I really want to connect with the observation...something
happened that affected you, Emma. What is it?>
<I don't like that diagnosis of a "control strategy". I feel scared.
It reminds me of gas ovens and burning human flesh. Nazi's used enemy
images of "controlling Jewish bankers" to foment world war and
holocaust. My government and some of my fellow citizens continue the
tradition today with other "scape goats" (terrorists).
<What I want is clear observations of what CNVC is doing (or not
doing) that does not meet your need for autonomy.>
<I actually get scared about "NVC Consciousness", too. I have been in
the presence of people who assess others "NVC Consciousness". (I feel
sad remembering participating in this, even passively. I feel sad
noticing that I do this inside. I want to become free of this form of
jackal diagnostic thinking. This reminds me of inquisitions past and
present. Hallucinating the intent or consciousness of someone else
seems life alienating to me, scary. My need for safety is
triggered....I feel scared that someone with more power than me will
assess me as "unworthy" and excommunicate me to an island where I will
die of disconnection and starvation.>
And her
puzzlement that other NVC people even more steeped in NVC than Emma
(particularly CNVC folks) might not read the same data and draw the
same
conclusions.
different way? You're needing some sense of ease that comes from
sharing a "reality"?>
<Conclusions, in general, scare me. I can't seem to escape them in my
self. I want to wake up to the act of concluding and transform it
into a more dynamic awareness of the flow of life. I want to question
the authority of my own conclusions. I want you to do that too.>
<Conal probably thinks I'm teaching again. I'm just responding to
life and reporting what comes alive in me. I feel vulnerable.>
And perhaps wondering if those people do indeed draw those
conclusions and choose to look the other way, to silence their inner
discomfort. I certainly wonder about these questions with CNVC, just
as I
wonder about how the Christian church came to be what it is, despite
its
origin.
more connection. Who are they? What do they think? What do they
feel? What do they want?>
<I feel scared hearing the generalization "Christian church". I feel
concern reading the phrase "those people".>
And, Jim, I think if you read back through these messages, you will
find
concrete observations about CNVC's communications, particularly
statements
that you quoted to us.
need 13 pages of observations. A few words would help!>
Statements that Emma and I and some others don't
know how to interpret other than as show of control, authority and
threat.
want to contribute to that fear. I want to find strategies that work
to help people feel safe in relationship to CNVC. I believ this
requires continuous self-assessment by CNVC's leadership>
I'm open to gaining new understandings and I have been for quite a
while.
to deepen your understanding and integration of NVC. I notice you
seem to pour your life into creating clarity about NVC for yourself
and contributing that to others.>
So far, none of my interactions with CNVC folks, including yourself,
have
helped me shift my interpretation.
your safety and connection. I feel sad hearing that. I hate the
diagnosis CNVC folks. Sounds like you utter it with a sense of
disgust, resentment, hopelssness that you could ever have a quality of
connection with "them". What could I do that could help you shift?
What is your request?>
<This brings tears to my eyes. I feel scared being one of them. I
long for community.>
I'm still hopeful that your
participation in this group may lead to something new for us and for
CNVC.
Warmly,
Jim
(Uncensored, almost unedited I did a spell check and some editing for
clarity...feeling a little worried about what I've written and how it
will be received. Wondering how I will feel when I read it
again...shifting to open to outcome.)
Blessings, - Conal
Same to you!
Conal Elliott
Mar 23, 2008, 8:14:12 PM3/23/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
Jim,
Wow! I enjoyed the hell out of this response from you. Big contrast with my reception of previous notes from you. A few irritations came up in me, and quickly back to peace and joy and gratitude. (Inverse of previous experience.) I got *way* more sense of connection with you and trust as well. I have much more confidence that you're really open to hearing and our observations and requests related to CNVC's policies and communications and contributing to change.
Hooray!
- Conal
Wow! I enjoyed the hell out of this response from you. Big contrast with my reception of previous notes from you. A few irritations came up in me, and quickly back to peace and joy and gratitude. (Inverse of previous experience.) I got *way* more sense of connection with you and trust as well. I have much more confidence that you're really open to hearing and our observations and requests related to CNVC's policies and communications and contributing to change.
Hooray!
- Conal
Emma McCreary
Mar 23, 2008, 9:42:08 PM3/23/08
to NVC Evolves
Hi Jim,
I appreciate the play by play because I get to connect to the
aliveness as it's happening. I find it really intimate and I like it!
=)
I hear that you deeply want to be seen as human, and to be trusted and
seen for your striving to live in alignment with the ideals of NVC,
and be given support and help in finding that alignment, and given
leeway to not do it perfectly. I hear that you are sensitive to
labels, because you deeply want to protect that space to be human and
learn and grow as you go. Is that accurate?
I feel my heart open to you and I hear an inner assent and affirmation
- I want to protect that too!
I also hear you on the number of words being hard to digest. I can
sympathize as I am struggling with this too in my life, with lists,
blogs, groups, etc. I fully support your humanness and my own in
trying to connect in all the places we are invited and inspired to
connect. =)
Reading that you were not connecting to the observation piece in my
initial posts, I am surprised! I didn't realize the observation wasn't
clear.
For viewers just tuning in, this is my post that some of this thread
refers to:
http://groups.google.com/group/nvc-evolves/msg/29e2c808c757ad86
I'll recap some observations for you:
1. When I read the list of 'Guidelines for teaching NVC for non-
certified trainers' on the CNVC website
http://cnvc.org/en/sharing-nvc/guidelines-sharing-nvc
I felt sad and disconnected b/c my needs for support and trust were
not met. I felt annoyed b/c my needs for efficiency and clarity in
marketing would not be met by teaching NVC but not calling it NVC.
I felt "turned off" of teaching NVC. I heard the message: "Unless you
go through our training and we approve you, we don't want you to share
NVC because you might not do it "right".
2. When I read Conal's post about treating the CNVC guidelines as a
request, ie not just going along with it:
http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/using-the-name-nonviolent-communication-or-nvc/
I felt relieved and excited b/c my needs for shared reality,
understanding, empathy, and awareness were met.
3. Reading Conal's notes over here:
http://emergence.awakeningcompassion.com/
about alternative approaches than certification and how CNVC's
certification strategy, I got excited about teaching NVC again! And I
felt sad that I hadn't gotten that inspiration from the CNVC website.
I felt sad and concerned for the other people out there who might have
been excited to share NVC until they saw the CNVC website.
3. When you posted your initial note here in the group asking us not
to use the word NVC, I felt scared, "caught". Oh no! We broke the
rules! Now they're going to come punish us! Fear, and also anger and
disappointment. Why would CNVC be acting like this? Why wouldn't they
be happy and supportive of people learning and sharing the beauty of
NVC? Agony and confusion.
4. I had the thought/observation that when I had initially read the
guidelines on the website, I hadn't had any of these feelings. I
decided that I had gone unconsciously into "submit to authority mode"
and hadn't questioned it until I saw Conal's writing. Seeing that
chain of events scared me! I was afraid for myself. And shocked. How
could I given up my autonomy so easily? And how could CNVC not know
that this would be the result?
What I saw was that CNVC was setting themselves up as an authority and
not acting with an awareness of what the results of that would be in a
populace trained to submit to authority (like me!).
5. Reflecting on that and writing my post in response to you and
expressing my feelings, I had a huge release of energy. I identified
with this saying: "Speak truth to power". It really felt like I was
going up against a big scary authority structure. I felt a rush,
adrenaline, all of that.
I realize that this whole cycle has a lot to do with authority and
submission IN GENERAL, not about CNVC and you in particular. My
emotional responses were stronger because I was dealing with the
authority concepts my mind had grafted onto CNVC. And still does. When
I look at the list of CNVC guidelines, I still feel tension in my
body. I can connect to you, Jim, personally, but I still can't connect
to the life-serving needs behind that list of policies. So I guess the
obviousness to me is because of the very visceral bodily reactions I
have. Which, I suppose, wouldn't necessarily be obvious to anyone else
LOL. Still, I do wonder how it could inspire such a large reaction in
me and not in you, or in the person who wrote it. I am curious, did
the person feel a juicy sense of "Ah, right on!" when they wrote it?
<projecting incredulousness in my voice...>
What do you feel when you read it? What comes up for you when you read
that list? I'm curious.
I hope this elucidates my earlier post and helps you connect to the
content of it. Let me know if not and what I could do to clarify
further! I am also eager to connect from observations, feelings and
needs, rather than analysis.
Emma
I appreciate the play by play because I get to connect to the
aliveness as it's happening. I find it really intimate and I like it!
=)
I hear that you deeply want to be seen as human, and to be trusted and
seen for your striving to live in alignment with the ideals of NVC,
and be given support and help in finding that alignment, and given
leeway to not do it perfectly. I hear that you are sensitive to
labels, because you deeply want to protect that space to be human and
learn and grow as you go. Is that accurate?
I feel my heart open to you and I hear an inner assent and affirmation
- I want to protect that too!
I also hear you on the number of words being hard to digest. I can
sympathize as I am struggling with this too in my life, with lists,
blogs, groups, etc. I fully support your humanness and my own in
trying to connect in all the places we are invited and inspired to
connect. =)
Reading that you were not connecting to the observation piece in my
initial posts, I am surprised! I didn't realize the observation wasn't
clear.
For viewers just tuning in, this is my post that some of this thread
refers to:
http://groups.google.com/group/nvc-evolves/msg/29e2c808c757ad86
I'll recap some observations for you:
1. When I read the list of 'Guidelines for teaching NVC for non-
certified trainers' on the CNVC website
http://cnvc.org/en/sharing-nvc/guidelines-sharing-nvc
I felt sad and disconnected b/c my needs for support and trust were
not met. I felt annoyed b/c my needs for efficiency and clarity in
marketing would not be met by teaching NVC but not calling it NVC.
I felt "turned off" of teaching NVC. I heard the message: "Unless you
go through our training and we approve you, we don't want you to share
NVC because you might not do it "right".
2. When I read Conal's post about treating the CNVC guidelines as a
request, ie not just going along with it:
http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/using-the-name-nonviolent-communication-or-nvc/
I felt relieved and excited b/c my needs for shared reality,
understanding, empathy, and awareness were met.
3. Reading Conal's notes over here:
http://emergence.awakeningcompassion.com/
about alternative approaches than certification and how CNVC's
certification strategy, I got excited about teaching NVC again! And I
felt sad that I hadn't gotten that inspiration from the CNVC website.
I felt sad and concerned for the other people out there who might have
been excited to share NVC until they saw the CNVC website.
3. When you posted your initial note here in the group asking us not
to use the word NVC, I felt scared, "caught". Oh no! We broke the
rules! Now they're going to come punish us! Fear, and also anger and
disappointment. Why would CNVC be acting like this? Why wouldn't they
be happy and supportive of people learning and sharing the beauty of
NVC? Agony and confusion.
4. I had the thought/observation that when I had initially read the
guidelines on the website, I hadn't had any of these feelings. I
decided that I had gone unconsciously into "submit to authority mode"
and hadn't questioned it until I saw Conal's writing. Seeing that
chain of events scared me! I was afraid for myself. And shocked. How
could I given up my autonomy so easily? And how could CNVC not know
that this would be the result?
What I saw was that CNVC was setting themselves up as an authority and
not acting with an awareness of what the results of that would be in a
populace trained to submit to authority (like me!).
5. Reflecting on that and writing my post in response to you and
expressing my feelings, I had a huge release of energy. I identified
with this saying: "Speak truth to power". It really felt like I was
going up against a big scary authority structure. I felt a rush,
adrenaline, all of that.
I realize that this whole cycle has a lot to do with authority and
submission IN GENERAL, not about CNVC and you in particular. My
emotional responses were stronger because I was dealing with the
authority concepts my mind had grafted onto CNVC. And still does. When
I look at the list of CNVC guidelines, I still feel tension in my
body. I can connect to you, Jim, personally, but I still can't connect
to the life-serving needs behind that list of policies. So I guess the
obviousness to me is because of the very visceral bodily reactions I
have. Which, I suppose, wouldn't necessarily be obvious to anyone else
LOL. Still, I do wonder how it could inspire such a large reaction in
me and not in you, or in the person who wrote it. I am curious, did
the person feel a juicy sense of "Ah, right on!" when they wrote it?
<projecting incredulousness in my voice...>
What do you feel when you read it? What comes up for you when you read
that list? I'm curious.
I hope this elucidates my earlier post and helps you connect to the
content of it. Let me know if not and what I could do to clarify
further! I am also eager to connect from observations, feelings and
needs, rather than analysis.
Emma
Holly Croydon
Mar 24, 2008, 3:36:10 PM3/24/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
Dear Jim,
It took me awhile to get to this message. There is so much I want to read, sometimes I get a little overwhelmed by the sheer volume via email, blogs, news, etc. Sounds like that is something you relate to? Seeing the length of your message, I was initially discouraged, but that evaporated quickly once I got over my oh-no-another-long-email reaction began actually reading it.
You expressed to Conal your appreciation for brevity, and worry that he "will get lost in all these words." I myself do get lost in a lot of words, especially when they are focused on theory or ideology. However, I will eagerly devour all the words you care to write about what's alive in you, especially when it's alive in the present moment of your writing. Just as I devoured this. Yum! Please, sir, I want some more! ;D
Your choice of bracketing your answers made it easy for me to follow. I appreciate that help in supporting clarity and ease of reading.
My heart melted right at the beginning, when you wrote, "I thought he would really get me. Crap." I love the wide open view of what's going on in you, Jim. I am grateful and touched with your choice of expressing with "life and vulnerability," as you described it. Throughout your note, I hear more of what I am imagining to be your "voice," as if you were here speaking with me, and I enjoy that very much.
Even at the couple points where I noticed myself getting triggered, I still felt open and connected to you and wanted to hear more. Hearing you share in an uncensored way inspired in me a sense of trust and appreciation. I liked reading at the end that you did a quick spell-check but little editing, the discomfort it brought up in you, and how you were moving through that worry into openness to outcome. Your phrase "respond in a juicy way" says it perfectly for me. Yeah!! I love that juicy stuff, and bless you for bringin' it on.
Hey, enough about me! Even though, IMO, email empathy is problematic at best, I'm going to shift my focus to my connection with your email. I'm also conscious of a worry about overwhelming with too many words. However, I am longing to reflect and find out if I "get you."
I think I am hearing that you seek to live in connection with needs and with Life, and would like to have that deep intention seen and understood. Much of your life is and has been centered around nurturing the vision and mission of CNVC, and it's been quite a ride, including rich relationships and searching internally whether partnership with CNVC made sense for you in the first place. You would like us to see that you recognize CNVC's operations and even its very existence as strategies, and that what's important to you is meeting needs and creating a better world. Your mind and heart are open with "wonder" to whatever role you might play that would contribute to your world vision. Right now, that vision is most closely aligned with CNVC's.
I think I'm hearing that you are here (both in this group and on planet Earth) with a longing for connection and community. That you love and connect with the consciousness of NVC, recognizing its impact in your life and in the wider world, and want to help extend that wonderful stuff even more. You have a deep caring for the CNVC organization as well as respect for and resonance with its mission. Your active involvement gives you a unique intimacy with the goals and processes of the organization. Sounds like you would be glad for the chance to help others see the beauty you are witness to in CNVC, as well as welcome specific (and terse!) feedback to help the organization meet a widening community's needs.
Would you let me know how these guesses fit? I know I've only reflected a small part of what you shared. Are there other parts you'd like me (or all of us) to really take in?
In my head, I have known that CNVC was made up of human beings, and that if I could see what was alive in their hearts I would likely be inspired. Getting to connect with your humanity and your heart, vulnerably shared with us, helps transform my intellectual thought into a deeper trust inside myself, which I like a lot better! Thank you again.
Namaste,
Holly
It took me awhile to get to this message. There is so much I want to read, sometimes I get a little overwhelmed by the sheer volume via email, blogs, news, etc. Sounds like that is something you relate to? Seeing the length of your message, I was initially discouraged, but that evaporated quickly once I got over my oh-no-another-long-email reaction began actually reading it.
You expressed to Conal your appreciation for brevity, and worry that he "will get lost in all these words." I myself do get lost in a lot of words, especially when they are focused on theory or ideology. However, I will eagerly devour all the words you care to write about what's alive in you, especially when it's alive in the present moment of your writing. Just as I devoured this. Yum! Please, sir, I want some more! ;D
Your choice of bracketing your answers made it easy for me to follow. I appreciate that help in supporting clarity and ease of reading.
My heart melted right at the beginning, when you wrote, "I thought he would really get me. Crap." I love the wide open view of what's going on in you, Jim. I am grateful and touched with your choice of expressing with "life and vulnerability," as you described it. Throughout your note, I hear more of what I am imagining to be your "voice," as if you were here speaking with me, and I enjoy that very much.
Even at the couple points where I noticed myself getting triggered, I still felt open and connected to you and wanted to hear more. Hearing you share in an uncensored way inspired in me a sense of trust and appreciation. I liked reading at the end that you did a quick spell-check but little editing, the discomfort it brought up in you, and how you were moving through that worry into openness to outcome. Your phrase "respond in a juicy way" says it perfectly for me. Yeah!! I love that juicy stuff, and bless you for bringin' it on.
Hey, enough about me! Even though, IMO, email empathy is problematic at best, I'm going to shift my focus to my connection with your email. I'm also conscious of a worry about overwhelming with too many words. However, I am longing to reflect and find out if I "get you."
I think I am hearing that you seek to live in connection with needs and with Life, and would like to have that deep intention seen and understood. Much of your life is and has been centered around nurturing the vision and mission of CNVC, and it's been quite a ride, including rich relationships and searching internally whether partnership with CNVC made sense for you in the first place. You would like us to see that you recognize CNVC's operations and even its very existence as strategies, and that what's important to you is meeting needs and creating a better world. Your mind and heart are open with "wonder" to whatever role you might play that would contribute to your world vision. Right now, that vision is most closely aligned with CNVC's.
I think I'm hearing that you are here (both in this group and on planet Earth) with a longing for connection and community. That you love and connect with the consciousness of NVC, recognizing its impact in your life and in the wider world, and want to help extend that wonderful stuff even more. You have a deep caring for the CNVC organization as well as respect for and resonance with its mission. Your active involvement gives you a unique intimacy with the goals and processes of the organization. Sounds like you would be glad for the chance to help others see the beauty you are witness to in CNVC, as well as welcome specific (and terse!) feedback to help the organization meet a widening community's needs.
Would you let me know how these guesses fit? I know I've only reflected a small part of what you shared. Are there other parts you'd like me (or all of us) to really take in?
In my head, I have known that CNVC was made up of human beings, and that if I could see what was alive in their hearts I would likely be inspired. Getting to connect with your humanity and your heart, vulnerably shared with us, helps transform my intellectual thought into a deeper trust inside myself, which I like a lot better! Thank you again.
Namaste,
Holly
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:58 PM, nvctrainer <nvctr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Parenthesis Eye
Mar 24, 2008, 6:17:29 PM3/24/08
to NVC Evolves
Hey all,
I am interested in us going back to the original topics of "what is a
domination structure?" and the CNVC's relation to all of that. I
eagerly await Jim's further reflections that he spoke of, but in the
meantime I'd like to see what we can come up with in tackling this
question brought up. I see this as being a very important question,
with a lot of potential rich-ness that can be found within it, if held
with sufficient care & attention.
Here is a definition of "domination structure" that I have for myself.
I am open to changing it, and hearing feed-back on it, but so far it
works for me:
"A social system characterized by most individuals within it not
experiencing a sense of choice & agency and looking to a few
individuals for these qualities; and where the few individuals who are
perceived as having these qualities are not experiencing a sense of
acknowledgment, respect and appreciation for the autonomy &
empowerment of the rest."
Using this definition can then account for both the conscious &
unconscious domination systems, the explicit & implicit ones. In other
words, the majority of the people could be thinking "I'm just
following orders" or "I am an autonomous & free individual making of
life as I see fit", but as long as they are not *experiencing* a sense
of personal choice & agency, it doesn't matter, they're contributing
to a domination system.
Likewise, with "the elite", they could be thinking "we need to put
those wretches in their place", or "we're harmoniously working in a
partnership paradigm meeting needs in peaceful ways", but as long as
they are not having the *experience* of having in mind & heart the
autonomy of the rest, then it is perpetuating domination. I really
don't see the words or structures as being fundamentally important
here, for as long as those involved have a sense of being together
with full & choiceful individuals, then it's a new paradigm. Things
could *appear* to be of a domination paradigm on the outside, but in
reality have an "in the world, but not of it" thing going on. Various
Sufi and other esoteric orders are good examples of this.
That being said, I do think that the words used and structures framing
an organization can either contribute to or diminish the sense of
choicefulness and respect that those within it are experiencing. I
like this quote from Manfred Max-Neef's book "Human Scale Development"
where he says:
"If we wish to define and access an environment in the light of human
needs, it is not sufficient to understand the opportunities that exist
for groups or individuals to actualize their needs. It is necessary to
analyze to what extent the environment represses, tolerates, or
stimulates opportunities. How accessible, creative or flexible is that
environment? The most important question is how far people are able to
influence the structures that affect their opportunities."
Looking at the CNVC, I would say that how "partnership" or
"domination"-based it is depends on what specifically we're looking
at. Marshall & Valentina's unilateral shutting down of the
certification system seemed, in my eyes, very domination-based. Jim &
Jori's work at starting up the GCC seems, to me, very partnership-
based. And then there's everything in between...
Here is something that I would like to throw out there, as a possible
strategy to help us to come up with new forms to further bring out &
encourage more partnership in/with the CNVC:
I propose that those interested in coming up with & developing new
social forms for the CNVC to get together in-person at some specific
place & time, and collectively go through a "Thinking At the Edge"
process (http://www.focusing.org/tae.html) with an experienced TAE
facilitator leading it. I am excited about this possibility, because I
get the feeling that many of us (including myself) have a vague felt-
sense of what our desired partnership system would look like, but we
are having a hard time putting that into clear concepts & words, let
alone formulating new clear doable requests! I am hopeful that us
going through this process can help us to move forward in getting
clear on what it is that we are wanting here exactly.
Reactions? Responses? F & N?
In lib,
(I)
I am interested in us going back to the original topics of "what is a
domination structure?" and the CNVC's relation to all of that. I
eagerly await Jim's further reflections that he spoke of, but in the
meantime I'd like to see what we can come up with in tackling this
question brought up. I see this as being a very important question,
with a lot of potential rich-ness that can be found within it, if held
with sufficient care & attention.
Here is a definition of "domination structure" that I have for myself.
I am open to changing it, and hearing feed-back on it, but so far it
works for me:
"A social system characterized by most individuals within it not
experiencing a sense of choice & agency and looking to a few
individuals for these qualities; and where the few individuals who are
perceived as having these qualities are not experiencing a sense of
acknowledgment, respect and appreciation for the autonomy &
empowerment of the rest."
Using this definition can then account for both the conscious &
unconscious domination systems, the explicit & implicit ones. In other
words, the majority of the people could be thinking "I'm just
following orders" or "I am an autonomous & free individual making of
life as I see fit", but as long as they are not *experiencing* a sense
of personal choice & agency, it doesn't matter, they're contributing
to a domination system.
Likewise, with "the elite", they could be thinking "we need to put
those wretches in their place", or "we're harmoniously working in a
partnership paradigm meeting needs in peaceful ways", but as long as
they are not having the *experience* of having in mind & heart the
autonomy of the rest, then it is perpetuating domination. I really
don't see the words or structures as being fundamentally important
here, for as long as those involved have a sense of being together
with full & choiceful individuals, then it's a new paradigm. Things
could *appear* to be of a domination paradigm on the outside, but in
reality have an "in the world, but not of it" thing going on. Various
Sufi and other esoteric orders are good examples of this.
That being said, I do think that the words used and structures framing
an organization can either contribute to or diminish the sense of
choicefulness and respect that those within it are experiencing. I
like this quote from Manfred Max-Neef's book "Human Scale Development"
where he says:
"If we wish to define and access an environment in the light of human
needs, it is not sufficient to understand the opportunities that exist
for groups or individuals to actualize their needs. It is necessary to
analyze to what extent the environment represses, tolerates, or
stimulates opportunities. How accessible, creative or flexible is that
environment? The most important question is how far people are able to
influence the structures that affect their opportunities."
Looking at the CNVC, I would say that how "partnership" or
"domination"-based it is depends on what specifically we're looking
at. Marshall & Valentina's unilateral shutting down of the
certification system seemed, in my eyes, very domination-based. Jim &
Jori's work at starting up the GCC seems, to me, very partnership-
based. And then there's everything in between...
Here is something that I would like to throw out there, as a possible
strategy to help us to come up with new forms to further bring out &
encourage more partnership in/with the CNVC:
I propose that those interested in coming up with & developing new
social forms for the CNVC to get together in-person at some specific
place & time, and collectively go through a "Thinking At the Edge"
process (http://www.focusing.org/tae.html) with an experienced TAE
facilitator leading it. I am excited about this possibility, because I
get the feeling that many of us (including myself) have a vague felt-
sense of what our desired partnership system would look like, but we
are having a hard time putting that into clear concepts & words, let
alone formulating new clear doable requests! I am hopeful that us
going through this process can help us to move forward in getting
clear on what it is that we are wanting here exactly.
Reactions? Responses? F & N?
In lib,
(I)
John Mudie
Mar 24, 2008, 7:26:30 PM3/24/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
When I read all these messages about domination structures, I get concerned
at all the energy that is going into changing/complaining/reqesting changes
etc of CNVC
at all the energy that is going into changing/complaining/reqesting changes
etc of CNVC
I think the history of all "dominating structures" is that they are unlikely
to be able to change themselves, to be less dominating. Just the act of
them trying to change themselves is in itself domination by them over their
structure.
I am guessing that most dominating structures, The Indians in India under
the British , the Afro-American in the South, the South African non-whites
get undominated by refusing to be dominated. They sit in the front of
busses, they march to the sea for salt etc
So if CNVC is in fact "dominating" us its time for all giraffes to stick
their necks out, to put the letters NVC in their announcements and stop
allowing themselves to see CNVC as a dominating organization but instead
start to see CNVC as a support organization (which is most probably what it
is are trying to be).
Giraffes to the trenches, Let us stick out our long neck and be positively
revolting
Raise the flag of battle and lets move to the front of the bus!!!!
John
Who has a mug which says "Be the change you want to see in the world"
Parenthesis Eye
Mar 24, 2008, 8:33:35 PM3/24/08
to NVC Evolves
Heya John,
I am a bit concerned that I did not make myself clear here, with what
I am getting at with having this discussion... I am not necessarily
wanting the CNVC to change or to even do anything for us. I am well
aware that most people on this list are not involved with the CNVC,
nor even would be if the offer were presented to them. We're picking
on the CNVC because right now they're the only one out there that's
trying to do this sort of thing.
What I am trying to get at with my many many words is - "what exactly
is a domination structure?", and, the flip-side of, "what could a
large-scale organization based on & in integrity with NVC look like?"
I am wanting to get as clear & coherent a working definition of these
things as possible, under the assumption that through having such
clear understandings can then aid in the constructing of strategies &
requests needed to move forward in (re)creating what we want.
Make sense?
- (I)
I am a bit concerned that I did not make myself clear here, with what
I am getting at with having this discussion... I am not necessarily
wanting the CNVC to change or to even do anything for us. I am well
aware that most people on this list are not involved with the CNVC,
nor even would be if the offer were presented to them. We're picking
on the CNVC because right now they're the only one out there that's
trying to do this sort of thing.
What I am trying to get at with my many many words is - "what exactly
is a domination structure?", and, the flip-side of, "what could a
large-scale organization based on & in integrity with NVC look like?"
I am wanting to get as clear & coherent a working definition of these
things as possible, under the assumption that through having such
clear understandings can then aid in the constructing of strategies &
requests needed to move forward in (re)creating what we want.
Make sense?
- (I)
Conal Elliott
Mar 24, 2008, 9:18:39 PM3/24/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
I propose that those interested in coming up with &
developing new social forms for the CNVC
to get together [...]
Before doing that exploration, I'd like clarity of purpose. Why have a CNVC at all? One role has been to oversee NVC teaching, to "preserve the integrity ...": certification. I recommend dropping that goal rather than doing it more effectively. Supporting teaching could probably be done more effectively and with more lively diversity in a decentralized, grassroots, web 2.0, sort of way.
Another has been managing Marshall's travel schedule, and I don't know how much longer Marshall will want to travel extensively.
What would folks like from a CNVC, other than dropping some existing policies? Anything?
- Conal
Parenthesis Eye
Mar 24, 2008, 9:48:58 PM3/24/08
to NVC Evolves
Heya Conal,
I appreciate you asking this. I like it when unquestioned assumptions
are pointed out to me - I find it to be a call for me to get more
clarity and/or to check to see if I am going about things in integrity
with my values.
So, what I get from from the CNVC, or any kind of organization that
would take it's place, is a means for:
1 - Hooking people up with other NVC people & organizations in-person
(for trainings, mentoring, to do projects together, whatever)
2 - Hooking people up with resources, literature, materials
3 - Spreading awareness of different trainings & events happening
4 - Communication forums of different sorts
5 - News from the scene
6 - Providing a common touch-stone or focal point for NVC-interested
people to look to for information, community, resources, etc.
There is also a # 7, of, experimentation with group dynamics in hopes
of learning more of how to work together with others in a different
kind of way. However, I realize that this could be done in other ways,
and perhaps #'s 1 - 6 might best be done if somehow detached from #
7?
I am wary of all of this being done online, because there is the issue
of all the people in the world who *don't* have internet access. I'm
wanting to ensure that there would be inclusion & consideration for
these people.
Thinking over all of this right now, I now feel much less investment
or interest in the CNVC as it has been organized so far. In my list of
things I'd want a CNVC to do, "supporting a demagogue", "maintaining a
copyright", "having a certification program", and "running a special
brand-name of trainings" are not included. With this all cut away, the
size & resources needed to run the CNVC would be greatly cut back.
When I think of this, I feel more of a sense of spaciousness, somewhat
like a weight has been lifted off of me...
I am curious to see how others might answer this question.
In lib,
(I)
On Mar 24, 9:18 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > I propose that those interested in coming up with &
>
> developing new social forms for the CNVC
>
> to get together [...]
>
>
>
> Before doing that exploration, I'd like clarity of purpose. Why have a CNVC
> at all? One role has been to oversee NVC teaching, to "preserve the
> integrity ...": certification. I recommend dropping that goal rather than
> doing it more effectively. Supporting teaching could probably be done more
> effectively and with more lively diversity in a decentralized, grassroots,
> web 2.0, sort of way.
>
> Another has been managing Marshall's travel schedule, and I don't know how
> much longer Marshall will want to travel extensively.
>
> What would folks like from a CNVC, other than dropping some existing
> policies? Anything?
>
> - Conal
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Parenthesis Eye <parenthesis...@gmail.com>
I appreciate you asking this. I like it when unquestioned assumptions
are pointed out to me - I find it to be a call for me to get more
clarity and/or to check to see if I am going about things in integrity
with my values.
So, what I get from from the CNVC, or any kind of organization that
would take it's place, is a means for:
1 - Hooking people up with other NVC people & organizations in-person
(for trainings, mentoring, to do projects together, whatever)
2 - Hooking people up with resources, literature, materials
3 - Spreading awareness of different trainings & events happening
4 - Communication forums of different sorts
5 - News from the scene
6 - Providing a common touch-stone or focal point for NVC-interested
people to look to for information, community, resources, etc.
There is also a # 7, of, experimentation with group dynamics in hopes
of learning more of how to work together with others in a different
kind of way. However, I realize that this could be done in other ways,
and perhaps #'s 1 - 6 might best be done if somehow detached from #
7?
I am wary of all of this being done online, because there is the issue
of all the people in the world who *don't* have internet access. I'm
wanting to ensure that there would be inclusion & consideration for
these people.
Thinking over all of this right now, I now feel much less investment
or interest in the CNVC as it has been organized so far. In my list of
things I'd want a CNVC to do, "supporting a demagogue", "maintaining a
copyright", "having a certification program", and "running a special
brand-name of trainings" are not included. With this all cut away, the
size & resources needed to run the CNVC would be greatly cut back.
When I think of this, I feel more of a sense of spaciousness, somewhat
like a weight has been lifted off of me...
I am curious to see how others might answer this question.
In lib,
(I)
On Mar 24, 9:18 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > I propose that those interested in coming up with &
>
> developing new social forms for the CNVC
>
> to get together [...]
>
>
>
> Before doing that exploration, I'd like clarity of purpose. Why have a CNVC
> at all? One role has been to oversee NVC teaching, to "preserve the
> integrity ...": certification. I recommend dropping that goal rather than
> doing it more effectively. Supporting teaching could probably be done more
> effectively and with more lively diversity in a decentralized, grassroots,
> web 2.0, sort of way.
>
> Another has been managing Marshall's travel schedule, and I don't know how
> much longer Marshall will want to travel extensively.
>
> What would folks like from a CNVC, other than dropping some existing
> policies? Anything?
>
> - Conal
>
Emma McCreary
Mar 24, 2008, 9:58:32 PM3/24/08
to NVC Evolves
John,
Reading your letter, I hear that you feel concerned about the energy
going into trying to change CNVC. I also hear hopelessness about CNVC
changing their structure, when you think of the history of other
structures which you observe were domination-based.
Then I hear a cry to "raise the flag of battle"!
Uh oh!! I feel a bit of alarm bells ringing. I don't want to do
battle! Wanting to do peace, and be seen for that striving.
I'm guessing your needs are: effectiveness, awareness, maybe
spontaneity? You want to put some energy into doing some action that
would get results? Maybe you are worried that these discussions will
not lead to any change and you are eager for change?
I feel the urge to educate you <sigh>. I have a lot of thoughts going
on. I will write them down for you, but I'm aware that they might not
land well if you think I'm trying to change your mind. I'm actually
curious, in responding in email, and wanting to discuss ideas, if
empathy would lead to more connection if offered first? I don't have a
sense for this and it's something I'm hoping to learn through
participating here and experimenting. So would you be willing to let
me know how this lands for you, reading this top part trying to hear
your needs, and then reading the ideas below that are more my
thoughts? That would help me learn.
OK, here is the more educatey part LOL:
> John wrote: I think the history of all "dominating structures" is that they > are unlikely to be able to change themselves, to be less dominating.
I don't agree here. I think it's possible for people inside
"domination structures" to dismantle them as they become conscious of
them. I believe this because I've dismantled and dissolved the
"domination structures" in my own head by becoming aware of them and
choosing to connect to life instead. It was difficult, but I did it
and continue to do it.
In my tranformational work I've found it vitally helpful for me to
focus on what I want and go for it, rather than look at my history and
declare things hopeless. I believe hopelessness can become a self-
fulfilling prophecy. I see one of the hallmarks of "domination
structures" is that they foster a helplessness about anything ever
changing. "It's just the way it is" is a sign that alerts me to
disempowered thinking.
To counteract that, I choose to believe and act as if any structure
anywhere is changeable. I'm very excited and happy about this idea, it
meets my needs for hope and inspiration.
Just that shift, going from "it's not possible to change domination
thinking and structures - it's just the way it is" to "it is possible--
because it is always possible to connect and reconnect to life" -- I
see this as a huge step. I see the hopelessness as a false belief and
the reconnection to what is possible as a grounding in a deeper truth.
When I think about CNVC changing, I am inspired to believe that it is
the people inside CNVC who will be the ones to change the structure if
they want to. They are closest to the needs it is meeting. It is their
organization after all. CNVC doesn't belong to me.
I am reminded of how I think of therapy: the therapist helps me see
myself, but then it's up to me to change. If the therapist tries to
change me or is attached to me changing, then I'll be seeking another
therapist! Because I want a non-violent therapy relationship, where I
choose the change I want.
So, it's not my goal to change CNVC. In dialoguing with CNVC I hope to
inspire insight and be able to offer reflection as someone outside the
organization. Not to change them, but to offer them clarity and
feedback if they are wanting it. So they can choose to change if they
wish, if they find themselves out of alignment with their own goals. I
respect their autonomy as an organization and also the needs they are
meeting for the people in it. If they find my feedback useful, great!
If not, that's OK.
In short, I'm not attached to CNVC being my only strategy for getting
my needs for NVC support and community met. I'm not demanding they
change.
What does reading this bring up for you?
Emma
Reading your letter, I hear that you feel concerned about the energy
going into trying to change CNVC. I also hear hopelessness about CNVC
changing their structure, when you think of the history of other
structures which you observe were domination-based.
Then I hear a cry to "raise the flag of battle"!
Uh oh!! I feel a bit of alarm bells ringing. I don't want to do
battle! Wanting to do peace, and be seen for that striving.
I'm guessing your needs are: effectiveness, awareness, maybe
spontaneity? You want to put some energy into doing some action that
would get results? Maybe you are worried that these discussions will
not lead to any change and you are eager for change?
I feel the urge to educate you <sigh>. I have a lot of thoughts going
on. I will write them down for you, but I'm aware that they might not
land well if you think I'm trying to change your mind. I'm actually
curious, in responding in email, and wanting to discuss ideas, if
empathy would lead to more connection if offered first? I don't have a
sense for this and it's something I'm hoping to learn through
participating here and experimenting. So would you be willing to let
me know how this lands for you, reading this top part trying to hear
your needs, and then reading the ideas below that are more my
thoughts? That would help me learn.
OK, here is the more educatey part LOL:
> John wrote: I think the history of all "dominating structures" is that they > are unlikely to be able to change themselves, to be less dominating.
I don't agree here. I think it's possible for people inside
"domination structures" to dismantle them as they become conscious of
them. I believe this because I've dismantled and dissolved the
"domination structures" in my own head by becoming aware of them and
choosing to connect to life instead. It was difficult, but I did it
and continue to do it.
In my tranformational work I've found it vitally helpful for me to
focus on what I want and go for it, rather than look at my history and
declare things hopeless. I believe hopelessness can become a self-
fulfilling prophecy. I see one of the hallmarks of "domination
structures" is that they foster a helplessness about anything ever
changing. "It's just the way it is" is a sign that alerts me to
disempowered thinking.
To counteract that, I choose to believe and act as if any structure
anywhere is changeable. I'm very excited and happy about this idea, it
meets my needs for hope and inspiration.
Just that shift, going from "it's not possible to change domination
thinking and structures - it's just the way it is" to "it is possible--
because it is always possible to connect and reconnect to life" -- I
see this as a huge step. I see the hopelessness as a false belief and
the reconnection to what is possible as a grounding in a deeper truth.
When I think about CNVC changing, I am inspired to believe that it is
the people inside CNVC who will be the ones to change the structure if
they want to. They are closest to the needs it is meeting. It is their
organization after all. CNVC doesn't belong to me.
I am reminded of how I think of therapy: the therapist helps me see
myself, but then it's up to me to change. If the therapist tries to
change me or is attached to me changing, then I'll be seeking another
therapist! Because I want a non-violent therapy relationship, where I
choose the change I want.
So, it's not my goal to change CNVC. In dialoguing with CNVC I hope to
inspire insight and be able to offer reflection as someone outside the
organization. Not to change them, but to offer them clarity and
feedback if they are wanting it. So they can choose to change if they
wish, if they find themselves out of alignment with their own goals. I
respect their autonomy as an organization and also the needs they are
meeting for the people in it. If they find my feedback useful, great!
If not, that's OK.
In short, I'm not attached to CNVC being my only strategy for getting
my needs for NVC support and community met. I'm not demanding they
change.
What does reading this bring up for you?
Emma
Emma McCreary
Mar 24, 2008, 10:22:12 PM3/24/08
to NVC Evolves
Conal,
Great question!
What I would love from CNVC is deep support and inspiration in
learning NVC, and teaching NVC. And them leaving the rest up to
others.
Many of the things (I) mentioned I find valuable. I see many of them
under the idea of "connection people to resources" ie facilitating
connections. I find these valuable, but there's something missing for
me. First, I see communications needs being met in many different
ways, and not all centralized. Instead of CNVC trying to do all of
those things, they could easily empower and link to people who are
doing each of those things better.
I'd love to see CNVC act as a grounding point for the work of NVC. IE
provide spiritual leadership by being deeply grounded in NVC
consciousness. I'm imagining a core group of people who live, work,
and breathe NVC, who really get to the bottom of how to live in an NVC
way. And then transmit that knowledge. Basically I'm thinking of an
NVC thinktank, only it would be a live-tank. NVC research, to expand
and deepen the teaching itself.
I'd also love if they experimented with teaching methods, finding the
ways that work the best to explain it to people new to NVC, and what
tools help deeply integrate it (ie mindfulness and spiritual
practice).
Right now I feel saddened seeing Marshall out there teaching basic NVC
to people. I don't think that's the best use of his time. I'm a fan of
every person and organization doing what they and only they can do
best. I would rather know what else is in that brain of his? What
would he come up with next if he wasn't being bustled here and there
and trying to build an organization or save the world? Organizational
building is one thing - saving the world is another thing - developing
and refining a transformational consciousness is yet another. I'm more
interested in seeing CNVC do the latter. But that's me - I'm very
interested in receiving the latter, so there you go!
And I believe that the more the core of NVC is developed, and the more
decentralized the strategies for spreading it, the more people will be
empowered to save themselves.
I guess I support their original mission - to preserve the integrity
of NVC. However I see the strategy to do that as different. Instead of
trying to control how it is taught - an impossible goal, you just have
to breathe and realize that yes, people are going to be teaching it
that aren't perfect at it, and then devote yourself to following the
living river of NVC. That's what will preserve the integrity of it -
when you can offer people fresh infusions of learning right from the
waters edge. That's what keeps any teaching fresh and magical - when
it's being constantly learned from the Divine itself. That's what I'd
love to see CNVC offering. This is what I hunger for.
Emma
Great question!
What I would love from CNVC is deep support and inspiration in
learning NVC, and teaching NVC. And them leaving the rest up to
others.
Many of the things (I) mentioned I find valuable. I see many of them
under the idea of "connection people to resources" ie facilitating
connections. I find these valuable, but there's something missing for
me. First, I see communications needs being met in many different
ways, and not all centralized. Instead of CNVC trying to do all of
those things, they could easily empower and link to people who are
doing each of those things better.
I'd love to see CNVC act as a grounding point for the work of NVC. IE
provide spiritual leadership by being deeply grounded in NVC
consciousness. I'm imagining a core group of people who live, work,
and breathe NVC, who really get to the bottom of how to live in an NVC
way. And then transmit that knowledge. Basically I'm thinking of an
NVC thinktank, only it would be a live-tank. NVC research, to expand
and deepen the teaching itself.
I'd also love if they experimented with teaching methods, finding the
ways that work the best to explain it to people new to NVC, and what
tools help deeply integrate it (ie mindfulness and spiritual
practice).
Right now I feel saddened seeing Marshall out there teaching basic NVC
to people. I don't think that's the best use of his time. I'm a fan of
every person and organization doing what they and only they can do
best. I would rather know what else is in that brain of his? What
would he come up with next if he wasn't being bustled here and there
and trying to build an organization or save the world? Organizational
building is one thing - saving the world is another thing - developing
and refining a transformational consciousness is yet another. I'm more
interested in seeing CNVC do the latter. But that's me - I'm very
interested in receiving the latter, so there you go!
And I believe that the more the core of NVC is developed, and the more
decentralized the strategies for spreading it, the more people will be
empowered to save themselves.
I guess I support their original mission - to preserve the integrity
of NVC. However I see the strategy to do that as different. Instead of
trying to control how it is taught - an impossible goal, you just have
to breathe and realize that yes, people are going to be teaching it
that aren't perfect at it, and then devote yourself to following the
living river of NVC. That's what will preserve the integrity of it -
when you can offer people fresh infusions of learning right from the
waters edge. That's what keeps any teaching fresh and magical - when
it's being constantly learned from the Divine itself. That's what I'd
love to see CNVC offering. This is what I hunger for.
Emma
Parenthesis Eye
Mar 24, 2008, 10:45:34 PM3/24/08
to NVC Evolves
Heya Emma,
Damn, I'm now responding to everybody on this thread here....
So, it sounds to me as if what you are wanting is a kind of NVC
monastery or ashram? Or, an NVC seminary? An image comes to mind of
NVC board meetings being like the Jedi Council meetings in the Star
Wars prequels...
I want to ask you then - what would distinguish NVC from other
spiritual paths oriented towards self & collective betterment?
- (I)
Damn, I'm now responding to everybody on this thread here....
So, it sounds to me as if what you are wanting is a kind of NVC
monastery or ashram? Or, an NVC seminary? An image comes to mind of
NVC board meetings being like the Jedi Council meetings in the Star
Wars prequels...
I want to ask you then - what would distinguish NVC from other
spiritual paths oriented towards self & collective betterment?
- (I)
Conal Elliott
Mar 24, 2008, 11:03:09 PM3/24/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
Hi Emma,
I get excited reading about of the activities in your notes and simultaneously alarmed connecting any of them to a centralized organization.
Do you see benefits in having an organization (with name, leadership, board, office, logo, ...) be associated with these activities? (It's easy to see dangers, of course.)
- Conal
I get excited reading about of the activities in your notes and simultaneously alarmed connecting any of them to a centralized organization.
Do you see benefits in having an organization (with name, leadership, board, office, logo, ...) be associated with these activities? (It's easy to see dangers, of course.)
- Conal
Emma McCreary
Mar 24, 2008, 11:11:25 PM3/24/08
to NVC Evolves
(I),
Heh heh. No, none of those images carry much aliveness for me.
Monastary? Waking up at 4am to meditate? Sleeping on a hard mattress?
<shudder>. Ok, that's just not my thing. <grin>
The goal wouldn't be "betterment", whatever that is. The goal would be
developing NVC further.
I'm not really attached to the strategy, I was just mentioning what my
mind suggested might help *me* learn NVC deeply, ie living in a
community of people actively using it and exploring the questions
'What is alive in me?", "What would make life more wonderful?" every
day.
NVC is already distinguished from other spiritual paths, in my mind. I
think an NVC community would be really different than most ashrams or
seminaries or what have you. Most of those are built around conforming
to a tradition. I see NVC as specifically NOT about tradition, but
about what is alive moment by moment. Not everyone even thinks of it
as a "spiritual path".
I think some confusion came up with me mentioning the idea of living
together. There are a lot of different images people have for that but
I was not meaning to suggest any of those as models. I just thought of
it because living in proximity to people gives you more opportunity to
practice communicating. And because personally I would find it
interesting and fun (I think!).
But to re-clarify what I meant, the needs I wanted CNVC to meet were
inspiration and discovery of new ways to live and transmit the heart
of NVC "consciousness"--rather than organization and information about
resources connected to NVC. That was my point. How that would be
accomplished could happen in a lot of ways. Is that more clear?
Overall--
What I'm seeing here is that people are going to want a lot of
different needs to be met by CNVC - mostly whatever needs they are
most hungry to have met around NVC. So I'm thinking a lot of different
NVC organizations would help meet the diversity of needs. So what I
want most from CNVC is to honor that and not bogart the name, heh.
Emma
Heh heh. No, none of those images carry much aliveness for me.
Monastary? Waking up at 4am to meditate? Sleeping on a hard mattress?
<shudder>. Ok, that's just not my thing. <grin>
The goal wouldn't be "betterment", whatever that is. The goal would be
developing NVC further.
I'm not really attached to the strategy, I was just mentioning what my
mind suggested might help *me* learn NVC deeply, ie living in a
community of people actively using it and exploring the questions
'What is alive in me?", "What would make life more wonderful?" every
day.
NVC is already distinguished from other spiritual paths, in my mind. I
think an NVC community would be really different than most ashrams or
seminaries or what have you. Most of those are built around conforming
to a tradition. I see NVC as specifically NOT about tradition, but
about what is alive moment by moment. Not everyone even thinks of it
as a "spiritual path".
I think some confusion came up with me mentioning the idea of living
together. There are a lot of different images people have for that but
I was not meaning to suggest any of those as models. I just thought of
it because living in proximity to people gives you more opportunity to
practice communicating. And because personally I would find it
interesting and fun (I think!).
But to re-clarify what I meant, the needs I wanted CNVC to meet were
inspiration and discovery of new ways to live and transmit the heart
of NVC "consciousness"--rather than organization and information about
resources connected to NVC. That was my point. How that would be
accomplished could happen in a lot of ways. Is that more clear?
Overall--
What I'm seeing here is that people are going to want a lot of
different needs to be met by CNVC - mostly whatever needs they are
most hungry to have met around NVC. So I'm thinking a lot of different
NVC organizations would help meet the diversity of needs. So what I
want most from CNVC is to honor that and not bogart the name, heh.
Emma
Emma McCreary
Mar 24, 2008, 11:33:18 PM3/24/08
to NVC Evolves
Conal,
Huh. I don't see a problem with them happening in the context of an
'organization' - although I don't think all organizations have a board
or an office. =) An organization is just a conceptual unit, right?
"centralized organization" - well, this seems to be the crux right
here. what does that mean?
Does it mean "organization that thinks (and others think) has
authority over other organizations or the Truth of something"? That's
what I'd like to remove completely from CNVC. CNVC would be equal to
other organizations. The only authority it would have would be "power-
with" authority, ie the authority that is given when you see something
true and real and honor it. This is different than the authority
claimed and excercised in a power-over way. Is the power-over
possibility what is causing your alarm?
The other meaning I think of is just a functional definition of "the
place information is centered ie the hub of a wheel". This is a more
organizational meaning. I can see the purpose of being centralized for
helping people to find other people connected to NVC, etc. I would
want to make sure that if this were the function of CNVC that it be
more open. IE list everyone working with NVC, not just the certified
people. Right now CNVC is only a centralized organization for CNVC,
not for NVC itself. There is no one centralized location to find
everything out about NVC. (and maybe that's OK too - we have Google
after all)?
oy, too much typing, feeling myself losing coherence.
Emma
Huh. I don't see a problem with them happening in the context of an
'organization' - although I don't think all organizations have a board
or an office. =) An organization is just a conceptual unit, right?
"centralized organization" - well, this seems to be the crux right
here. what does that mean?
Does it mean "organization that thinks (and others think) has
authority over other organizations or the Truth of something"? That's
what I'd like to remove completely from CNVC. CNVC would be equal to
other organizations. The only authority it would have would be "power-
with" authority, ie the authority that is given when you see something
true and real and honor it. This is different than the authority
claimed and excercised in a power-over way. Is the power-over
possibility what is causing your alarm?
The other meaning I think of is just a functional definition of "the
place information is centered ie the hub of a wheel". This is a more
organizational meaning. I can see the purpose of being centralized for
helping people to find other people connected to NVC, etc. I would
want to make sure that if this were the function of CNVC that it be
more open. IE list everyone working with NVC, not just the certified
people. Right now CNVC is only a centralized organization for CNVC,
not for NVC itself. There is no one centralized location to find
everything out about NVC. (and maybe that's OK too - we have Google
after all)?
oy, too much typing, feeling myself losing coherence.
Emma
John Mudie
Mar 30, 2008, 6:12:57 PM3/30/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
As I sit and mull over this subject I am recognizing that "domination
structure" is just a notion in the mind of the "dominated".
I read the request of CNVC not to use the words NVC in the title of my
practice group.
structure" is just a notion in the mind of the "dominated".
I read the request of CNVC not to use the words NVC in the title of my
practice group.
I can see this as a demand, get into all kinds of jackal because they are
not meeting my needs for autonomy (as I see it) and try to change them to
allow me to do put the words NVC in the name of my practice group. And then
I can say "They are dominating me".
Or
I can say they can get the needs behind their request met elsewhere and make
the name of my practice group "NVC as it should be"
Or
I can respect the fact that it is a trademarked name and they have decided
not to give me permission to use it, (which is their privilege) and CHOOSE
to respect it.
John
Conal Elliott
Mar 30, 2008, 6:45:43 PM3/30/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, John. I like seeing these options. There are more as well. For instance, a variation on your second option with defiance (my interpretation of "NVC as it should be") replaced with choice.
About your third option, I wonder what you mean by the two uses of the word "respect". The object of respect in one case the fact that the trademark exists. I'm not sure what the second object is. The trademark itself?
I'm personally pretty unclear and uncomfortable about "respect" in this context. Does respect equal obedience? If not obedience, then what? Can I "respect" CNVC's copyright and non-use requests without complying with them?
I guess my discomfort with the term "respect" here is a concern that people might confuse its meaning with Respect as a need (universal and separated from a particular person or action). I'm uncomfortable with the CNVC site's use of "integrity" (of the NVC process ...) for the same reason: easily mistaken for Integrity as a need. More at http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/distracted-by-faux-needs/ .
Each of these three responses is a strategy. What needs might they address? For instance, I'm guessing you prefer your third option. What needs would it address?
- Conal
About your third option, I wonder what you mean by the two uses of the word "respect". The object of respect in one case the fact that the trademark exists. I'm not sure what the second object is. The trademark itself?
I'm personally pretty unclear and uncomfortable about "respect" in this context. Does respect equal obedience? If not obedience, then what? Can I "respect" CNVC's copyright and non-use requests without complying with them?
I guess my discomfort with the term "respect" here is a concern that people might confuse its meaning with Respect as a need (universal and separated from a particular person or action). I'm uncomfortable with the CNVC site's use of "integrity" (of the NVC process ...) for the same reason: easily mistaken for Integrity as a need. More at http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/distracted-by-faux-needs/ .
Each of these three responses is a strategy. What needs might they address? For instance, I'm guessing you prefer your third option. What needs would it address?
- Conal
Niklas Wilkens
Mar 30, 2008, 8:21:34 PM3/30/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
I also like the options that John suggest. And I agree that the word "domination" is neglecting the own choice in complying to it or not. Autonomy to me is a need that can only be met by myself, by being conscious of the freedom to choose that I always have and never lose. If I'd be dependent on circumstances outside of my influence in order to meet my need for autonomy, this isn't much of a freedom to me.
Concerning the word "respect" in this context, I would say that complying with the request/demand might meet a need for peace and harmony. It could also happen in the service of the need for connection and contribution. One aspect of trademarks is for me that the word "NVC" is used as a symbol for something. And in order for it to work as a symbol it has to be reliable. Otherwise there's the question "Do you really mean THE NVC?" So acting in harmony with the request for not using it without permission by CNVC could be a contribution to the reliability of the term. At least, I can connect to the fear, that public communication might be more difficult, if the term is confused with other meanings.
Any more guesses?
- Niklas
--
Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten
Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser
Conal Elliott
Mar 30, 2008, 9:50:22 PM3/30/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
I like Niklas's guess, which I'd paraphrase as clarity & ease around communication. When a word has a lot of meanings, confusions are more likely.
Here are some questions that spring to my mind:
* What is "the" meaning of "NVC"? Is it Marshall's book? (If so, 1st edition or 2nd?) If it's Marshall's teachings, then as of what moment in time? After all, Marshall's own philosophy, practice, and teaching have been evolving continuously for decades.
* What does that meaning have to do with CNVC's requests, which are connected to cnvc-certification? People continue to evolve after cnvc certifies them and may well be teaching significantly differently, while others early in their internalization of NVC (and perhaps not certified by cnvc) may well be practicing and teaching in a very regular, by-the-book manner.
I expect that people's path through NVC-as-method to NVC-as-Consciousness is accompanied by more aliveness, which would mean less conformity. When that happens, there's less predictability, ie less reliability about exactly what they mean by saying they live and teach "NVC". I've written more on this subject at http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/missions-cats-and-rafts/ .
Moreover, if someone is really living in the Sacred Place (past toting the raft) that NVC points to, is he or she going to be all that interested in getting an external authority's certification (especially considering what's involved)? I don't think so, and so one of my concerns about complying with CNVC's request is that it will indeed accomplish the narrowing of meaning of "NVC" that you mention, but narrowing it to something that is considerably short of the sacred place. For me, it's worth the possibility of some standard linguistic confusion in order to open up "NVC" to include what is practiced and taught by those who are leaving behind pursuit of and brandishing of external validations.
As an alternative to CNVC's lanuage request, which conflates the distinct notions of NVC and cnvc-certification, and in service of clarity, I propose the following:
* Use "NVC" to mean one's best understanding of NVC, and
* Use "cnvc-certified" to mean certified by cnvc.
So, while I love clarity (a lot), I understand this particular approach to clarity (reliability, predictability) to be (a) at odds with the living essence of NVC, and (b) lacking in clarity.
Comments?
- Conal
Here are some questions that spring to my mind:
* What is "the" meaning of "NVC"? Is it Marshall's book? (If so, 1st edition or 2nd?) If it's Marshall's teachings, then as of what moment in time? After all, Marshall's own philosophy, practice, and teaching have been evolving continuously for decades.
* What does that meaning have to do with CNVC's requests, which are connected to cnvc-certification? People continue to evolve after cnvc certifies them and may well be teaching significantly differently, while others early in their internalization of NVC (and perhaps not certified by cnvc) may well be practicing and teaching in a very regular, by-the-book manner.
I expect that people's path through NVC-as-method to NVC-as-Consciousness is accompanied by more aliveness, which would mean less conformity. When that happens, there's less predictability, ie less reliability about exactly what they mean by saying they live and teach "NVC". I've written more on this subject at http://evolve.awakeningcompassion.com/posts/missions-cats-and-rafts/ .
Moreover, if someone is really living in the Sacred Place (past toting the raft) that NVC points to, is he or she going to be all that interested in getting an external authority's certification (especially considering what's involved)? I don't think so, and so one of my concerns about complying with CNVC's request is that it will indeed accomplish the narrowing of meaning of "NVC" that you mention, but narrowing it to something that is considerably short of the sacred place. For me, it's worth the possibility of some standard linguistic confusion in order to open up "NVC" to include what is practiced and taught by those who are leaving behind pursuit of and brandishing of external validations.
As an alternative to CNVC's lanuage request, which conflates the distinct notions of NVC and cnvc-certification, and in service of clarity, I propose the following:
* Use "NVC" to mean one's best understanding of NVC, and
* Use "cnvc-certified" to mean certified by cnvc.
So, while I love clarity (a lot), I understand this particular approach to clarity (reliability, predictability) to be (a) at odds with the living essence of NVC, and (b) lacking in clarity.
Comments?
- Conal
Emma McCreary
Mar 30, 2008, 11:43:47 PM3/30/08
to NVC Evolves
John, when I read your note I started to feel uncomfortable and
worrying that you got an understanding of my posts that I didn't
intend.
I am finding it frustrating with the disjointed nature of the postings
that I can't make direct clarifying connection requests like in a one-
on-one conversation!
In any case, I'm wanting to contribute to clarity and also am feeling
a twinge of wanting to be seen accurately. I'm not sure if your Option
1 is in reference to anything I wrote specifically, but I'm wanting to
be seen clearly that I am not coming from that option - or Option 2!
Would you be willing to let me know if that was your understanding of
what I wrote, and if so, does what I wrote below change that
understanding at all? (And if it wasn't about me, just let me know, I
can take my fretful desire to be seen clearly elsewhere...) ;-)
I agree that autonomy is a need that can generally only be met by
myself.
For me, the need that wasn't met by the rules wasn't autonomy.
Although I do think that consciously or unconsciously mimicking
structures that come out of "jackal consciousness" ie the
consciousness of power-over, do tend to encourage people to "forget"
their autonomy. This is what happened to me when I saw the rules. I
believe it would meet my need for awareness and support if CNVC
brought people's attention to this when they create and post policies,
and made it clear that the policies were requests. Of couse it's up to
them if they wish to meet my needs in this way, as always.
Besides the authority/autonomy issue, the needs that weren't met by
the "rules" being what was offered me as someone interested in
teaching NVC were support, inspiration, and spontaneity. I went to the
website excited and went away discouraged. So what was missing was
support of my aliveness around teaching. In short, it harshed my buzz.
Of course I can meet those needs elsewhere, and I have. It meets my
needs for self-expression and contribution to give feedback to CNVC
about what needs their strategies meet or don't meet for me, so that's
why I'm here talking about it. It also meets my needs for
contribution, awareness, community, and fun to talk about it here with
other folks.
Emma
worrying that you got an understanding of my posts that I didn't
intend.
I am finding it frustrating with the disjointed nature of the postings
that I can't make direct clarifying connection requests like in a one-
on-one conversation!
In any case, I'm wanting to contribute to clarity and also am feeling
a twinge of wanting to be seen accurately. I'm not sure if your Option
1 is in reference to anything I wrote specifically, but I'm wanting to
be seen clearly that I am not coming from that option - or Option 2!
Would you be willing to let me know if that was your understanding of
what I wrote, and if so, does what I wrote below change that
understanding at all? (And if it wasn't about me, just let me know, I
can take my fretful desire to be seen clearly elsewhere...) ;-)
I agree that autonomy is a need that can generally only be met by
myself.
For me, the need that wasn't met by the rules wasn't autonomy.
Although I do think that consciously or unconsciously mimicking
structures that come out of "jackal consciousness" ie the
consciousness of power-over, do tend to encourage people to "forget"
their autonomy. This is what happened to me when I saw the rules. I
believe it would meet my need for awareness and support if CNVC
brought people's attention to this when they create and post policies,
and made it clear that the policies were requests. Of couse it's up to
them if they wish to meet my needs in this way, as always.
Besides the authority/autonomy issue, the needs that weren't met by
the "rules" being what was offered me as someone interested in
teaching NVC were support, inspiration, and spontaneity. I went to the
website excited and went away discouraged. So what was missing was
support of my aliveness around teaching. In short, it harshed my buzz.
Of course I can meet those needs elsewhere, and I have. It meets my
needs for self-expression and contribution to give feedback to CNVC
about what needs their strategies meet or don't meet for me, so that's
why I'm here talking about it. It also meets my needs for
contribution, awareness, community, and fun to talk about it here with
other folks.
Emma
Niklas Wilkens
Mar 31, 2008, 3:26:10 AM3/31/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
@ Conal
You said:
"I like Niklas's guess, which I'd paraphrase as clarity & ease around communication. When a word has a lot of meanings, confusions are more likely."
I'm really excited! This is exactly what I meant. And I like the questions you ask about this, exploring what would be the best way to meet this need for clarity and ease around communication. I think what you mention there is also covered by Carl Rogers' point that certification freezes the profession in an image of the past. And it is also in my understanding that NVC is by the intention with which it is powerful at odds with this consequence. So there would exactly be a problem with clarity and ease around communication if we used "NVC" as a word for this static idea.
I wonder what a representative of CNVC would have to say about this. It seems to me that whoever decided on this rule or policy isn't quite clear about his or her own needs yet. I'd really like to have a giraffe-dance on this issue...
@ Emma
First off, you might want to use this kind of "@ name"-way to adress people over several posts, so you don't lose the thread and can come back for further clarification.
You said: "Although I do think that consciously or unconsciously mimicking
structures that come out of "jackal consciousness" ie the
consciousness of power-over, do tend to encourage people to "forget"
their autonomy."
Yes I agree. And I believe also that structures have exactly this purpose: to remind you of and help you forget certain things. They support and therefore encourage certain behavior. It doesn't mean that we have no choice, but it's easier or harder depending on the structure.
"I went to the website excited and went away discouraged."
I remember that this happened to me too, when I visited it the first time.
"It also meets my needs for contribution, awareness, community, and fun to talk about it here with other folks."
It's the same for me :-D
Kindly
Emma McCreary
Mar 31, 2008, 4:05:35 PM3/31/08
to NVC Evolves
This description of "domination structure" came to me this morning:
Domination structures systematically reward compliance and punish
noncompliance.
Systematically = using rules/policies rather than person-to-person
interactions
Perhaps then:
Partnership structures systematically support choice and creativity.
I make distinctions between the domination and the use of systems,
because I think systems are tools and can be used to support just as
well as to dominate.
What do y'all think?
Domination structures systematically reward compliance and punish
noncompliance.
Systematically = using rules/policies rather than person-to-person
interactions
Perhaps then:
Partnership structures systematically support choice and creativity.
I make distinctions between the domination and the use of systems,
because I think systems are tools and can be used to support just as
well as to dominate.
What do y'all think?
Holly Croydon
Mar 31, 2008, 11:22:08 PM3/31/08
to nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
I like this, Emma. I'm wanting to add that domination systems are built on the concepts of external authority and moralistic judgment. I understand these concepts as supporting the systematic use of reward and punishment as motivators.
I remember being deeply struck when I first read about dominator and partnership models*. I was amazed to recognize (and wonder why I hadn't already noticed) that domination models are not just embedded on the larger scale societal systems, but are present, er, holographically (?). That's kind of a weird way of describing it, but it captures for me the extent of the pattern in our culture, where external authority/domination is characteristic of the larger system *and* in all the subsystems, from international relationships, to governments, to corporations, churches, families, and even within ourselves. Oh, and non-profit organizations (wink).
Partnership models (in my NVC-flavored thinking) might be described as those centered on the idea of personal choice and creative collaboration based on the joy of mutual giving.
How does that mesh with what you were thinking about this morning, Emma?
I gained a better sense of clarity about this when I listed what I understand, from Marshall and others as well as my own ideas, to be among the properties of each model:
Dominator Model
~Obedience to external authority
~Moralistic judgment
~Power held by a few
~Ranking of differences (male over female, one race over another, established over new, etc.)
~Rules and regulations
~Punishment and reward (punitive justice)
~The concept of Deserve
~Dissociative language (amptssprache)
~The concept of redemptive violence (if we could just kill off the bad guys, everything would be okay)
Partnership Model
~Personal choice
~Language of clarity and heart
~Personal responsibility via enlightened self-interest (what's good for the whole and the other is good for me)
~Clear statements of preferences and requests -- without attachment
~Restorative justice (focused on meeting needs and restoring harmony, not revenge)
~Linking rather than ranking different segments of people, valuing diversity
~Inspiration rather than coercion
That's just a few to start. Are there more anyone would like to add?
* Identifying and contrasting partnership and dominator systems was explored by Riane Eisler in her book "The Chalice and the Blade," published in 1987. Walter Wink has also written extensively about power structures, as someone in the group mentioned earlier. I have heard Marshall quote Wink just about every time I've seen him speak. I'm sure there are lots more interesting and insightful sources ya'll could share. Perhaps we can post a "suggested reading" list for the group?
Riane Eisler noted a dramatic shift in prehistory from partnership cultures, symbolized by the chalice and idealizing the nurturing, life-giving powers of the universe, into dominator cultures, symbolized by the blade and idealizing the lethal power of the sword, the power to take life and establish and enforce domination.
I don't equate CNVC's strategies with, you know, death by the sword or anything, and yet I value the conversation at this level because I'm worried that the dominator habits run so deeply and subtly that we are not aware of them, especially when we try to run a big organization (or a nation or a planet). We have yet to figure out a new way, and I think the first step is really *seeing* the old way clearly in all the places it "hides in plain sight" in our habits and societal systems. I am encouraged and grateful that the discussion is alive and for everyone's contributions.
~Holly
I remember being deeply struck when I first read about dominator and partnership models*. I was amazed to recognize (and wonder why I hadn't already noticed) that domination models are not just embedded on the larger scale societal systems, but are present, er, holographically (?). That's kind of a weird way of describing it, but it captures for me the extent of the pattern in our culture, where external authority/domination is characteristic of the larger system *and* in all the subsystems, from international relationships, to governments, to corporations, churches, families, and even within ourselves. Oh, and non-profit organizations (wink).
Partnership models (in my NVC-flavored thinking) might be described as those centered on the idea of personal choice and creative collaboration based on the joy of mutual giving.
How does that mesh with what you were thinking about this morning, Emma?
I gained a better sense of clarity about this when I listed what I understand, from Marshall and others as well as my own ideas, to be among the properties of each model:
Dominator Model
~Obedience to external authority
~Moralistic judgment
~Power held by a few
~Ranking of differences (male over female, one race over another, established over new, etc.)
~Rules and regulations
~Punishment and reward (punitive justice)
~The concept of Deserve
~Dissociative language (amptssprache)
~The concept of redemptive violence (if we could just kill off the bad guys, everything would be okay)
Partnership Model
~Personal choice
~Language of clarity and heart
~Personal responsibility via enlightened self-interest (what's good for the whole and the other is good for me)
~Clear statements of preferences and requests -- without attachment
~Restorative justice (focused on meeting needs and restoring harmony, not revenge)
~Linking rather than ranking different segments of people, valuing diversity
~Inspiration rather than coercion
That's just a few to start. Are there more anyone would like to add?
* Identifying and contrasting partnership and dominator systems was explored by Riane Eisler in her book "The Chalice and the Blade," published in 1987. Walter Wink has also written extensively about power structures, as someone in the group mentioned earlier. I have heard Marshall quote Wink just about every time I've seen him speak. I'm sure there are lots more interesting and insightful sources ya'll could share. Perhaps we can post a "suggested reading" list for the group?
Riane Eisler noted a dramatic shift in prehistory from partnership cultures, symbolized by the chalice and idealizing the nurturing, life-giving powers of the universe, into dominator cultures, symbolized by the blade and idealizing the lethal power of the sword, the power to take life and establish and enforce domination.
I don't equate CNVC's strategies with, you know, death by the sword or anything, and yet I value the conversation at this level because I'm worried that the dominator habits run so deeply and subtly that we are not aware of them, especially when we try to run a big organization (or a nation or a planet). We have yet to figure out a new way, and I think the first step is really *seeing* the old way clearly in all the places it "hides in plain sight" in our habits and societal systems. I am encouraged and grateful that the discussion is alive and for everyone's contributions.
~Holly
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages