Empathy & History of NVC

Empathy is defined by Gordon and Schonert-Reichl as comprising three abilities: (a) to identify others’ emotions, (b) to understand/explain other’s emotions, and (c) to be emotionally responsive to others (Gordon, 2005).

Empathy is a “critical human skill susceptible to social influence and deliberate instruction” (Kahn & Lawhorne, 2003, p. 5).

Empathy is different from sympathy: the two process[es] are, in fact, mutually exclusive. In sympathy, the subject is principally absorbed in his own feelings as they are projected into the object and has little concern for the reality and validity of the object’s special experience. Sympathy bypasses real understanding of the other person, and that other is denied his own sense of being. Empathy, on the other hand, presupposes the existence of the object as a separate individual, entitled to his own feelings, ideas, and emotional history. The empathizer makes no judgments about what the other should feel, but solicits the expression of whatever he does feel and, for brief periods, experiences these experiences as his own. The empathizer oscillates between such subjective involvement and a detached recognition of the shared feelings. The periods of his objective detachment do not seem to the other to be spells of indifference, as they would in sympathy; they are, instead, evidence that the subject respects himself and the object as separate people. Secure in his sense of self and his own emotional boundaries, the empathizer attempts to nurture a similar security in the other. - Psychiatrist Dr. Norman Paul, in an essay in Parenthood: Its Psychology and Pathology

Males and females respond differently to trainings, but they have different social concerns and training needs.

• Girls: seem to be more responsive to prevention programs because socially and developmentally they tend to be ready for contemplation, action and behaviour maintenance (Artz et al., 2000). 
• Boys appear to be socially and developmentally more pre-contemplative and respond better to interactive programs that challenge them to address their own personal experiences of violence in familiar scenarios and in the moment.

The W.T. Grant Consortium for School-based Promotion of Social Competence (1994) evaluated violence prevention programs across the United States & provided a list of competencies that they have determined are key components of effective violence prevention programs.

• Emotional competency skills (ex. identifying feelings in self or others, empathy, self-soothing, and frustration tolerance); 
• Cognitive competency skills (ex. analytic thinking, creative problem-solving, decision-making, planning, and self-talk); 
• Behavioural competency skills, including: 
• - Nonverbal skills (ex. facial expressions, tone of voice, personal presentation, gesture or eye contact), 
• - Verbal skills (ex. clear requests, responding to criticism, expressing feelings clearly), and 
• - Proactive skills (helping others, walking away from negative situations, participating in positive activities). (p. 136)

Washington DC Drug Strategy commissioned Safe Schools Safe Students Guide to Violence Prevention Strategies (Commission on Youth and America's Future, 1998) identified nine elements, summarized below, which are critical to effective school-based violence prevention programming: 

1. • Activities fostering school norms against all forms of violence and aggression; 
2. • Skills training based on a strong theoretical foundation; 
3. • A systemic approach (incl. family, peers, media and community); 
4. • Physical, policy, and practice changes promoting a positive school climate; 
5. • A minimum of 10-20 training sessions (per training group) during the first year of a program and 5-10 booster sessions in the succeeding two years; 
6. • Interactive teaching; 
7. • Developmentally tailored interventions; 
8. • Culturally sensitive material; and 
9. • Teacher training

NVC model began to emerge while Rosenberg was facilitating racial integration in schools and organizations across the Southern United States during the 1960s (Rosenberg, 2005). [Rosenberg moved] away from clinical psychological practice and towards community-focused work. This shift was strongly influenced by Erich Fromm’s (1955) insistence that individual mental health is dependent on the social structure of a community, George Albee’s (1967) assertion that it is not logistically possible for therapists alone to meet the psychological needs of all community members, and George Miller’s (1969) insistence on giving psychology away to the community, thereby making knowledge about human behaviour as widely and readily available as possible (Rosenberg, 1970, 1971).

organizations often asked Rosenberg to achieve with a large group, over three days, the kind of results he had been accustomed to facilitating in one individual, in a clinical setting, over the course of months or even years.

Nonviolent Communication rises directly out of Carl Roger’s tradition of Humanistic Psychology, which emphasizes empathy as the fundamental key to human psychological development and fulfilling human relationships. Rogers’ 1964 lecture at the California Institute of Technology (Rogers, 1980) is frequently referenced by Rosenberg as a central inspiration. In that lecture, Rogers emphasized: experiential learning; frankness about one’s emotional state; the satisfaction of really hearing others in a way that resonates for them; how enriching and encouraging it is to experience creative, active, sensitive, accurate, empathic listening; the deep value of congruence between one’s own inner experience, one’s conscious awareness, and one’s communication; and subsequently, how enlivening it is to unconditionally receive another’s love or appreciation and extend the same (Rogers, 1980, pp. 5-26).

From the beginning, Rosenberg’s goal has been to develop a practical process for interaction, with oneself and others, rooted in Gandhi’s theory and philosophy of “ahimsa” (Rosenberg, 2005). Ahimsa is translated as the overflowing love that arises when all ill-will, anger, and hate have subsided from the heart (Fischer, 1962).

Rosenberg has isolated the critical point where a choice is made, in a moment, regarding how we proceed to relate to others. Nonviolent Communication provides a syntax that focuses language on the beauty of needs, which subsequently focuses both thought and attention. (Smith, personal communication, March 19-27, 2006)

Rosenberg’s chapter in Volume 1 of Educational Therapy, edited by Jerome Hellmuth (1966),..,his early work with children identified as having learning disabilities reveals an emerging interest in psycholinguistics and the power of language use;

A central goal for the Nonviolent Communication model’s initial phases was the radical restructuring of teacher-pupil roles in the classroom to facilitate greater student responsibility for learning processes and greater participation in decision-making related to learning (Rosenberg, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1973). Over the years this last aim has broadened to include all institutionalized hierarchical relationships (e.g. police-citizen, boss-employee, priest-parishioner, etc.), and their informal counterparts (e.g. man-woman, rich-poor, adult-youth, parent-child, etc.), with an eye towards what some call the transformation of a retributive, fear-based, “domination” paradigm into a restorative, “partnership” paradigm based on mutual respect (Skye, 2004; Eisler, 2000).

Shifts: focus on self-empathy, move away from steps and into intentions

• Rosenberg’s fully formed Nonviolent Communication model was not published until 1972, and did not identify needs as the primary motivator for human behaviour or as a central component of the model until 1999.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

• Thomas Gordon’s (1970) Parent Effectiveness Training, also known as The Gordon Model for Effective Relationships
• Group-Centred Leadership (Gordon) ~ new application of Client-Centred Psychotherapy (Rogers)
• Socio-linguistic transformation of organizational systems of domination based on rewards & punishment into partnership systems based on human dignity, mutual accountability & mutual respect
• Popularised "active listening", "I-messages" & "brainstorming" based on others' works, "12 roadblocks" to communication, ownership of problem
• Interest-based model was developed by Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1991)
• (a) Separating the People from the Problem: discussing each other’s perceptions (avoiding blame), recognizing and making emotions explicit, allowing each other to speak freely and uninterrupted, listening attentively and checking for accuracy, talking about the issue at hand as a joint problem, and using “I” statements rather than accusative “you” statements. 
• (b) Identifying Interests: “Your position is something you have decided on. Your interests are what caused you to decide” 
• 3 TYPES: Complementary interests, differing interests, & conflicting interests. 
• The most powerful interests are human needs, the “bedrock concerns which motivate all people” 
• (c) Creating Options for Mutual Gain and Setting Objective Criteria: One’s own interests must be self- represented insistently, specifically, and with regard for the other’s interests, looking towards what might satisfy both. 
• (d) Possible Influences for Interest-Based Negotiation: Fisher, Ury and Patton (1991) do not offer any references or provide a bibliography. However, given the components of their model, it can be assumed that they were influenced by the Humanistic trends, ideas, and authors that also influenced Rosenberg (such as Carl Rogers and Morton Deutsch). Since Rosenberg’s

Test: empathy, self-compassion, conflict-resolution skills apprehension & application

Psychiatrist Dr. Norman Paul, in an essay in Parenthood: 

Empathy is different from sympathy: the two process[es] are, in fact, mutually exclusive. In sympathy, the subject is principally absorbed in his own feelings as they are projected into the object and has little concern for the reality and validity of the object’s special experience. Sympathy bypasses real understanding of the other person, and that other is denied his own sense of being. Empathy, on the other hand, presupposes the existence of the object as a separate individual, entitled to his own feelings, ideas, and emotional history. The empathizer makes no judgments about what the other should feel, but solicits the expression of whatever he does feel and, for brief periods, experiences these experiences as his own. The empathizer oscillates between such subjective involvement and a detached recognition of the shared feelings. The periods of his objective detachment do not seem to the other to be spells of indifference, as they would in sympathy; they are, instead, evidence that the subject respects himself and the object as separate people. Secure in his sense of self and his own emotional boundaries, the empathizer attempts to nurture a similar security in the other

Marshall asked: What caused people to disconnect and hurt each other? What caused people to connect even in trying circumstances?

We're taught to speak in judgments instead of our observations, feelings, needs & requests.

Needs