In working with inmates at San Quentin prison, I was touched by their longing to find a way to express their frustration and despair in a way that doesn't result in violence. These men have been told that they are "bad" and by being punished when they are released, they will be "good".
In teaching them Nonviolent Communication, (based on Marshall Rosenberg's work- a philosophy that we are inherently compassionate and not against violence, but FOR life and the well-being of all people) I witnessed an excitement and hope that they might be able to connect differently with people to see what is behind their actions (in an attempt to meet the need that is motivating this action) and to see that there could be a different choice.
The question I'd like to explore is how can we uncover the peace that already exists. Deciding what is just and unjust can imply that someone is right and someone is wrong. If that is so, our present justice system then decides that someone deserves to be punished and the other rewarded. This "thinking" that has been the social norm for thousands of years is the basis of retributive justice. Are we mixing up value judgments with moral judgments? I don't want to be the authority telling people what is right and what is wrong, what is just and what is unjust. Instead I want to connect with the "life" in them that is motivating their words or actions. If I judge that George Bush is a monster, I'm not connecting with his desire to protect and create safety. I'm also not connecting with the fact that seeing his attempt to protect people, I feel terrified and I don't feel any safer. At this level I am at-one with the humanness of our dilemma. We both have a need for safety and it is only at the level of strategy that we disagree. When I focus on this, I no longer see an alien.
So, again it is getting back to the thinking that is perpetuating violence. Looking past the story or blame, which is actually the causing the pain, not the stimulus or effect, there are two things that distinguish truly nonviolent actions from violent actions. First, there is no enemy in the nonviolent point of view. Thinking is focused on protecting your needs or life-serving values and second, your intention is not to make anyone suffer.
How can we prevent violence today in connection with our world situation? To this point I believe we have not been listening to the messages coming to us from the Arab world. This pain of theirs has been expressed over and over for years. Responding with empathy or understanding for their pain could begin a dialog of a radically different sort. In the words of Marshall Rosenberg, "We are getting to a point where our best protection is to communicate with the people we're most afraid of." I may not agree with their actions or words, but I can find common ground in the needs that are motivating their choices.
Is there someone in your life whose actions stimulate pain in you? Are you willing to look behind their words or actions and see if you can find the need they are ATTEMPTING to meet? Can you connect first with the common ground of their humanity (universal needs or values) first before you attempt to correct the situation or offer solutions? If I can start by connecting with my own peace and attempt to understand what is behind the pain of another, we might be able to start from a place of commonality instead of differences.
I would enjoy hearing back from anyone who is stimulated by this commentary.
If you would like more information about Nonviolent Communication & Marshall Rosenberg see www.cnvc.org
No comments:
Post a Comment