September 15, 2018

NVC - Ecology, a new relationship with Mother Earth

1 comment:
God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’ God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. Genesis 1:28-29

The creator and the steward of creation
Like many ecologists, Lynn White in her book The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis, blames the Bible and in her case also religion for being the mentor and the godmother of the unbridled domination and exploitation of the planet Earth. For us the students of NVC, however, this accusation is unfounded and unacceptable because in the biblical myth of creation violence appeared only afterwards as a problem, it was not desired nor was it created by God.

The overall justification of violence towards everything and everyone comes from the Babylonian myth of creation, which came before the biblical myth, and is the root of what theologian Walter Wink calls the “civil” religion that ever since the beginning and still holds true today has the most number of faithful. As we have seen before in the Babylonian myth, creation was an act of violence. In the Babylonian myth, violence is not a problem but just an intrinsic facet of creation, of nature and of Man himself.

The verb to dominate comes from the Hebrew word “Radah”, a word related to royalty and means to reign, it is therefore a term that carries the weight of the office of a king. What does the Bible tell us about how a king ought to govern? Let us see how this very word is used in the context of the coronation of King Solomon who for Israel is the symbol of wisdom:

May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. (…) For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight. Psalm 72:8, 12-14

And what kind of ruler does God not want?

Ah, you shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed the sheep. You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured, you have not brought back the strayed, you have not sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled them. Ezekiel 34:2-4

In light of the biblical myth of Creation the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), and its counterparts, God does not give us any rights, or ownership over creation, but rather the responsibility to take care for it in a way consistent with His will.

First, we need to understand that Man, and only he alone, was made responsible for Creation because out of all the creatures only he was created in the image and likeness of God the Creator. Second, dominion as synonym to unbridled exploitation can only come from the reading of the biblical myth of creation in view or through the eyes of the Babylonian myth which has shaped and formatted mankind and prevailed throughout the history of humanity. To this day when we ask around if humans are naturally violent or naturally non-violent, most will say that violence is part of the human nature.

Therefore, originally that is, interpreting the Bible in light of the Bible itself, using other texts from the same, the word “dominion” does not mean totalitarian despotism, or exercising absolute power in a cruel or oppressive way, but is the proper stewardship under God’s direction because God is the sole owner and landlord, the Lord of Creation of everything contained therein including us:

The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it. Psalm 24:1

For God did not hand over creation to Man and became disinterested in it; on the contrary, Man should never forget that of creation he is only the steward:

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance? (…) Whom did he consult for his enlightenment, and who taught him the path of justice? Who taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding? Even the nations are like a drop from a bucket, and are accounted as dust on the scales; see, he takes up the isles like fine dust. Isaiah 40:12, 14-15

Has the rain a father, or who has begotten the drops of dew? Job 38:28

He gives to the animals their food, and to the young ravens when they cry. Psalm 147:9

To subjugate the earth, therefore, does not mean to dominate and exploit it, but to learn to understand all its processes, the laws of nature and all its creatures, for the benefit of humanity and the glory of God. This mandate is still in force and valid today for all the descendants of Adam and Eve, but is even more important for the Christians because we have the knowledge of the Lord not only in his work as the Creator of the world, but also as its Redeemer. The redemption that we have obtained from Christ is extended to the planet as the planet needs to be saved as well.

In this same spirit of life, in harmony with nature, the Church has a patron saint of animals and ecology to propose to the ecologists of our time, Saint Francis of Assisi.  For him there were no hostile or dangerous animals, no enemies, hence he called the wolf brother wolf; not only did he relate with the beasts of the earth, the birds of the sky, and the fish of the sea as members of his family, but he also extended this relationship to the elements calling water his sister and the sun his brother.

The “New Testament” of the Babylonian myth
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object of which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally higher animals, directly follows. (The last paragraph from the book Origin of Species by Charles Darwin)

In other words, the battle for survival, with the elimination of the weak and the crippled, leads to the survival of the fittest, so that this war of nature must eventually lead to superior animals, superior races and finally to superior civilizations.

By the use and abuse of the violent words and concepts, the last paragraph in Darwin’s book appears to be the emblem of violence of the Babylonian myth of creation. Therefore already in modern times we see in Darwin, and in his most fanatical followers, a “New Testament” of the Babylonian myth, this religion that dominates the planet. And just as Christianity soon became felt in the world, so the effects of applying this philosophy in the 19th and 20th century are now being felt in the 21st century.

Among others, one of the more harmful results of this philosophy has been the careless exploitation of our natural resources – animal, mineral and human, all in the name of socioeconomic evolution. Large amount of mineral and plant resources, especially wood, have been misused and badly wasted; the nature’s balance of regeneration has been broken so that many animal and plant species became extinct. British environmentalist Norman Myers tried to put a number to the rate of extinction to over 130 species per day.

The spell is turned against the sorcerer – The effect of disorderly, selfish and arbitrary exploitation of our planet has resulted in unprecedented contamination of the ecosystems:

The soil is been depleted of essential elements for our health because of monocultivation; it is also contaminated with pesticides and chemical fertilizers that have altered its chemical composition and poisoned the groundwater from where our drinking water comes from;

The oceans are contaminated with plastic such as the microfibers that come out of our washing machines since plastics have replaced natural fabrics, like wool, cotton, linen and silk which together with heavy metals like mercury, are being absorbed by the fish that we consume;

The air is contaminated with carbon dioxide which leads to harmful level of greenhouse effect, resulting in global warming as seen by the increase of global temperature that melts glaciers and polar caps, raises the sea level, alters the course of winds, and modifies the pace of the seasons causing hurricanes, floods and droughts of unprecedented intensity.

The social environment is also plagued by the fact that today 1% of the humanity possesses more wealth (54%) than the remaining 99% (46%). The gap between the rich and the poor keeps getting wider. Some die of hunger, others die of abundance; if there was sharing, neither one nor the other would die. This situation is due to the ideology of Mr. Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, who believed that if all were selfish, that is if all sought their own self interest, an invisible hand would take care of the common interest; such invisible hand acting like Santa Claus has never been verified and in the meantime the situation goes from bad to worse.

We have nothing against the fundamentals of the science behind the evolution of species; in fact, since Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis in 1950, the Catholic Church accepts the postulated fundamentals of the theory of evolution of species, that is, it is more than obvious that life comes from a common stock, which has been diversifying into various species over the course of millions of years to this day. What we cannot accept is the violent interpretation that this same Darwin and his disciples prescribe to the theory written above in his last paragraph of his famous book.

As a basis for the biblical myth of creation and NVC, we believe that violence is not part of nature, the engine of evolution, never was and never has been, contrary to what Darwin and his followers thought; violence was introduced by man, by the way he has been relating to nature, especially in the past two centuries.

The butterfly effect and the domino effect
A butterfly moves its wings in Hong Kong and causes a storm in New York. However small may be whatever we do, it affects the global ecology of our planet. Before when the human population on the planet was meager in comparison, the world appeared too big, too powerful and timeless to be affected by the action of Man. Today, however, apart from a catastrophic and mind-boggling population increase, we know that the action of Man on the planet is cumulative; that is, errors and crimes against the planet accumulate because as it is said, God always forgives, Man sometimes but nature neither forgives nor forgets.

Although the concept of the butterfly effect has been known since 1890, it only gained popular acceptance in 1961 due to the weather forecast model used by mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz. He noted that small changes, which should have been statistically insignificant, led to scenarios that were exponentially different.

The analogy of the butterfly started in 1972 when Lorenz gave a talk titled, “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set off a Tornado in Texas?” And given the changes that we human beings have already introduced into the complex ecosystem, known as the planet Earth, it is accurate to say that we have already done the work of billions of butterflies.

One area of major importance is biodiversity. In addition to the fact that biodiversity protects humans against the effects of agricultural catastrophes such as the Irish potato famine, the loss of a species results in significant alterations in natural habitats that can seriously injure us in short, medium or long term.

Taking these same butterflies as an example, if they disappear and become extinct not only children would suffer for not having seen their beauty, but many plants that are intimately linked to the butterflies (and vice versa) would also be doomed to disappear, as one cannot survive without the other.

When we think of the natural interdependency of living beings with each other and of the ecosystems among themselves, it is frightening to think what can come crumbling down by the extinction of a single species. The bees are endangered and are the main pollinators in our planet; the squirrels are also endangered and they plant more trees than humans when they forget the nuts they hide in the ground to survive through the winters.

The domino effect is a reality in ecology; the climate change can lead to the extinction of animals and plants dependent of them and provoke a chain reaction of unpredictable consequences given the interdependency of living beings with each other and all of them dependent on the climate conditions of their natural habitat.

While writing these lines we have received the sad news of the death of the last white male rhinoceros. Prior to its death some of its sperms were frozen in the hope of continuing the species, but of the last two existing females one is sterile. This makes the prognosis of salvation of the white rhinoceros very bleak. It is known that this species was mercilessly hunted down because some cultures like the Chinese believe that its horns have aphrodisiac properties.

Genesis of violence in the biblical myth of creation
According to the religion of violence of the domination system which has as its sacred scripture in the Babylonian myth, violence is the principal commandment, the matrix upon which all relationships emanate – the relationship of man with his own kind, the relationship of man with himself, with God to whom sacrifices of violence are offered to appease His anger or to win His favor, and with nature who is not a prodigious mother to us, but rather a stepmother.

Nature gave animals everything, even clothed them, to us it gave us nothing, we were born naked, and if we want to eat we need to labour. Contrary to the Neanderthal, who adapted to nature, the Homo Sapiens sought to dominate Nature with his mind and adapt it to his needs. Understanding himself, in relationship to other animals, as the “Ugly Duckling” of Creation, the relationship of Man with Nature seems to be a relationship of vengeance.

‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it”, cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.Genesis 3:17-19

Violence was natural for the Babylonian myth, but not so for the biblical myth. What God created was good and there was a time when Man was as God had created him just like the original Nature, that is, the Garden of Eden. Man and Nature lived in symbiosis and in harmony, the same harmony that used to reign between God and Man who strolled at dusk in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8). With the fall, this harmony between God and Man and Man and Nature was disrupted.

The “win win” philosophy of NVC as the solution to the ecological problem
Christ came to bring salvation not only to Man but also to the environment in which Man lives; this Earth can return to be the paradise that it once was. For this we have to give up the exacerbated Darwinism that relates violently with nature; as we have already exposed the fallacy of the myth of the redemptive violence, now we must condemn the myth of domination and survival of the strongest over the weakest and less capable, declaring it as a false ideology, which has tried to explain the relationships of animals over millions of years of evolution.

There is no violence among animals, there is only the fulfillment of their needs. Animals do not kill because they feel hatred for one another, but to meet their needs within the food chain. It is known that a cat will play with mice and birds and not eat or harm them if one feeds it by other means.

The final goal of NVC is that everyone will find their needs harmoniously met. It is possible to return to the world that we had before the industrial era, to find a form of harmony, progress that is sustainable and friendly to the environment. In NVC the needs of others are also our needs, there is no antagonism between us and others even when they say No we hear a yes.

In NVC there is only “win win” because we are convinced that everyone can win; as there is no human life outside this planet that we know of, what is good for the planet is good for Man and vice versa, what is bad for the planet at long range is also bad for Man in the long run. The consequences of past ills have already begun to be felt. Let us stop being enemies of the environment because it is in it that we live.

If Mother Earth sustains life, our life, then she is also alive, she is a living organism. Let us relate to her using the four components of Nonviolent Communication and objectively observe the situation she finds herself, let us ask the Indian shamans of North America, to help us scrutinize her feelings and needs and finally to discern what she is asking of us to keep her alive and in turn, keep us alive.
Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC


September 1, 2018

NVC - A New Relationship With Others

No comments:
You shall love your neighbour as yourself. Mark 12:31

Self-empathy and empathy for others
Both the expression of our own feelings and needs and the empathic hunch about the feelings and needs of others are grounded in a particular state of consciousness that is the heart of the Nonviolent Communication. This state of consciousness is nourished by empathy for others and empathy for ourselves.

Both in the New Testament as quoted above as in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18), the Bible has already foreseen that it is not possible to love one’s neighbour without loving oneself, and vice versa it is not possible to love oneself (with a healthy, non-narcissistic love) without loving one’s neighbour.

The esteem for self and the esteem for others are intimately connected; the measure we apply to others is the measure we apply to ourselves. Empathy consists of extending to others the same compassion that we have for ourselves in using the four components of NVC. This means looking closely into the other person’s feelings and needs which may be disguised and hidden behind the interpretations, analyses and judgments that he makes of us, himself, or society at large.

The application of NVC implies an intention to connect compassionately with ourselves and with others, and an ability to keep our attention centered on the present moment – which includes being aware that at times in this present moment we are recalling the past, or imagining a future possibility. In other words, it is to connect compassionately with what is alive in us and in others, or what is happening in us and in others at the level of feelings and needs in the here and now.

“But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you…Luke 6:27

Neither self-empathy nor empathy for others are easy to put into practice; the structures of power teach us to hate ourselves as much as we hate others. In times of calm, this practice may be relatively easy, but in times of stress, or internal or external conflict, the reptilian hatred can make us reluctant and make it difficult to access empathy and compassion for ourselves as well as for others. It is only with lots of practice, which implies that there are times when we will fail, that there will be occasions of success that will be total if we stay on course.

Enemies do not exist, others or rivals are not truly our enemies because like us, they only seek to fulfill their needs. Therefore, when we are not afraid to genuinely and honestly express our feelings and needs, even knowing that it makes us vulnerable and indigent, we are appealing to the empathy and compassion of the other person because needs and feelings are universal. Afterwards, when eventually we do make our requests known, neither in an aggressive nor arrogant nor submissive but in an assertive way, the other will very likely respond positively. It will be the compassion and empathy that we ignite in them that will help them connect to their neocortex and thus conquer on their own and overcome their reptilian selfishness.

Receiving empathically
NVC is a two-way street; we have previously described the four components of NVC in connection with ourselves, that is, what we observe, feel, and need, and what request we make of others to enrich our lives. Now it is applying these same four components to others by listening to their observations, feelings, needs and appeals or requests; this is what is called receiving empathically.

In Nonviolent Communication half of the process is learning to express oneself using the four components; the other half is learning how to listen and respond to others in the mold of the four components in order to establish connection with what is happening in the other person at that precise moment on the level of feelings and needs.

The empathic connection allows us to supersede appearances to contemplate and connect with the intrinsic beauty in the other person, with the divine energy operating in him, with what’s alive in him. The objective of the empathic connection, however, is not to intellectually understand the other person; it is not to go out of the forest so we can see and analyse it better, or to abstract ourselves from it. Conversely, to understand someone intellectually is to stop being empathic with him; when we mentally analyse the other we are not with him.

Empathy is staying, feeling, or being with someone; it is a respectful understanding of what the other person is experiencing at the present moment. It is in this sense how the non-directive psychotherapy of Carl Rogers, Rosenberg’s teacher, works. The silent active presence and the empathic compassionate listening of the psychotherapist, before the client’s outburst, consoles (derived from Latin cum solis or to stay with) and comforts (from Latin cum fortis or to make strong), strengthens and energizes the client so that he himself finds the solution to his problems.

Frequently, instead of empathy, of placing ourselves side by side with the other, we assume a position of authority as if we are the parent or teacher, and begin to give advice or display what we are thinking or feeling. The belief that we have to fix or solve other people’s problems, or make them feel better, prevents us from staying empathically with them. With his typical sense of humour and irony, Rosenberg says that when it comes to giving advice, we should never do it, unless the one making the request submits a petition in writing signed by a notary. Let us see in the following example what empathy is and is not:

-    I’m uglier than a mule – says the young girl as she looks into the mirror.
-    No, you are the most gorgeous creature God has ever created – answers the father with a quick solution not in like with NVC.
-    Are you feeling disillusioned with your appearance today? – this is an empathic reaction in line with NVC.

The norms of the non-directive psychotherapy
The norms of the non-directive psychotherapy when applied perfectly:
The therapist sits in front of the client without a table or any other obstacles between them; he maintains an open posture which means without crossing his legs; he is relaxed, but not overly so otherwise it could transmit disinterest to the client; seated neither too close nor too far from the client, by the virtue of the territorial instinct; observing all the bodily movements of the client not just his eyes and giving him feedback, asking for examples, “I see that you have a closed fist, what does it mean to you?

Do not leave the client dwelling too long in the past, bring him back to the present moment by asking: How is it affecting you now, how do you feel now?  Ask open-ended explorative questions for which the answer can never be a simple yes or no; for a greater understanding of the discourse, paraphrase what the client says: I hear you say that… I realize that according to you… Are you feeling irritated and disillusioned because… The questions are made in a way the client can make himself clearer and not to satisfy the curiosity of the therapist.

Barriers to empathy
There are inappropriate statements that end up putting a barrier between the one who hears and the one who speaks, hampering their communication. This type of reaction or affirmation on our part often shows disrespect to the thoughts and feelings of the other person. In order to improve the ability to relate well, it is important to recognize these barriers, because once they are identified it is easier to avoid them.
  • Advice or teach – “I think you should...” “Why didn’t you do…?” We are not to diagnose nor hand out recipes; we simply help the other to come to his own conclusions, see the lessons learned from the process and the possible solutions.
  • Express intolerance, disgust, and disapproval – The other person will feel rejected.
  • Moralistic – Statements that judge the acts of others whether good or bad, or what they say is appropriate or inappropriate.
  • Discount and reject the feelings of others – “This is nothing, I have been through worse…” “You should not feel this way…” The other person may even feel relieved for a moment, but the feeling will come back.
  • Educate – “Look at it this way, it could even turn into a very positive experience if you…”
  • Pseudo-consolation – “It was not your fault, you did your best…”
  • Tell stories – “This reminds me of the time when I…”
  • Denial – “Be happy, don’t feel sad…”
  • Ask too many questions to satisfy our curiosity – “When did this happen to you?”
  • Correcting – “That’s not how it happened…”
  • What’s the point if you never listen? – When the other person asks for an opinion.
  • Are you feeling sad because you think I don’t understand you? – The focus is on what he thinks and not on what he needs, in addition to the feeling of guilt in “I don’t understand you”. The correct way from the NVC point of view would have been, “Are you feeling sad because you need to be heard?” because the focus is now placed on your need and not on me as if I have done something wrong.
All these non-empathic reactions have one thing in common, they remove the focus from the other person to center it on ourselves. At best they distract the other from his problem, or temporarily anesthetize him of his pain, but they do not help resolve the crisis but rather the contrary.

In NVC, we are not to worry about what people say, nor the way they say it, because we know beforehand that everything they say can be translated into observations, feelings, needs and requests. In his workshops, Rosenberg never tired of repeating that over thousands of years of history, since the human beings learned to speak, everything that they say and continue to say to this day boils down to two expressions:

Please…” in expressing observations, feelings and needs that end in a request, and, therefore, an opportunity or means to enrich life, and make it more wonderful.

Thank you” in recognizing with gratitude, and at the same time celebrating life, because their needs were met.

The empathy of Jesus
Jesus’ empathy and his ability to actively listen is revealed throughout the Scripture, here we present a few:
Jesus did not judge Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), on the contrary, he had a positive and welcoming regard for him, and because he did not judge him, it was Zacchaeus who then accuses himself and finds a solution to his own problem. Nor did Jesus judge the woman caught in flagrant adultery (John 8:1-10) for when a person is hurt the last thing they want is to be judged! Jesus was compassionate, he defended her, and he descended so she could ascend. Similarly, Jesus cried tears of compassion for his friend Lazarus, showing empathy for the suffering of his sisters.

Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well stands out as a detailed account of interpersonal action. Enough is revealed in the account about the thoughts and feelings of the two participants to rebuild the encounter as a study case in psychotherapy. From the superficial and trivial to the more profound, this encounter reveals Jesus’ skills as a psychotherapist.

Jesus led the woman through a series of steps towards psychological and spiritual integrity. Firstly, Jesus accepted the shunned and marginalized woman as a person. In addition to violating all the taboos of that time which stood between him and the woman, Jesus respected her individuality, and was not intimidated, nor reacted negatively to her veiled sarcasm. Jesus let the woman set the initial tone and direction of their conversation; in this way, he let her understand that she is accepted as a unique person and with the potential to grow as a person.

Secondly, Jesus let her confess (clarify better) her personal needs. A condemnation at the outset, by a look or word, would have been the expected response from a Rabbi towards a woman of questionable reputation as she seemed to be. In fact, the woman’s first question to Jesus implied that she doubted his real motive of asking for a drink. Jesus, however, let her choose her own time to reveal the depth of her need. When the woman eventually did, she opened up completely by letting him know that she wanted to turn her life around.

Thirdly, Jesus provided insights into the woman’s intimate life by probing into her sordid past. If she was not prepared to face the truth, Jesus’ question would have been premature and even harmful. But it was not so, Jesus used the trauma of exposing her intimate life in order to end her vicious circle of marriage-divorce-marriage by exposing her feeling of guilt.

Fourthly, Jesus freed the woman from the feeling of guilt, which he had promised before, to satisfy her compulsive thirst for love.

The use of empathy to counteract danger
Rosenberg recounts how a girl managed to counteract her potential rapist by using NVC:
Assailant – Take off your clothes!
Girl – (Noticing that he was shaking) It seems to me that you are nervous…
Assailant – Are you deaf? I say it again, take off your clothes!
Girl – I’m sensing that you’re really irritated and you want me to do what you’re telling me.
Assailant – You’re dammed right, and you’re going to get hurt if you don’t.
Girl – I’d like you to tell me if there’s some other way of meeting your needs that wouldn’t hurt me.
Assailant – I said take them off.
Girl – I can hear how much you want this, but I want you to know how scared and horrible I feel, and how grateful I’d be if you’d leave without hurting me.
Assailant – Give me your purse.
The girl handed the purse to him relieved that the assailant had not raped her. Later she recognized that each time she empathized with her aggressor his intention of violating her began to lose ground. This is one of those situations in which it is very difficult to empathize with the other person. But it is a fact that when we discover and empathize with the feelings and needs of the one in conflict with us, we no longer see an enemy but a person.
Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC