NVC - Anger Management & Conflict Resolution

Anger is a suicidal expression of an unmet need. Marshall Rosenberg

Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, (...). Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you. Ephesians 4:26, 31-32

Saint Paul recognizes, in verse 26, that anger is part of our nature and that there are many existential situations in our everyday life that can provoke it. But he advises shortly in the same chapter not to indulge in it, that is, not to do anything motivated by it. We should not act out our anger because anger is a feeling, and like all feelings or emotions, it points to an unmet need.

Anger is nothing more than an alarm that sets off in our system that demands a time-out; to stop, take a deep breath and do an introspection exercise that aims to discover its cause within us and not in others. By doing this, we avoid the resentment that naturally leads to the souring of relationships, rage, shouting and insults as Saint Paul warns.

When anger spikes in us, there are several possible responses:  1. Respond aggressively within the scope of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, 2. Be passive, that is, turning the aggression against ourselves thus repressing the anger, 3. Be passive aggressive, or seeking revenge in an underhanded way of “slapping without a hand” or hiding the hand, and 4. Be assertive in protecting ourselves, but without attacking the other.

Distinguishing between the trigger and the cause of anger
Nonviolent Communication has a new approach to anger: it is not repressed, since that would be unhelpful, and it is not unloaded, by punching pillows for example, because that would only intensify it and eventually some punches may land on the one we think caused our anger.

The first step is to free the other person from all or any responsibility for our anger; that is, do not say, “you make me angry” because we are never angry at what the other person says or does; the other can trigger our anger, but he is never the cause of it. In a world of violence where guilt is a tactic of control, manipulation or coercion, it is important not to confuse the stimulus of feelings with their cause, like in “You make your dad and I suffer when you get poor grades.” The same tactic is used between lovers, “You disappoint me when you don’t remember my birthday.”

We deceive ourselves when we think that our feelings are the result of what others say or do. Instead of looking inward for the cause of our anger, or any other feelings or emotions, we look outward, blaming others, and searching for a scapegoat and often discharging our anger on him in the form of vengeance or punishment. Anger is to its cause like smoke is to fire where there is smoke there is fire, where there is anger there is a need of ours that is not getting met, it is this need that is the true cause of the anger and not what the other person said or did.

Rosenberg gives the example of a prisoner in a Swedish prison, when asked what the prison authorities had done to provoke his anger, the prisoner replied, “I made a request to them three weeks ago, and they haven’t responded yet.” The prisoner made a pure observation without mixing in any evaluation, that is, without qualifying the behaviour of the prison authorities; however, the stimulus seems to coincide with the cause, that is, he blames the authorities for his anger.

Identifying the cause of our anger in the way we judge the behaviour of the other
When this prisoner turned within himself to find the reason or the cause of his anger, he discovers that what in fact he feels is fear of getting out of prison without receiving the training he requested in order to be able to support himself financially. What causes anger is not what others say or do, but our interpretation and negative evaluation of what they say or do, as well as what we tell ourselves.

In this case, he discovers that he was angry because he thought it was not fair the way he was being treated, that the prison authorities were not treating him right. We feel angry because we interpret and deem as bad, unjust, inhuman, the behaviour of the one who triggered our anger. The behaviour triggers the anger but the cause is our interpretation of this behaviour and the verdict we pass on people by judging them as selfish, unjust, cruel etc.

Anger results from focusing our attention on what other people “should” or “should not” do and judging them as being “wrong” or “bad” or “selfish” etc. Anger keeps us focused on what we don’t like instead of helping us connect with our needs. By shifting the focus of our attention to asking what needs of ours are not getting met when we accuse others, our feeling of anger disappears or is replaced by feelings that serve life such as fear, disappointment, sadness or pain.

Replace the judgment by the unmet need that is behind the anger
The sentences that we pronounce in judging the one whose behaviour spurred our anger are life-alienating tragic expressions of needs that are not being met. Instead of looking into ourselves to connect with what we need, we come out of ourselves, and accuse and blame others for our needs not getting met.

“No one catches flies with vinegar”, in other words, this is certainly not the best way of meeting our needs, since accusations do not promote cooperation from others to get our needs met; on the contrary, they provoke defensiveness and retaliation. Even if they were provoked and we get their cooperation out of fear, shame or guilt, sooner or later we would pay for this type of forced and enforced cooperation.

Going back to the Swedish prisoner, Rosenberg asked him what unmet needs of his lie behind the accusations he made against the prison authorities. The answer did not come easily and that is because most of us are more used to reacting and judging others than doing exercises of introspection and connecting with what we really need. Finally the prisoner said, “Well, my need is to be able to take care of myself when I am released from prison. So the request I made of the prison officials was to learn a trade while I am an inmate.”

Rosenberg asked him how he felt now that he has connected with his needs, he answered, “I’m scared.” In connecting with the need that provoked the anger against the officials, the anger dissipated and he stopped feeling it. Meeting with the prison authorities after this introspective work, after uncovering his needs, he no longer felt the need to accuse them so that by stating his needs and fear instead, he is more likely to have his request met.

If hypothetically the prisoner had been able to enroll in an online course while waiting for the prison officials to respond, and thus finding another route to have his need met, his anger towards the prison authorities would have been dissipated. This proves once again that what triggers the anger is not what others say or do, but our interpretation of what they say or do; however, the genesis or the root cause of anger is always an unmet need.

Connecting with our needs is very difficult in our culture because we have been educated not to have any, or to be unaware that we have them, so that we are able to place ourselves docilely and subserviently at the service of the country, the king, the flag, the employer, the sons and daughters, the students, the institution, the company… Recognizing and expressing needs is translated as being selfish in our society.

Summary of the NVC process we follow
Finally, we share with the other person the process that we follow in our inner thoughts:

1. We start by identifying the trigger of our anger; what the person said or did that was the stimulus for our anger, sometimes it is good to write it down for better clarity.

2. Express the anger, make ourselves aware that we are angry and that it is not because of what the other says or does, but rather what we say to ourselves in interpreting what the other says or does, asking ourselves what did we tell ourselves that ignited this anger?

It is the judgment I make that implies wrongness on the part of what the other person said or did and classify that wrongness as being selfish, unfair, cruel, insensitive, lazy, etc.… I am the creator of my own anger when I imply wrongness in the other person, and qualify and judge that wrongness in terms of static language.

3. We look for the need that is not getting met and is hidden behind how we judge the person who spurred our anger; so we translate or replace the appreciation we made of the other person for our unmet need.

So, we avoid saying “I feel angry because you…” (did… or said… or are...) and say instead, “I feel angry because I need…” (revealing the unmet need)

The moment we connect with this need, recognizing that this is the cause of our anger, we stop feeling angry, this is replaced by another more positive feeling that is easier to deal with. In the case of the prisoner, his anger was replaced by fear of not having a job after being released from prison. It is also important to connect with the feelings and needs of the people who triggered my anger.

4. Now we are ready and able to make our request to the person who can help us get our needs fulfilled.

In the case of the prisoner, it would be like this: It has been three weeks since I made a request and I have not yet received an answer; I’m afraid because I need to earn a living when I leave this prison; I feel that without taking this course or learning a trade it will be very hard for me to survive out there.

Sadness facilitates the introspection that mobilizes us to find the fulfillment of our needs; anger, on the other hand, pulls the rug from under our feet, and at first it may mobilize us to blame others for not getting our needs met. Anger, which results from the punitive manner we judge others, distracts us in such a way that we completely ignore the need or needs that are the true cause of it. In this sense, it may serve as a wake-up call that we are completely disconnected with our needs; we will only appease our anger if we find its cause within us and not in others.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Matthew 5:9

We all know the harmful effects of unresolved conflicts: destructive violence, hatred, vengeance, resentment, anxiety, insomnia, depression, fear. Furthermore, we have an innate tendency to avoid conflicts and run away from them like the devil from the cross. The art of living together, however, is not the art of avoiding conflicts, but rather the art of experimenting and experiencing them positively for all involved. Just as anger should not be repressed, conflict should be experienced because it is natural, normal and neutral.

Conflict is natural
God did not create us equal, but different; we are different in gender, within the same gender in sexual preference, age, philosophy, personality and character, taste, choice, values. The convergence of these divergences is not easy nor is it naturally harmonious.

Many edges must be trimmed for the natural divergence to transform into harmonious convergence and eventually complementarity. Unity of fact happens when we look at our differences as an asset and not as a defect; when we discover that we complement each other and that this complementarity is only possible in the acceptance of our mutual differences.

Conflict is normal
Conflict is inherent in humans on the individual basis, as an internal conflict, and at the social level, as an external conflict; because of that, it is also transversal to all human activity. Wherever the person finds himself, there is conflict whether it be at home, in the factory, in school, at work, in the hospital, at Church, in all the institutions.

Because our culture teaches us that conflict is bad, it does not empower us to solve it in order to seek the fulfillment of everyone’s needs. On the contrary, it only offers us the three classic forms of reaction of the reptilian brain: fight, flee or avoid the conflict. Confrontation is normal, and the malfunctioning of society, or any institution, comes from the inability to manage the confrontation.

Conflict is neutral
Conflict in itself is neither good nor bad, adequate or inadequate, right or wrong, it all depends on how we deal with it. As it is in the case of anger, at the beginning conflict also acts as an alarm, a symptom of divergence, a crisis that when it is well managed leads to greater growth.

When it is not well managed, it will maintain the status quo adding to an atmosphere of dissatisfaction and a continuous sneaky camouflaged violence that poisons and corrodes relationships, leading eventually to a greater loss for all involved if for one reason or another the conflict deflagrates.

When this happens, after the cold war has been going on for a long time, it takes on a proportion that is difficult to manage because there is no longer any will on everyone’s part to resolve the conflict.

 “Your enemy hides from you because he hates you, you hide from your enemy because you know him,” says an African proverb. A religious community, a company or an institution whose members live in a cold war atmosphere, move around each other like fish in an aquarium and when they accidentally touch each other, they spark and repel one another.

Some causes of conflicts
•    Disregarding someone’s opinion because we don’t like him
•    Wanting everyone to be the same
•    Not accepting someone as he or she is
•    Inferring motives behind behaviour
•    Blocking people into roles
•    Prejudices, boxing others into roles impeding them from growing and progressing
•    Racism, sexism, chauvinism
•    Rivalry, envy, autocracy
•    Religious beliefs
•    Narcissism and exaggeration of small differences, while overlooking what we have in common
•    Fixating on small details while ignoring the big issues
•    Constant destructive criticism
•    Imposition of decisions on people who did not participate in them
•    Fear of affronting and confronting someone
•    Denial and escape of conflicting situations
•    Using silence as weapon to control others
•    Manipulation, insensitivity
•    Lack of reconciliation or premature reconciliation without resolving the issue
•    Being treated or treating others like children

The use of NVC’s four steps to resolve conflicts
“Expressing our vulnerability by the manifestation of our feelings, may help to solve a conflict.”
Marshall Rosenberg

In the resolution of conflicts, as well as in anger management and other individual and social matters, NVC is like a magic wand that transforms instruments of war into instruments of peace, a philosopher’s stone that transforms everything it touches into gold. It is also the best matrix, the best paradigm or model to resolve satisfactorily the conflicts that result and emerge in our lives together.

Faced with a conflict, or whenever we find ourselves in the middle of one, or witnessing one, the four steps of Nonviolent Communication carries a street smartness that can help us communicate with others compassionately.

First, observe and describe objectively what is happening or happened; describe the facts that make up the situation that disturbs us, without judging or evaluating, without comparing with similar or past conflicts.

Second, be aware of the feelings and emotions that crop up in us, both in our body as in our spirit; identify them and give them a name, avoiding words that contain veiled criticism of others and that toss us out of feelings, such as victimized, abandoned, rejected, misunderstood. These are not feelings, but rather words that evaluate the action of the other person. Making ourselves responsible for our feelings prevent us from dealing with conflicting situation from the point of view of the victim.

Third, do an exercise of introspection to find out our unfulfilled needs and not assume that others know what we need, when we don’t even know them ourselves. This way of thinking started in our infancy when our parents and educators guessed what we lacked without us telling them or even without ourselves being aware of what our needs were. It is important that, as adults, we are able to identify our needs in order to make clear and direct requests to meet them. In so doing misunderstanding is avoided and we are more likely to have our needs met.

Finally, what are our requests? After identifying our needs the next step is to make a specific, feasible, concrete and realistic request. For any request that we make, the answer that we hear is always a positive ‘yes’ even when apparently the other person voices a negative “no”.

In NVC, we are not to be addicted to our expectations; the best response is not what we expect, but what the other gives us. Everyone needs to feel free to ask for what he needs, as well as to say yes or no to the requests without being judged, blamed or criticized. In expressing our needs, remaining open to the results, relationships become more authentic and satisfying. As we know already, the other person’s “no” is simply a “yes” to his immediate needs (which in NVC are also ours) and a postponement of ours at the present moment.

Example
Rosenberg speaks of a conference that he gave in a Palestinian refugee camp. At the very moment he was introduced to the crowd as being an American, a sharp voice cried out, “Murderer!” This was a highly charged situation that had the potential of getting out of control that could result in the failure of the conference as well as hamper his personal safety. By applying NVC, this is the dialogue that followed:

- Are you angry because you would like my government to use its resources differently? (I didn’t know whether my guess was correct, but what is critical is my sincere effort to connect with his feeling and need.)
 - Damn right I’m angry! You think we need tear gas? We need sewers, not your tear gas! We need housing! We need to have our own country!
 - So you’re furious and would appreciate some support in improving your living conditions and gaining political independence?

 The dialogue continued for some time and Rosenberg discounted the insults and the harsh language to listen for the feeling and need behind each statement made by connecting empathetically with the Palestinian, without agreeing, disagreeing or defending himself against the accusations. Rosenberg says that when the gentleman felt understood, he was able to continue with the conference, which ended one hour later with an invitation from the same man who had called him a murderer to his home for a Ramadan dinner.

In conclusion, apart from being a dramatic expression of unmet needs, both anger and conflict are not so much the result of what others say or do, but rather the way we judge others by what they say or do.

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC

NVC - Educating Without Rewards Or Punishments

‘Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from ploughing or tending sheep in the field, “Come here at once and take your place at the table”? Would you not rather say to him, “Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink”? Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, “We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!”’ Luke 17:7-10

Rewards and punishments are part of the language of violence, which needs external stimuli to get things done. The new man, the nonviolent man, is autonomous, the motivation for his action is intrinsic, he does not do what he does for fear of punishment, nor in eagerness to win a reward. He does what he does because he likes it, and in order to meet his needs and the needs of others around him, thus contributing positively to his family, institution, company or society in general.

The biblical text quoted above imparts this idea that God is not indebted to us for having done what it was our duty to do in the first place. Rosenberg often advises people not to do anything if not for the pure joy of doing it; it seems that this idea go against the Christian principle of doing something for someone, of placing oneself at the service of others, but this is not the case.

Everything we do is to be done because we freely choose and want to do it; in this way, no one feels indebted to us. We are not enslaved to anything or to anyone, not even to duty, nor do we enslave others to us, that is, people are not indebted to us for what we do for them because we are not doing it for them but for ourselves, because we like to contribute to the well-being of others.

Marshall Rosenberg, the founder of NVC, did not delve more deeply into many areas of philosophy that underlie his linguistic technique. The area of education, however, has been developed in two small books titled, “Teaching Children Compassionately” and “Raising Children Compassionately”. From these two books, we will show how children should be educated at home and in school following the NVC principles.

Convinced that NVC has the potential to create a new man and a new world, Rosenberg did not neglect the area of education. He insisted that this new language should not only be taught to the very young, but that it should be the philosophy of education both at home and in school. He himself helped to create the so-called giraffe schools where the teaching systems, as well as the relationships between students, students and teachers, and teachers and parents follow the NVC matrix.

The limitations of coercion and punishment
Human beings from very young have an unquestionable need to protect their autonomy and freedom. Naturally they resist doing what others want them to do, even if it is good for them, for the simple reason that it was not their free personal choice. It is true that we can always ask children to do this or that, but we must always make clear the difference between asking and giving an order.

Orders are coercive, because they are accompanied by fear, punishment, guilt and shame, and give no possibility of choice; requests, on the other hand, grant the possibility of choice in such a way that if the answer is a “No”, we still hear a “Yes” to the needs of the one who apparently answered negatively to our request, so we are not bothered by it.

Rosenberg is peremptory in saying you just have to ask yourself two questions to come to the conclusion that punishments or rewards as a motivator for a child’s, or for that matter anybody’s, behavior never work:

What do you want your child to do?
In answering this question, you might conclude that coercion and rewards seem to be a shortcut for getting a person to behave in the way you want. They might work in the short run for a while; but once the person understands that the rewards are addictive and manipulative, and that coercion denies freedom, then they wouldn't work anymore.

What do you want your child’s reasons to be for doing something?
Rosenberg guarantees that as soon as you ask this question you will realize that rewards and punishments don’t work. A behaviour that is enforced by punishment, motivated by fear, guilt, shame, obligation or a desire for a reward is a threat to the child’s need of autonomy, freedom and independence. In fact, extrinsic motivations have a high price to pay for both the one who imposes them and the one who complies.

We certainly prefer that our child’s or any person’s motivations for behaviour to be intrinsic, and not extrinsic, that is, enforced by punishments or enticed by rewards. For this to work we need to connect empathically with the person in a way that he knows that his feelings and needs matter equally to us as our own.

Through an empathic dialogue both our needs and the ones of the other person can be identified and known. Once this happens nature will find strategies for both needs to be met in a win-win approach.  Empathy leads to gratuity, to doing things and giving from the heart with no need for rewards.

It is also the emphatic dialogue that transforms a demand into a request. Demands may be useful in the army but not in education as they don’t take into consideration the needs of the other, his autonomy and freedom of choice.

Physical punishment
In almost every country in the Western world it is already illegal to spank one’s own children and yet the vast majority of parents still believe in the value of corporal punishment, in the sense that to give it up is to give up enforcing the values that they want to instill in their children.

In other words, for many parents to give up punishment is to give up educating their children thus letting them do whatever they want. For this very reason, because the law forces them to give up punishment, and they do not understand how to educate otherwise, they end up by giving up both punishment and education, so that they become both permissive and condescending which is bad for the child, for themselves and for the society in general.

Punished by rewards
What is true for punishment and coercion is also true for rewards; the latter is just as coercive as the former to obtain a certain conduct from children. In both cases we are using power over someone, forcing them to behave as we want. Rewards also rob others of their freedom because these make them act for motives outside of themselves, an attack against their autonomy and freedom.

In his book, Punished by Rewards, Alfie Kohn says that we educate children, at home and in school, and manage the employees at work, in the same manner we train a dog, bribing them with incentives: “Do this and you’ll get that”. Extrinsic motivations, in the form of praises, money, prizes are ineffective and counterproductive because those who suffer them quickly realize the ultimate reason is the manipulation and control of their behaviours.

It is remarkable how often educators use and abuse the word motivation when what they really mean is obedient submission. Indeed, one of the fundamental myths in this area is that it is possible to motivate someone. Kohn advises educators to avoid seminar articles or workshops titled, “How to motivate your students”, as framing the question in this way means exposing oneself to the device and control mechanisms. However, if it has to do with an intrinsic motivation, it is irrelevant since no one can motivate someone else.

Motivated by guilt
Our doing, or our giving, must come from the heart, must be motivated from within, or be self-motivated. Besides rewards and punishments, such as coercion or incentive motivation that induces children to do this or that, many parents especially those who have stopped punishing and reprimanding their children have found another technique, in their own understanding of nonviolence, of instigating guilt in their children. After all, they did not leave the Karpman’s Bermuda triangle, they have only ceased being the persecutors to become the victims.

When a mother says to her son, “You hurt me and your dad when you don’t clean up your room, or when you don’t get good grades…”, as there are no victims without persecutors, in becoming a victim, the mother is accusing and blaming her son of persecuting her with his behaviour hoping that her son will feel enough guilt to push him to make amendments for what he has done wrong, thus completing the triangle and become his mother’s rescuer by undoing the behaviour that oppressed her.

Of course, the child’s actions are not the cause of the parents’ feelings, but rather what they say to themselves as a result of their child’s actions. The child who changes his behaviour, to please his parents, does so because he feels guilty and not because he positively wants to contribute to life – his, his parents’ and society’s in general. If the parents in expressing their feelings were made to follow their needs then it would no longer be coercive or violent nor would it instigate guilt in the child. NVC in action could be, “Mommy feels frustrated when you don’t eat everything on your plate because I want you to grow up strong and healthy.”

Creating ties
The solution between preserving the child’s autonomy and our desire to instill our values through education, is a paradigm shift and the ultimate goal. What we want is to create ties that permit everyone’s needs to be met. The ties of mutual respect, where the needs of both, the educators and the learners, are equally important and interdependent.

In this new paradigm of education, we apply to children the same principles we use with adults. We give up any and all evaluations in terms of right or wrong, good or bad by replacing them with whether or not our needs are met, and whether or not it is in harmony with them. In practice this should be done in a way that does not stimulate or provoke guilt or shame in children.

“I’m afraid when I see you hit your little brother, because I have the need for the family to be a safe place”, instead of, “Hitting your little brother is bad, you are a coward.” Or instead of, “You have not cleaned up your room, you are lazy”, say, “I feel frustrated when I notice that you did not make your bed, I need everyone to help keep the house clean and tidy”.

Unconditional love
But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father – the one in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah. Matthew 23:8-10

Autocratic authority has no place in NVC or in the new world that Jesus came to inaugurate. We are all brothers and sisters in fact and what counts is the moral authority with which we perform a service in the community. All services are important to community life, the performance of a task, a service, it does not give us any power over others. The only authority is God who is the Father of all. Therefore the father has no authority over the children nor the masters over the disciples.

This dialogue only works when we gain moral authority over the children, in the sense that we are with them when they need us; many parents, on the other hand, only make themselves available or visible when it is the time for punishment.

A child may one day come home and vent, “Nobody likes me”; the temptation is to deny what is true, or to give advice; in these moments the most important thing is the empathic silence that in practice can be translated into a look or gesture of support. Only later are questions asked to help the child find his own answers.

Love is unconditional and it is certain that, theoretically, all parents unconditionally love their children. In everyday life, however, what they actually communicate in behaviour and body language is precisely the opposite, because they express sadness and anger when their children do not behave as they would wish and joy when they do what the parents want. In this way, what the children learn is the conditionality of their parents’ love in such a way that they can even end up doing things that they do not want for themselves, in order to obtain this love in the form of approval.

The use of the language of nonviolence reduces conflicts within the family as well as sibling rivalry, because it replaces the struggle for power with cooperation and trust. For this to happen, parents should promote their children’s emotional development and self-esteem, as well as protect and nurture their autonomy. This can be done by expressing frustration when they do not do what is for the good of all, instead of judging and blaming them, and make clear, concrete and doable requests, and find out and listen to the needs behind the “no” answer.

When a child says or does something that is not to our liking
It is not uncommon, but happens very often that a child says or does something less positive. It is at this moment that we take a deep breath and manage the situation within the parameters of NVC. It can be very difficult and takes time in the beginning because in the moments of crisis, the clearest thing is that our reptilian brain takes control of us, and for us to connect to the neocortex we must give time to disconnect from our reptilian brain, and observe without judging even inside of our mind. We have four options:

1. Blame ourselves – I am a bad father or mother, it is my fault that my son or daughter is this way
2. Blame the child – He is selfish. Rude and good for nothing etc.…
3. Connect with our feelings and needs – I feel disillusioned, I need recognition for the effort I made
4. Discover their feelings and needs – Do you feel reluctant because you want to be free to make your own choices?

When we succeed in connecting with our feelings and needs, we are indirectly helping the other to do the same, and in this way both will surely find a satisfactory solution to the needs of both even in the worst situations.

The goal is that whatever the children do, it is because they themselves choose to do it and do it for the pleasure of knowing that they are contributing to making life more wonderful for themselves and for others, because it meets their and others’ needs. In this way, a request may sound more or less like this: “I would like you to do this, it would meet my need, but if in case your needs conflict with this, I would like to know, so that we both can find the best way to meet both of our needs.”

The jackal schools
For a violent society to remain as such, it needs to have schools where violence is learned and is part of the curriculum. It is not just that the school’s administrators turn a blind eye at bullying, and that they only act when the consequences are catastrophic or when it is too late and the victim has committed suicide. Institutional violence is also exercised over the children in the following ways: 

• Teach the children to obey the authority unconditionally and uncritically; so that later on when they are hired for a job they do what they are told without questioning.
• Train the children to work for an external reward. The school is not interested in children learning to enrich their lives and the lives of others, but to strive to get high grades, whether they like what they are studying or not, because these will translate into high paying jobs for them in the future.
• Maintain social inequalities and a system of classes or castes making it look like a democracy. 

The giraffe schools
Schools in which parents and teachers relate as partners – where the Nonviolent Communication is part of each interaction – are learning communities, and not impersonal factories from top to bottom. (Riane Eisler in Tomorrow’s Children: A Blueprint for Partnership Education in the 21st Century)

In his many travels, in 50 countries, Rosenberg helped to create this type of schools, where the relationships among teachers, students and the rest of the educational staff are modeled on Nonviolent Communication.

The children have an active role in the educational process – In this way, Rosenberg draws from the ancient Socratic process of maieutic, from non-directive psychotherapy of Carl Rogers and from the experiences of the Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire. The other, whether adult or child, is not an empty bag that I am going to fill with knowledge. The students, the teachers, the parents and the rest of the educators learn together, from each other because everyone has something to learn from others and something to teach others.

The motivation is internal, autonomous not coercive – The motivation for whatever the children do comes out of themselves, it is not imposed from outside by negative coercive means such as punishments and reprimands, nor positive ones such as prizes and rewards. The autonomy of the children is a respected value in giraffe schools, but they do not affirm autonomy disconnected from interdependence. The truth is that we are as autonomous as we are interdependent; one value cannot be affirmed to the detriment of the other. The students are motivated by values, needs and desires intrinsic to themselves, not imposed or suggested from the outside.

Self-discipline replaces discipline rooted in obedience motivated by fear of punishment – In these schools, children are not disciplined, but self-disciplined because they are convinced of the value of discipline so that it is not imposed from outside, but desired and adopted from within. The school’s rules of operation are discussed and agreed upon by all who are affected by them.

Children respect authority rather than fear it – Authority is not autocratic or even democratic, but it is above all a moral authority that conquers the children’s hearts through empathy and compassion; in this way there is a mutual respect and understanding between teachers and students, and collaboration at all levels.

Children in a giraffe school learn to express themselves with their classmates and teachers in a positive way, avoiding evaluations, prejudices, comparisons and criticisms. They express their feelings when something goes wrong and learn to try to describe those feelings. They then ask others, be them parents, classmates or teachers, how they would like them to act, formulating these requests in a positive and clear way. Finally, they are taught to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions.

For Rosenberg, what is important for the children’s future is not only learning the curriculum, getting good grades, and having academic success in general. The relationships that a child establishes with the teachers and peers are part of the learning and are equally important for a successful life in the future. Schools should prepare for life in all its aspects and not only for the exercise of a profession. If a child learns to resolve conflicts in the form of Nonviolent Communication, then he is being prepared not only for a professional life, but also for life period.

The important thing is not only the end of a trip, the graduation day, but also the process that led there, the accomplished relationships and the way they were lived, the conflicts experienced and resolved, the way all this was learned is part of the baggage that the child takes with him or her in life and not just a paper, a diploma.

Children resolve their own conflicts – Some schools have in the classrooms a place called the mediation corner; when a conflict arises between two students, a third mediates between the two in conflict using the nonviolent conflict resolution technique.

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC