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