Sounds of Freedom
Category: Sharing in public.
Note: I will define some words in unusual ways. When I do this, I write something like “To me, x means […]”.1 I have not thought through all the implications of these definitions, and I don’t expect them to hold up water-tight to philosophical scrutiny. My hope is that this way of looking at things might serve you in your life and thinking.
The soundtrack for this blog post ^
I cried while singing this song on the second day of the year.2 More specifically, it’s the line “Let your words enslave no one […]”. I can feel the tears coming up when I listen to it now.
Why does this line move me so?3
It makes me think of the way language is used to limit and control others. It’s related to how I define “being judgemental” - for me, being judgemental is more about assuming and less about being mean.
Let’s do an example:
Thomas: ”Hi! Do you have time to talk?”
Max: ”I don’t want to talk to you right now”
Thomas: ”Why are you mad?”
Now who was judgemental? For me, it’s crystal clear: Thomas.
Thomas assumed anger, and “treated that assumption as real”4 by asking a question based on the assumption.
What if Max is busy?
What if Max gets angry because Thomas imposed their judgement on Max?
This is interesting, let’s think a bit about why it makes sense for Max to get angry in response to Thomas’ question. As with all great explorations, we start with defining “violence”.
To me, violence is about limiting others through action or threats of action. Limiting actions through the threat of force. Limiting choices through psychological abuse.
In the example above, to make themselves understood, Max would have to do a fair bit of communication legwork.5 I wouldn’t be surprised if a person in that circumstance would rather play along and not make a fuss. Over time, being imposed on in that way shapes you, putting limits on who you are.6 This is violent to me.
Now how does this tie into anger?
For me, anger is about setting boundaries and protecting yourself and that which is dear to you. Anger is useful when people try to make you do things you don’t want to do. Anger is useful when people act in ways that limit who you can be.7
Using anger to set a boundary against verbal violence makes perfect sense.
This view on communicative violence is partially based on my thinking about and practising nonviolent communication. I’ve been into nonviolent communication for quite some years, and it’s been a huge influence on me. I’d like to share a bit about the benefits of nonviolent communication, as well as some issues I’ve stumbled upon during my years of practice8
On nonviolent communication
Different people see different things as core to the practice, but to me, nonviolent communication is about making it impossible to force one’s judgements on others. Scenarios similar to the example above are avoided by sticking to a specific way of speaking, the nonviolent communication template:
Start with observation, stating only physical facts
Optional. Share in what way you judged the observation9
Share how that observation/judgement made you feel
Ask a question, or state a need
Optional. If (4) is a need, and you want to, make a request of the person you are speaking with. This request should be positive, specific, and doable.
The question “Why are you mad?” is impossible to express when following this specific way of speaking. Using the nonviolent communication template, it would be something like “When you said that you don’t want to talk to me right now, I felt sad. I imagined you didn’t like me. Is that true?”.
This way of speaking can feel cumbersome. When you start, you get annoyed at not being able to “talk like normal”. That’s the point.
By keeping judgements and reality separate when speaking, it is possible to slowly change the way you think.10 Over the years I have been practising this, my judgements have started feeling less real. Instead, I can relate to them as they are: ingrained ways I react.11 Being aware of my judgements has helped me to not get dragged along, stopping early instead of going into unskillful action.
At this point, I want to bring up some ways nonviolent communication can go wrong. I’ve fucked up a few times as I’ve practised, and want to raise a few of the ways I’ve failed here.
Failure modes of nonviolent communication
One failure mode is nonviolence-signalling.12 Always speaking according to the template, in a soft-spoken, “open-hearted” way.13 The template is like a set of training wheels, something best abandoned once you have learned from it.14
Another failure mode is going into nonviolent communication with manipulative intent. I started practising nonviolent communication because I wanted to handle conflicts better. My intent can be described as:
“If I talk like this, people will listen to me and do as I ask”.
By using use nonviolent communication as a manipulation15 tool, I was trying to limit the actions of others so that they suited me. Using my definition of violence above, we can see how this usage is, in fact, violent. Victims can choose to either play along or be seen as unreasonable.
Yet another failure mode is captured by this way of thinking:
“That person didn’t use proper nonviolent communication when we argued, hmpf”.
I haven’t suffered from this a lot.16 I’ve talked to other nonviolent communication practitioners that have shared some horror stories though. Communities with rules about using nonviolent communication, going into passive-aggressive speech that technically fit the 5-step template above. Words are one thing, but without loving intent,17 nonviolent communication can go very wrong. Body language and the way you speak are enough to turn any sentence sarcastic and full of bad faith.
Forcing nonviolent communication on others under threat of judgement or other social punishments is, in fact, limiting others. Again we discover potential violent patterns!
Another trap I’ve fallen into is that of being overly diplomatic. I’ve closed down on anger and similar “unproductive”18 reactions, being exceptionally diplomatic. Instead of expressing what was happening inside, I swallowed my anger and went into space-holding19 mode when faced with a conflict. The antidote for me has been radical honesty. Ever since reading the book, I’ve done my best to be nonviolent and radically honest. This mix works surprisingly well!
Radical honesty
To me, radical honesty is about trying to be open about the things that go on in my head. This enables healthy nonviolent communication by making it less passive-aggressive, bend-over-backwards20 manipulative.
To me, nonviolent communication is about getting my value judgements in order. This makes radical honesty easier by making it less likely that I mix up judgemental thoughts and reality.21 If your judgements feel real to you, you will say preposterous things like “You look ugly in that dress”.22
If you want a suggestion, I can recommend reading up on nonviolent communication and start practising while keeping the pitfalls in mind. Once you have learned to separate judgement from reality, pick up and practice radical honesty. I don’t know if this makes sense to everyone, but it worked out well for me.
Thanks for your time and attention.
And lend your voices only to sounds of freedom. 🎵
EDIT: after talking to my partner about this, I realize “violence” might be a bit harsh of a word. People might not take offence, so any limiting is interpersonal. Carelessness might fit better; Risk of hurting others, intent not implied.
P.S: Radical honesty mixed with nonviolent communication can lead to interesting situations. At a circling event recently, I told people “I am having a lot of judgements about this group. Everyone seems quite weird to me. A High-school part of myself is afraid of status loss, being the weird kids.”.23
Having your own definitions of fundamental words is a practice Peter calls “based definitions”, read his post for more info.
I don’t think I’ve cried since. I need to improve my crying frequency.
Last time, I had some pretty intense experiences at a burn. Might have caused an emotional connection. But it doesn’t make for a good story, I want to share my mind space as I hear it, not some boring causal explanation.
legwork = “work that involves much travelling about to collect information, especially when such work is difficult but boring.” Used metaphorically.
More abstractly: We are constantly defining ourselves in relation to others. If enough people treat you in certain ways, you internalize their view of you. When adopting others’ views of who you are, you are limited. Note that the way I phrased it implies that you do it consciously. I think most internalization occurs unintentionally. Language is hard.]
I almost wrote “when people try to limit who you are”. It sounds better, but it’s incorrect. “trying” implies that this is done consciously. It’s usually not. When done consciously it’s called “frame control”, and is usually frowned upon.
This ties in tight with status - knowing how status works is important and useful, but using knowledge of status for your own benefit at the expense of others is not cool. Recommended reading: “Chimpanzee politics”, “Impro”
Take this with a grain of salt, it’s my perspective and I’m rarely representative
This is my unofficial, stoicism-based take.
I was about to write a post similar to this one back when this was posted. It covers some of the same ideas.
Some healthy, some unhealthy, and some in between.
Signalling is about trying to appear to do something rather than doing it. Nonviolent communication-signalling is all about using traits that make you seem compassionate and understanding, while neglecting your actual practice.
Also known as hot yoga teacher smooth voicing.
In my semi-humble opinion.
To me, manipulation is acting in ways intended to make others do specific things. Very general, I know.
Due to my superiority complex, I’ve never really struggled with others failing to live up to my standards. I have expected them not to be able to do that.
Love is that which enables choice - the opposite of violence.
I like anger, in moderation.
Basically letting the other person vent while keeping a low-affect reaction pattern toward the situation.
Bend-over-backwards = being overly accommodating. If someone breaks in and takes a shit on your table, you don’t “need” to go “When you broke in and took a shit on my table, I felt angry and surprised […]”
If you are honest and an asshole, you will struggle. Maybe the asshole part is the main problem, rather than the honesty.
No one has ever asked me this. I would give my best answer. If I thought it looked god-awful, I would say something like “I don’t like the colour/texture/fit/etc” not “you look ugly”. “you look ugly” is hurtful because it’s violent, a judgement expressed as a fact about a person.
No one was offended. Weirdos.