Recently I’ve been learning about something called Nonviolent Communication. I don’t want to go into the whole topic of NVC here - I just want to write down some thoughts I’ve been rolling over in my mind regarding certain ideas that I encountered when learning about it. This hasn’t really been built into a well-formed essay yet, so forgive my inelegance.
In particular, I’m thinking about the extent to which we apply moral judgement, and the effects that has on our happiness, relationships, and communication, and in particular how this relates to parenting.
I mean “moral judgement” in a similar sense to what meditation teachers mean when they talk about judgement in general. The meditation practices I’ve studied talk about making observations without judgement. See the thing, and just look at what it is, but do not determine whether it is good or bad. Making this judgement can, say the meditation books I’ve read, get in the way of seeing.
After thinking about it a bit, I’m coming to see that moral judgement is everywhere in our standard thinking patterns. Even our language is laced with moral judgement connotations, and it can take a great deal of effort to phrase a sentence so that it includes mere observation without also implying that the observed is good or bad. I contend that simply using words to describe events colors our own perception of those events with the moral connotations of the words themselves, whether or not those connotations are appropriate. I’ll try to describe some examples below.
“He cut me off in traffic.” This sentence has an obvious negative moral judgement attached, although the action being described need not necessarily be immoral. He may have legitimately not seen me there because he was blinded by the sun, or may have made some other error. He may have a choking passenger and was scrambling to make it to the shoulder to help them. He may have been forced over a lane to avoid an accident. Or he may just be a jerk. The morality of each of these cases is different, but there is only one compact phrase that is commonly used to describe what happened, and it comes with a distinct negative moral connotation. Simply by thinking the standard phrase, we are, I think, likely to induce an angry response in ourselves, whether or not that response is appropriate. This has a cost to us. Anger is a costly emotion to experience - it creates stress, uses up our energy, and changes the way we behave towards other people usually for the worse.
“She screamed at me” could describe the exact same event as “she screamed to me” or “she screamed for me”, and all have different moral connotations. Even “screamed” has a certain amount of moral implication attached. Our choice of which phrase we use to describe the event seems likely to have impacts on our perception of the event, and those perceptions are likely to impact how we respond to the screamer.
This is an example that I’ve personally experienced quite a bit in interacting with our youngest child. If I interpret her cries as “screaming at me”, I get defensive and angry. I find myself saying/thinking things like “What!? What could you possibly want!? I’ve done everything for you! I’ve rearranged my life to make your life possible!!“, none of which does either of us any good. If I interpret her cries as “screaming to me”, then I don’t take it personally but see it as her expression of her discomfort/disquiet - indeed the only way she has to tell anyone anything’s wrong - and I’m inclined to hold her and tell her that everything is OK. This seems to work better for both of us, and after some observation it now seems clear to me that “screaming to me” is a much more accurate description of what’s actually happening. I can see this in her acceptance of my comforting, and the way she snuggles into me. I’m her comfort, not her antagonist.
“He hit his sister”, “He attacked his sister”, “He bashed her in the head”, and “He bonked her” all might be used to describe a single event between two children. How we choose to describe the event either reflects our moral judgement of the event and/or determines what moral judgement we will apply. Choosing to apply a moral judgement (or reflexively applying a judgement because that’s just what we’re used to doing) results in feelings of anger and outrage, which may not be appropriate to the situation. Maybe the hit was accidental. Maybe it was experimental. Maybe it was attention-seeking. If I interpret the event as malicious, I will probably feel angry about it, and will probably react angrily. In my experience, reacting angrily works very poorly with young children. Paradoxically, it seems to elicit more of the behavior that invoked my anger. On the other hand if I express disapproval without expressing anger, I seem to get much better results.
(Imagine you’re teaching a close friend to play a musical instrument. Assuming you’re a reasonable teacher, when he makes a mistake, you let him know he’s made a mistake, but you don’t attach a moral judgement and you certainly don’t get angry. You’re helping him learn to do something well, not forcing him to do it your way. This is the sort of communication I’m trying to apply when working with my kids.)
As I’ve suggested, I think this concept has applicability that is broader than parenting alone. It’s a topic that I feel I’ve just scratched the surface of, but it seems to be bearing fruit. I’d like to investigate further.