I haven't read much about NVC, so I can't speak to how the term is used there.

But if it's anything like Crucial Conversations, they define/analyze conversational violence in a lot of detail. I thought it was a really interesting read. CC defines conversational violence as things like labeling, misrepresentation, accusations, defensiveness, getting angry, etc. I'd assume that NVC probably has a similar definition.

I thought that the use of the word 'violence' was kind of weird in that context at first, but my perception really changed as I thought about it more. The intent is to damage the other person, and to win by beating them - not really so different than physical violence.

I like those insights. The danger with labeling words as violence though is that it leads many to the conclusion that words should be policed in the way physical violence is. A critical difference between words and physical violence is that words can cause harm to a listener based on the listener's interpretation and reaction to those words. If a fist hits my jaw I can't control whether it breaks it. But I have control over how I interpret people's words, and the effect they have on me. A person's words can hurt others even when that is not the speaker's intent, and indeed, sometimes there is no way to express a certain idea that won't hurt certain people. But that should never be pretense to treat words like physical violence in the way we police the latter.

(I'm not meaning to suggest that you were advocating for that. Just that it's a risk of not clearly distinguishing between words and physical violence.)

Agreed - conversational violence and physical violence are two very different things.

If I heard somebody say 'violence', I definitely wouldn't jump to conversational violence in my head. But as far as descriptive nouns go, it's not a terrible one. Just as long as everybody understands the context.

Your note about being able to control interpretations is interesting - I haven't had great success with that myself. Like if some rando came up to me and shouted bad stuff in my face, my day would be pretty ruined. I could try to rationalize it away later, but I definitely wouldn't be unhurt in the moment. And probably the memory would affect me whether I wanted that or not. Sticks-and-stones might be one of those "in theory, theory and practice are the same" kinds of situations.

While I agree that violence in context of language is different from physical violence in that the harm can result from an interpretation of the listener's part, I also suggest that certain forms of language are equivalent to physical violence in that there is no non-harmful way to express something. For an extreme example, I do not know of a non-harmful rhetoric to advocate the genocide of an oppressed group.

It's sort of ridiculous to use the word violence in that context. Unless someone shouts into the ears of other person to induce hearing damage, it's clearly redefining the language to suit ones agenda and should be condemned. You can not be violent with words, you can use them for verbal abuse, incite violence, etc but the words themselves can't be violent.

>Unless someone shouts into the ears of other person to induce hearing damage, it's clearly redefining the language to suit ones agenda and should be condemned.

I believe you are misunderstanding the parent's comment. The authors do not equate conversational violence with physical violence. Nor are they suggesting dictionaries amend their definition of violence. They are merely categorizing types of verbal communication, and providing names for them. It's no worse than calling someone's language as "soft" or "hard" - both are ridiculous if you go with the literal definitions. I could easily go and look up theorems/terminologies in science and engineering and make the same arguments about overloading common English terms. I'd rather not attribute negative intentions to the people who coined those terms for industry use.

>it's clearly redefining the language to suit ones agenda and should be condemned.

You are attributing intention to someone else, and this is a common way conversations go downhill. The books teach you how not to do that. They also suggest that using words like "should" in an unqualified manner is likely to derail the conversation.

>You can not be violent with words, you can use them for verbal abuse, incite violence, etc but the words themselves can't be violent.

I find it amusing you insist that you cannot be violent with words, but you are OK with using the word "abuse" for words.

(Apologies for not practicing NVC skills in this post).

>Co-opting the word violence, is great marketing but dishonest.

I disagree that it is dishonest, and I doubt Marshall Rosenberg (founder of NVC) was the one to coin it. I recently read another book on communications (not associated with NVC), and it categorizes poor communications into two categories:

- Silence (withholding your information from the "pool")

- Violence (forcing your information into the "pool")

Neither is literal. Silence in this context doesn't mean not talking. One can be categorized as silent while still talking in great length. In fact, I think they categorize someone who is continually throwing insults as "silent". The person is trying hard not to talk about something and is attempting to deflect. It's more about whether his words and actions are focusing on adding or withholding. Likewise violence is more about suppressing others' perspectives so that you're sure the other side hears yours. Or talking too much, essentially trying to dump as much as possible into the pool.

Just an example that the notion of "violent" communications is not unique to NVC. It seems to be a term used often.

Personally, I do wish it wasn't called NVC - too many people think it is about serious conflict resolution, or about pacifism. It's merely a recipe for speaking.

Before you claim 'dishonesty', you might want to spend 30 seconds on reading about the origins of the term.

NVC was firmly rooted in mediating between rioting students and college administrators. The explicit goal of it was to foster non-violent desegregation. (And if you look at e.g. Kent State, that was a very necessary goal)

I agree; I've also seen the term "aggression" co-opted in a similar manner.

Both violence and aggression require intent, and a big reason such communication skills need to be taught is that so many people don't understand how they sound.

This is important because the best corrective action for unintentional harm may be different than the best corrective action for intentional harm.