In general I'm also not a fan of changing definitions of words for the extra pathos and marketability. I also would be surprised if Rosenberg has any sort of malicious intent here in his choice of wording.
Violence is, by definition, physical, and claiming that "speech is violence" seems like a trivialization of actual physical violence.
While there is evidence that certain types of psychological abuse can cause a physical reaction akin to that experienced by victims of physical violence, those cases are extremely rare and shouldn't be used as justification for this sort of rebranding.
"While there is evidence that certain types of psychological abuse can cause a physical reaction akin to that experienced by victims of physical violence, those cases are extremely rare"
Is this actually true? I was under the impression that trauma quite often results in physical responses afterwards regardless of source. eg. panic attacks, night terrors.
Trauma generally involves either violence, or the credible threat of violence. The three greatest factors underlying trauma are the fear of imminnat death or grievous injury, and/or the loss of control and resulting sense of helplessness, and a destruction of bedrock assumptions such as “I am a good person” or “I’m safe at home.”
It’s not common for PTSD to emerge in the context of purely psychological abuse, although it does happen. Almost inevitably abuse resulting in PTSD has a component of either physical harm, or the threat of physical harm (including witnessing violence or threats of violence).
Discussions of NVC are often frustrating for that reason - there's a tool for difficult conversations, but we focus more on labeling than on teaching the tool. As a society, we need more mutual understanding. Setting aside definition debates would be helpful.
It's kind of ironic—for a style of communication designed to avoid statements with embedded accusations and controversial judgments, its name embeds one of the most accusatory and controversial judgments one can make. I wonder what was going through Rosenberg's head when he chose the name.
I figured out I could autocorrect it in my head to "nonvolatile communication", which seems significantly better.
Emotional manipulation is absolutely violence. Often language which is itself not explicitly violent is backed by implicit threats of violence. Labeling and judgment feed both emotional and physical violence, not only among individuals but also more systematically.
The most brilliant book I know about this is Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, which explores in great depth the myriad ways in which language is violent and perpetuates violence, while being narrated by a completely dispassionate narrator who sticks to pure observation.
> [...] can cause a physical reaction akin to that experienced by victims of physical violence, those cases are extremely rare
If by “extremely rare” you mean experienced by nearly everyone occasionally throughout their lives (and by many on a daily basis), then sure.
An attack doesn’t need to leave someone hospitalized to be “violent”.
One could argue that violence is, etymologically, purely psychological: it means transgressing one's intent or will. Harm would be the word for physical stuff.
Violence is, by definition, physical, and claiming that "speech is violence" seems like a trivialization of actual physical violence.
While there is evidence that certain types of psychological abuse can cause a physical reaction akin to that experienced by victims of physical violence, those cases are extremely rare and shouldn't be used as justification for this sort of rebranding.