Can We Really Achieve The NVC Ideal?

At the beginning of the NVC book, Marshall Rosenberg paints a vision of a world where humanity is reconnected to its compassionate nature instead of its competitive one, and we live in the freedom of giving from the heart rather than giving (or withholding) out of coercion.

But do you share my doubt that this really possible? As Rachelle Lamb says in her podcast, are we lying to ourselves in thinking that everyone’s needs can be met every time? Does it seem fanciful, if not delusional, to think that we can actually, eventually get the critical mass of humanity to connect through empathy and cooperate on meeting one another’s needs? Is this some kind of utopia we are expecting?

I offer two thoughts on this mystery…

The scope of historical evidence persuades me that humanity is developing on a rough and treacherous road toward greater complexity, self-control and cooperation. I agree that our positive development is not guaranteed, yet it is likely based on what we’ve seen so far. All along the way, there are instances of horrific and massive tragedy, but somehow we keep building something better upon the periodic ruins. As Martin Luther King Jr. said: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

The organismic principle, or ‘inherent growth tendency,’ states that life – which includes humans – is, at its core, urged to persist, to grow and connect in greater cooperative complexity, though this tendency does not predict what that increasing complex connection will look like and what role each member will have in it. That is for life to discover and create. While there is no certainty, there is hope founded on facts.

I view Marshall Rosenberg’s vision as a necessary tool for aiming our efforts, not an actual destination we expect everyone to arrive at and dwell in continuously. It is not about getting there – it’s about persistently moving in that direction because it makes our lives better to do so. There is a quote attributed to Zig Ziglar, “If you aim at nothing, you will hit it every time.” Stating that conversely, we can say that “What you aim at, your are more likely to hit.” We need something to aim at, something that fits an evidence-based understanding of life’s tendency and potential.

The vision of a world where we contribute to the enhancement of one another’s lives instead of ignoring and exploiting, aligns with that inherent growth tendency. While we have seen special people emerge in history to champion a compassionate cause, their vision that resonates with our compassionate nature can be passed on to get a larger number of ordinary people on board in that cause, keeping our focused momentum going in the same direction.

If we do not have a vision to motivate and aim us, then we flounder in our disorganized efforts, waiting for a special person to emerge and save us once again. If we do have such a vision to pass along, it makes it more likely that we, ordinary people, will actually foster and experience more moments of that vision in our lifetime.

It is fortunate that humans are able to hold useful contradictions in mind: we can live toward an ideal that we know we will not achieve, yet will motivate us to incrementally move along that long arc toward greater cooperative complexity and justice.