Nonviolent Communication (NVC) and Corporal Punishment

By Alan Rafael Seid, CNVC Certified Trainer

In this article I cover corporal punishment specifically, as well as the topic of punishment as a whole, and how to think about it in terms of Nonviolent Communication (NVC).

How Does NVC Address the Topic of Corporal Punishment?

How does NVC view corporal punishment specifically, and punishment in general?

Is punishment ever ok? What about corporal punishment?

Is it possible to let someone know that what they did did not work for you — or to have them learn a lesson — without resorting to punishment?

Does NVC advocate for no consequences at all?

If NVC is not about permissiveness, how do you set boundaries without that being a punishment?

These are all worthwhile questions!

Let’s get into them, but first, let’s define Nonviolent Communication (NVC).

What is NVC?

Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is a process for creating the quality of connection out of which we naturally and spontaneously enjoy contributing to one another’s well-being.

Developed by Dr. Marshall Rosenberg, Ph.D., Nonviolent Communication distills the essential elements in thought, language, communication, and the use of power that contribute to this high quality of connection.

NVC trains you to bring your focus to three areas: (1) interior clarity through self-connection; (2) empathic listening; (3) honest and authentic self-expression. As you grow in your NVC skills you will move fluidly between these three areas.

NVC skills help you foster shared understanding and co-create mutually-satisfying results and outcomes.

People use NVC to prevent and resolve misunderstandings and conflicts, deepen personal and professional relationships, clarify their own and others’ deeper motivations, and to contribute positively to group process and meaningful change.

Overview of Corporal Punishment

The word corporal has roots from the Latin word for body. So corporal punishment means physical, bodily punishment.

In preparing to write this article, I imagined that corporal punishment was something from the past. Surely nobody uses corporal punishment anymore, right?

I was wrong.

Though many parents and educational institutions have recognized the brutality and ineffectiveness of corporal punishment, it is still prevalent in many settings including schools and prisons, and is considered quite ordinary in some cultures.

Traditionally, punishment in general has been used as a corrective strategy. When someone does something that the culture considers inappropriate or bad — or that someone with more power considers wrong — then a punishment is issued to (1) send a statement that it was bad and wrong; (2) as a way to deter this person from doing it again, and (3) to send a message to others, “don’t do that or this punishment could happen to you.”

As Dr. Marshall Rosenberg pointed out, doing violence unto others becomes normalized through our thinking. This thinking typically involves static language that some people are good and others are bad.

What logically follows is that the people I think are good should be rewarded and the people I think are bad should be punished. Of course, I am the one who gets to play the role of God and judge people left and right: you are good: you get a reward; you are bad: you get a punishment…

We’ll dig into this a little deeper as we go further because not only does NVC help us transcend this erroneous thinking that leads to terrible results, it also gives us a much more effective and enjoyable way!

Below I discuss the limitations of punishment in general, but first I’d like to discuss the psychological effects of corporal punishment specifically.

Psychological Effects of Corporal Punishment

The research findings on the psychological effects of corporal punishment are hard to read!

From the World Health Organization:
“Corporal punishment triggers harmful psychological and physiological responses. Children not only experience pain, sadness, fear, anger, shame and guilt, but feeling threatened also leads to physiological stress and the activation of neural pathways that support dealing with danger. (https://www.who.int/ news-room/fact-sheets/detail/corporal-punishment-and-health, Nov 23, 2021)”

“Literature shows negative, short- and long-term effects of CP [corporal punishment] on physical, mental, cognitive, social, and emotional outcomes (Gershoff et al. 2018; Heilmann et al. 2021). Being physically punished has direct physical harm that sometimes can result in severe damage, long-term disability, or even death (WHO 2021). (See https://link.springer.com/ referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-031-31547-3_76.)

And this, from the National Institutes of Health:
“Physical punishment is associated with a range of mental health problems in children, youth and adults, including depression, unhappiness, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, use of drugs and alcohol, and general psychological maladjustment.” (https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447048/)

A well-intentioned caregiver who inflicts corporal punishment on a young one in an attempt to have that child learn a lesson, accomplishes the following:

• That child likely learned something related to avoiding punishment rather than the intended lesson of why their action did not make sense or went against others’ needs.
• The caregiver has damaged the relationship with that child, who has now lost trust, will be afraid of the caregiver, and will see them as a source of pain.
• The child receives the lesson that the adult does not care for the child’s needs, and over time the caregiver’s needs are less likely to matter to the child as they grow.
• There could be a severe impact on the child’s self-esteem and sense of self-worth, creating potentially lifelong blocks and impediments for work, money, professional life, intimacy, friendship, and relationships.
• If the child does not receive the empathy and healing they need, they may become an abuser themselves, perpetuating the cycle of pain and retribution into the future.

You can see why the needs someone might be attempting to meet through inflicting corporal punishment on another — growth, learning, caring for others’ needs — will likely not be fulfilled through the strategy of corporal punishment, and how harmful this strategy can be.

Principles of NVC in Conflict Resolution

NVC is based on the premise that humans all share the same set of core human motivators referred to as Universal Human Needs.

Whatever the stimulus of the conflict, when you bring to the surface each person’s deeper needs they can now see each other’s humanity.

As you develop mutual understanding, trust can begin to grow.

It is from this place of mutual understanding and trust that solutions that attend to everyone’s needs are more easily co- created.

Because of developmental stages in humans, this kind of dialog gets easier as a young person grows into being able to hold more than just their own perspective while connecting in conversation. When a child is quite young, it is up to the adults to hold the space and create clarity, safety, and connection for the possibility of a mutually beneficial outcome.

Needs-based conflict resolution means that we set the solutions aside and focus on dialog, at first. The purpose of this dialog is to arrive at enough mutual understanding about the underlying needs, so that whatever solutions we co-create afterward have the greatest possibility of attending to everyone’s needs.

Alternatives to Corporal Punishment

Life comes with consequences. If I kick a big rock really hard I could break my foot. The rock did not punish me, and it does not mean that I am a bad person. It’s simply a natural consequence.

Because punishment is imposed, typically from one person to another, it usually communicates to the receiver that their needs don’t matter.

Unilateral punishment destroys trust and relationships, and breeds resentment.

At the same time, NVC is not about being permissive!

Because NVC encourages you to be self-connected, the boundaries you set — your yeses and your nos — come from your needs.

If I’m in the city with my 2 year-old and they run into the street, this is not the time for an NVC dialog! I will pick them up — using my physical strength against their will — and I will put them somewhere safe — a child backpack, a car seat, or a fenced yard, for example.

If I am the punitive father I might spank them and yell, “you stupid little boy! That was very bad! Now Daddy has to spank you so that you learn about cars!”

If I am the wise NVC father who uses not punitive but protective use of force, I might still have a lot of energy and passion about it! But I don’t demean, demonize, or dehumanize anybody! I speak from my experience and what is important to me. As I physically remove the child from the street, I might exclaim “oh my goodness, Daddy was really scared because he wants you to be safe!”

And this is a critical distinction in NVC: protective use of force vs. punitive use of force.

The NVC dad, above, used unilateral action against the child’s will. But that unilateral action, which involved physical force, was 100% to protect life and never to punish.

As they grow older I can teach my child about cars and safety — and I can accomplish this without ever hurting them physically or emotionally, and without damaging this precious relationship.

With my teenagers, for example (as of this writing I have three), we make plenty of agreements.

If my daughter agrees to be home by midnight we remember to ask the question, what happens if you break this agreement? (We have learned to ask many “what if” questions!)

The point is that we can co-create the consequences ahead of time. For example, “would you agree that for every hour you arrive past our agreed-upon time you will go without your phone for a full day?” (That is a meaningful consequence for an American teenager!)

These kinds of conversations are possible thanks to NVC and to having created a foundation of care, trust, and mutual respect.

The intention is clear: you are not bad and we are not punishing you. And breaking agreements comes with a cost.

Having NVC in my family allows us to have these kinds of conversations. The relationships are protected, not ruined. Trust is increased and reinforced, not eroded.

My kids know that breaking agreements hurts the relationships and they do their best not to do that.

And when something happens that is really hard for me or their mom we can have an NVC conversation about it and eventually get back to connection and enjoying life with each other.

There are times when life presents difficult situations in which we must make tough decisions. When we are required to use any kind of unilateral action — whether it involves physical force or not — NVC wants us to use it as a last resort, and only to protect life rather than to punish.

While the many alternatives to corporal punishment might take time, care, and presence up front, they end up saving a lot of time, grief, and energy down the line.

The limits of punishment

We can talk about the limits of punishment in a variety of contexts: the criminal justice system, schooling, parenting, the workplace, and others.

Although some of the details and nuances vary, the limitations are similar if not the same.

Dr. Rosenberg would sometimes tell a story of conducting victim-offender mediation between a woman who was raped and the man who raped her.

He said that for this man to sit in prison and think that he was worthless and deserved to rot in a cell for the rest of his life — Dr. Rosenberg said this was a cop-out — a form of avoiding responsibility!

He said that to sit in the mediation and connect with this other person’s humanity and the deep pain they had contributed to — and for the man to then connect with his own humanity and how his actions went against his very own needs — Dr. Rosenberg said that was real suffering!

He also told a story of a prison in Sweden that was in part based on the principles of Nonviolent Communication. People were held there, against their will, until they learned other strategies for meeting their needs that were more in alignment with society’s needs. The use of force was not used to punish, it was to rehabilitate!

And so this is some of the difference between punishment and consequences. Consequences can still be imposed even when the purpose and intention are not punitive.

And punitive justice has everything to do with what theologian Walter Wink called “The Myth of Redemptive Violence.”

The Myth of Redemptive Violence says that some people become better humans by being treated violently. In other words, the more my self-esteem is crumbled — the more I descend into fear, guilt, shame, and depression, the more I think I’m worthless — the better I will come out in the end.

Not only does this not work for the individual — who is not healed, rehabilitated, or taught new skills — it also does not work for institutions or society!

Why? You need only look at the rate of recidivism in the US, in which more than half of inmates re-offend and go straight back to prison. This is complicated in institutions where violent and non-violent offenders are housed together, and first-time offenders are housed with people who are labeled career criminals. Someone new to prison is susceptible to then being “educated” on how to really forge a check or how to actually rob a bank.

As a society we are paying enormous sums of money to house and feed people in such a way that makes society less safe!

All the metrics demonstrated by Dominic Barter of Restorative Circles — an NVC-based restorative justice practice (https:// restorativeCircles.org) — show that, in relation to punitive justice, restorative justice provides more healing to perpetrators, victims, and the community, is much cheaper financially than the conventional alternatives, results in higher follow-through around consequences, and results in a much lower rate of re-offending.

Again: punishment short-circuits the learning. All the person being punished learns is that they were bad or wrong — or that the punisher is an unfair jerk. Healthy feedback doesn’t happen. Self-reflection doesn’t happen. The opportunity — to hear each other, mourn, listen, connect, and come up with shared agreements — never surfaces.

If someone is acting merely to avoid punishment, then they have not learned the lesson the punishment was intended to deliver!

The other person’s motivation matters if we want true healing, rehabilitation, and a sustainable sense of safety in society!

If we truly want someone to act from an awareness of their Universal Human Needs, in a way that is in harmony with the needs of others, then a restorative or transformative justice model is going to be more effective than a merely punishment- based approach. From this perspective corporal punishment would be 100% off the table.

Real Life Case Studies

Next are two real-life parenting scenarios in which I used NVC successfully as an alternative to corporal punishment.

Story #1: The clothes on the floor
One day, as I was approaching my 10 year-old’s bedroom, I noticed that her floor was covered with clothes.

As I got to the door I remember the impulse to tell her that she had to pick up her room. I was a little annoyed and had all kinds of judgments about it.

As I got to the threshold, I noticed and double-checked my intention.

I thought to myself, if I try to impose my will I may get a clean floor but at the expense of the connection with my daughter.

And so I followed what I had been learning from Dr. Marshall Rosenberg all these years: try the intention to connect first, and from a place of shared understanding find mutually agreeable solutions.

This required me to suspend my judgments, and to get curious. This was not easy to do, as it meant being open to learning something new. Maybe, just maybe, she could teach me about how living with clothes on the floor is the most wonderful way to live!

So with my mind and heart open, I brought curiosity to the table.

“Hey sweetie, I have a question: how did all these clothes get on the floor?”

“I don’t know,” she said with no detectable irony in her voice. “Well, how did it get like this?”

“When I come home from school I’m too tired and it’s easier to just take stuff off and drop it on the floor.”

“OK – so you’re meeting your need for ease and conservation of energy…”

“I guess…”

“So… do you like your room like this?”

“No, I hate it,” she replied.

(I resisted the urge in that moment to educate about how decisions that support short-term ease can sometimes go against long-term ease, hoping to save that conversation for a different time.)

“Well, how about if you separate dirty clothes from clean, put dirty ones in the hamper, and hang or put away the clean clothes?”

“Uh! It’s SO overwhelming!!” she said in a louder voice.

We sat in the awkward silence, while I thought about what to do next.

I switched to empathy: “That’s a lot of clothes, huh? And it feels overwhelming to think about picking them up?”

“Yes!” she said emphatically, followed by, “would you help me?”

Now I had the opportunity to go inside and decide whether or not I was willing to help her.

While I value support, and thought she would be happier with her room picked up, I also value self-responsibility and noticed some resistance in myself to doing the whole thing with her or for her. But I came up with with something that could work for me:

“Well, I have a proposal. How about if I do it with you for the first five minutes, and help you get over the hump of overwhelm, but then after five minutes you take on and finish the rest? Would that work for you?”

She agreed. I set a timer and we picked up clothes and tidied for five minutes.

After five minutes I gave her a hug and a kiss, she thanked me, and she finished the rest herself.

Without NVC, it would have become a power struggle between me imposing my strategy (for her to clean up her room) and her sense of autonomy and choice — even dignity — in having someone force something on her.

Without NVC I may have threatened a punishment, “If you don’t clean up your room now, young lady, you will get no screen time for 3 days!” — a strategy she would have resisted and resented. And the main lessons for her would probably be, “Wow, dad can really be a jerk sometimes,” and, “I should keep my room tidy, otherwise dad is going to freak out again.”

Notice the difference in motivation between “If I don’t, dad will yell at me” and, “I enjoy having my room tidy because it meets my needs for beauty and order.”

Punishment would not help my daughter be more connected to my needs, or her own needs, or to be a more self-responsible, motivated human. It would only lead to damaging the relationship with one of the most important humans in my life.

Story #2: The divine bowl of blueberries
I was working in my home office, which at the time had little sound insulation from the rest of the house.

I was working intently, trying to complete a project with a deadline.

From the other side of the house I could hear what sounded like my 3 year-old kicking and screaming.

I remember thinking to myself, her mom’s got this handled.

The loud sounds escalated and I noticed myself feeling irritation and frustration. Again I thought, mom will handle this — just stay focused.

It continued to escalate, and continued to escalate.

I got up suddenly, in frustration and irritation, and stormed out the door — grumpy dad in full force! I remember thinking, I have to get this kid to shut up!

The angry, irritable version of me got within 6 feet of my child, and I remember feeling something shift in my body, like something went kachunk.

In that moment I remembered to put my attention on self- connection and self-empathy.

I was feeling stressed, trying to deliver a project to a client within the deadline, and I needed a different kind of support!

I had a brief moment of self-compassion (not pity, but a compassionate understanding along with self-care).

Once I got clear what my need was, I felt a complete shift, and no longer had the thought that I needed my child to be quiet.

After self-empathy, I had the interior spaciousness to attend more effectively to the situation.

I could see my child’s mom in the kitchen, and she seemed frustrated or upset. I attended to her needs first, if only briefly.

Mom expressed her frustration with the little one: “She insisted on walking the bowl of blueberries to the table by herself, and I told her to be careful and not spill any because I wasn’t going to get more. Sure enough, she spilled some, and I’m not getting more!”

It seemed like mom had been working really hard all morning and was feeling a bit worn out. I told her I understood and I gave her a hug.

Then I went to my three year old to find out what her experience was.

It turned out that when 3 berries spilled on the floor it shattered the perfection of this divine bowl of blueberries. And mom refusing to get more blueberries from the freezer meant the bowl of blueberries could not be made whole again!

I asked if it would help if I got three more blueberries from the freezer. With no objection from mom, I retrieved the three delicious frozen orbs and added them to her bowl. My little kid was relieved and grateful, and the crying stopped. Mom also seemed relieved.

I got back to work and was able to focus.

The whole “fix” took about 5 minutes.

It was only reflecting back on the situation that I saw what happened.

By leaning on self-empathy I defused myself first.

I’m only tempted to go punitive when I’m in pain and in an empathy deficit.

If I had stuck with the original life-alienated thought of I need her to shut up, then I would have probably made everyone’s day worse, escalated my child’s upset (and mom’s difficulty) and would have gone back to work more disregulated than when I got up. Not to mention that my precious 3 year-old would now have this negative imprint in relation to me.

Instead, by leaning on the tools and skills of NVC, I was able to help everyone, including myself, and arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome for everyone in the situation. Nobody was labeled bad, and there was no punishment needed.

Implementing NVC in Educational Settings

The issue with education is that our current system was designed when society needed more compliant workers for factories.

As such, and as was my experience in school, it was more geared toward obedience to authority than it was about the content they were teaching.

I could write volumes about what it means to integrate NVC into a school setting.

One early mistake I made was bringing it to the children before all the adults knew what it was.

This created a disheartening situation for the children, and a confusing situation for the adults who didn’t know how to support them, and who kept relying on the old, punitive ways of handling compliance in school.

Now I insist on all the adults — parents, teachers, administration — getting trained before we bring it to the children.

This creates a community of mutual support and understanding.

Dr. Rosenberg sometimes talked about the characteristics of schools that are based on NVC principles.

One of these is the teacher-as-travel-agent model. The teacher knew about all the destinations, and could give a child guidance, but would not necessarily go on that journey with them. This led to the student becoming more self-directed and self-reliant in their learning.

Another characteristic of NVC-based schools is that students got to pick their own teacher… and 60% of the time they chose other students. Why? Because a 5th grader is quite capable of teaching 3rd grade math to third graders — and this frees up the adult resources for where they are most needed.

The last characteristic I’ll mention is that after the age of about 12, students are taught to mediate their own and others’ conflicts. Dr. Rosenberg told a heartwarming story of visiting one such school and seeing two 10 year-olds come into the office requesting a mediator, who turned out to be about 12 years old.

A key distinction that is as relevant to the classroom as it is to the corporate boardroom is the difference between enrollment and enforcement.

When people are enrolled in a shared vision, they do not need to be coerced to comply.

“If compliance is not a goal then misbehavior is not an issue.” — Arnina Kashtan, CNVC Certified Trainer.
When the focus is on enforcing “good behavior” then we are prioritizing something different than the reason parents send their children to school for in the first place!

“The absence of misbehavior does not necessarily indicate the presence of learning.”
(From the Center for Inspired Teaching’s White Paper, “The critical need for replacing compliance-based teaching with engagement-based teaching” (2018))

If you know of or are part of a school that wants to integrate NVC into how they do things, make sure you get a trainer with experience. On the one hand, they need to be able to work with the school to make a plan. On the other hand, there will be nay- sayers and resistance, and this person needs to know how to work effectively with all the parties. And remember that getting the adults trained first is the best way to serve the students!

Challenges and Critiques

Below I address some typical challenges and critiques of replacing corporal punishment with NVC.

Is NVC about being permissive?

Short answer: no.

The concern with permissiveness is that if people are allowed to “do anything” they will make poor choices that hurt themselves and/or others. From this perspective, the main way to get people to make “good” choices is to have them fear punishment.

When someone does break the rules, they are punished as a deterrent — to show others what could happen to them if they cross the line.

As mentioned earlier in this article, there is a better way — a way that is less destructive, costly, and painful and that is more effective, connecting, and satisfying.

When people see how doing something contributes to their needs they are more likely to do it.

And once it becomes obvious that we are interconnected, interrelated, and interdependent — we affect each other — that means my needs are actually not met if yours are not met.

In other words, rather than spend time and energy enforcing specific behaviors, it’s more productive to enroll — your staff, your children, your team — into a shared vision. (One tip for creating a shared vision, depending on context, is that you want each person’s individual vision to be included and to fit into the larger shared vision.)

When agreements are broken there can be non-punitive consequences, restorative processes, and protective use of force.

Keep in mind, however, that protective use of force (here meant to include any unilateral action) is a last resort after every other possibility has been exhausted. And even when you think all the possibilities have been exhausted, check to see whether you are instead in a crisis of imagination! Sometimes the strategies that can create a breakthrough are simply outside of our awareness.

NVC not being about permissiveness also means that you don’t necessarily negotiate every detail in situations that involve structural power, such as the workplace and parenting.

In these contexts NVC can play a role in two ways: (1) it needs to adapt to the culture in which someone is using NVC, and (2) as a meta-tool to shine light on how power is being used structurally, and to aid in the kind of compassionate restructuring that leads to everyone’s needs being fulfilled more completely. There are other modalities, beyond the scope of this article, that would complement NVC in something like this, depending on the context.

So NVC is just about being a doormat and letting people walk all over you?

One of my favorite names for NVC is Empowered Communication, because so much of the process is about you being connected to your power.

NVC is not about being “nice” — especially if nice is not authentic!

NVC is about being being real in a way that can still be compassionate.

These skills, if you learn them and apply them, help you skillfully navigate a fundamental tension that comes with being human: choice, sovereignty, agency, and autonomy on the one hand — and connection, interdependence, relationship, and communion on the other.

This tension between autonomy and interdependence — or between rights and responsibilities, as some people think about it — is something that is very confusing and stressful for many people. NVC is one of the very best tools I’ve found for how to navigate that space effectively.

Yes, stand up for yourself! Yes, create healthy boundaries! NVC sheds light on how to do that without also losing connection and closeness.

What about when you have to take strong action?

Earlier in this article I covered protective use of force vs punitive use of force.

Sometimes life will require you to have courage and take very strong verbal or physical action.

NVC reminds us of the distinction between protective use of force, in which force is used to protect life, versus punitive use of force.

When I engage in protective use of force my intention is protecting needs, and my attention is on Life — in NVC we use a language of Universal Human Needs — my own and others’. In other words, I am not degrading, insulting, dehumanizing, or demonizing anybody, and I am attempting to hold all the needs with care, even while seeing no other choice than to take this unilateral action.

Once again, protective use of force is a last resort, only when every other possibility has been exhausted.

The Role of Caregivers and Educators

If you are planning to become a parent, or if you are a caregiver in any capacity, you have the opportunity to develop these skills!

NVC is a powerful way to enhance your professional development.
To learn more about NVC training and professional development opportunities, please see:

• PuddleDancer Press at NonviolentCommunication.com,
• NVC Academy at NVCAcademy.com, or
• The Center for Nonviolent Communication (CNVC) at cnvc.org.

Conclusion and Future Directions

Punishment — including but not limited to corporal punishment — is an attempt to meet needs.

Sometimes the needs people and institutions are trying to meet through punishment are safety, learning, contribution, consideration, or other needs.

Regardless, as a strategy, punishment in general is rather ineffective, and has a cascade of harmful secondary effects.

The problem is that we haven’t yet learned a better way — as individuals, couples, families, organizations, and institutions!

Corporal punishment, in particular, has devastating psychological and socio-emotional consequences that ripple far beyond the individual affected.

Anyone interested in creating more functional and more connected teams, families, organizations, and relationships would benefit from learning and integrating NVC.

Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools in Uganda

One area under development is a project in which the Ugandan Ministry of Education has invited CNVC Certified Trainer, Tadesse Hussein, to help end corporal punishment in schools throughout Uganda.

As of this writing, Tadesse is in need of financial support to cover some of the associated costs. If you have additional funds, and if it would meet your needs for contribution and support of a worthwhile project, please go to: https://www.giraffeeducate.org.

Dr. Marshall Rosenberg on Corporal Punishment

Dr. Marshall Rosenberg sometimes talked about parents or teachers coming to his workshops and saying things like, “what do you mean punishment doesn’t work? I threatened to ground my son until he cleaned his room and then he cleaned it. It seems to work fine for me!”

Dr. Rosenberg would reply, “in these kinds of situations I would ask caregivers to ask themselves two questions:

1. what do you want the child to do?
2. what do you want their reasons to be for doing it?”

In other words, do you want their reason to be that if they don’t do as you have asked mommy or daddy will freak out?

Do you want them to help with dishes because they are connected to how it meets their needs around contribution, or health & hygiene? Or because if they don’t Mom will be mad and disconnect for a whole day?

Do you want them to do their homework because it meets their needs for learning and meaning? Or do you want them to do their homework because if they don’t Dad will take away screen time?

We think we are teaching children a lesson when we are punishing them, but Dr. Rosenberg’s concern is that they are not learning what we are hoping or intending they learn!

Training yourself in NVC and learning a language of clear observations, feelings, needs, and requests will ensure that the people in your care are learning to be self-directed, motivated by their intrinsic needs, and not easily pushed around.

And you will teach them to do things based on how they meet needs, rather than out of fear of not complying.

PuddleDancer Press Books on NVC and Healthy Relationships

PuddleDancer Press is the foremost proponent and publisher of books on Nonviolent Communication and healthy relationships.

NVC has shown time and again that human beings are capable of arriving at mutually crafted solutions.

Because of the trust-building process involved, and the fact that the solutions include everyone’s buy-in, using NVC for healthy relationships predictably gives you outcomes that meet a greater number of needs and are more durable.

Our books on healthy relationships can help you:

• Create exceptional personal and professional relationships,
• Offer compassionate understanding to others,
• Know when and how to ask for that same understanding for yourself,
• Prevent and resolve misunderstandings and conflicts,
• Speak your truth in a clear, powerful way more likely to lead to harmony than conflict,
• Create mutual understanding without coercion.

Whether you are a long-time student — or are brand new to NVC — PuddleDancer Press has the educational resources, including the books on healthy relationships, to help you grow your emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills, and communication prowess.
Check out our catalog of books on healthy relationships… and give yourself the gift of Compassionate Communication!