Nonviolent communication through a feminist lens

You don't have to buy a book, attend a seminar, or go through years of therapy to communicate nonviolently.

This is part of a semi-regular new series I’m calling Reasons for Hope. This series will focus on positive, uplifting, and off-topic content. No rage. No offenses by bad actors. Just advice for better living and an occasional glimpse into my mind. When I publish these pieces, they’ll come out on Saturday, but they will not come out every week.

Much like gentle parenting, nonviolent communication has become hugely trendy. And as with any other trend, it has quickly become watered down to nothing—or to whatever the agenda of the coach or influencer happens to be. You’ll see conservatives saying that nonviolent communication never accuses people of being racist, men asserting that women are being violent when they call out sexism, and everyone everywhere claiming that demands for accountability are inherently violent.

It should come as no surprise, then, that many people have asked me if it’s possible to communicate nonviolently and be feminist, or feminism is incompatible with niceness.

Nonviolent communication is critical to feminism, and to all movements for social justice. We must avoid doing deliberate harm, and we must communicate as effectively as possible. These, two me, are the two most important pillars of nonviolent communication.

So what does feminist nonviolent communication look like? Here are some of the principles I follow.

Nonviolent communication is fearless

You cannot communicate nonviolently from a state of fear. In the context of an abusive relationship, a hostile workplace, or any other context in which you are not safe, communication becomes about survival. Labeling someone’s communication as violent when they are afraid is unfair and abusive.

Nonviolent communication must also show courage. Be the only person in the room who speaks out against injustice. Be the person who risks relationships for the greater good, and in defense of the weakest among us. When you don’t have to fear for your physical safety, you have a moral obligation to stand up for (and to) others.

Nonviolent communication is usually, but not always, honest

I am not an honesty purist.

Truth is only important insofar as it serves another good. It’s important to tell the truth about racism in your office. It’s not important to rat out the colleague who’s looking for another job. It’s important to tell the truth to a loving spouse to foster intimacy. It’s not important to tell your abusive spouse the truth. It’s important to tell your friend her use of racial slurs is harmful. It’s not important to tell her you don’t think she’s a good singer.

Truth should never be an ultimate good prioritized above other important values, like justice, safety, and protection of vulnerable people.

Nonviolent communication is not always nice

Nice, to me, means likable and inoffensive. It’s good to be nice when doing so is possible, and when niceness doesn’t undermine another more important goal. But much like truth, nice is not an end in itself.

Nonviolent communication imposes a duty to avoid needless cruelty, but not to make everyone feel good and happy.

For example, a person is morally obligated to silence racists in organizations and groups they control, to protect children from abusive words, to minimize the exposure of minority groups to slurs. This may make some people mad. Being called a racist may hurt someone’s feelings. Being told they’re not allowed to post in a group until they stop using sexist slurs may make a person feel silenced.

Equality can feel like abuse when you’ve spent your whole life blind to your privilege and abusing others.

If no one ever gets upset with you, the odds are very good that you are being cowardly in the face of injustice—not that you’re communicating nonviolently.

Nonviolent communication contemplates its message first

What is it you want to communicate?

Every week, I get long diatribes from men claiming they want help with their marriage. I can’t tell what they really want, because their messages are full of blame, defensiveness, and way too many words.

To communicate nonviolently, you must first determine what exactly it is you want to communicate.

Do you want your spouse to know they hurt your feelings and need to apologize? Do you want your child’s teacher to know that your family doesn’t believe in homework? Do you want a school administrator to change the way they take about race and gender?

Effective communication is clear and specific. To communicate effectively, you must pause and reflect on what you are trying to say. You don’t need to have a response for everything right away.

Nonviolent communication is direct, clear, and specific

Passive-aggressive communication is inherently unkind.

If you communicate in as few words as possible (but no fewer), and tell the other person exactly what you want, your communication will be more effective. You’ll also become more inclusive in your speech. That’s because subtext can be difficult for autistic people, and other forms of indirect communication may exclude or trigger other neurodivergent folks.

Say exactly what you mean. Don’t make the other person do more work than is necessary to decipher your speech.

I write more about that here.

Nonviolent communication values the other person’s time

Time is our most precious and finite asset. To steal another person’s time is to steal their life. This is why I assert that household labor inequality is inherently abusive.

It shouldn’t typically take hours to resolve a conflict. When it does, it suggests that one or both parties is stonewalling, being defensive, or otherwise turning the conflict into something other than what it needs to be.

Treat the other person with respect by:

• communicating succinctly, clearly, and specifically

• not wasting their time with a bunch of irrelevant details

• not piling on when you have a single complaint

• not countering another person’s complaints with 20 of your own

Nonviolent communication treats the other person as a collaborator

Assume the other person is working with you to solve a problem. Treat them this way. It’s pretty simple.

Nonviolent communication is accountable

We all make mistakes.

This doesn’t mean our mistakes are harmless, nor that we are automatically entitled to forgiveness or grace for our mistakes.

Too often, people get caught up in the appearance of being good/antiracist/feminist/nonviolent/whatever. So they get defensive when people correct their behaviors.

Nonviolent communication is not defensive. It is open to feedback. And it is willing to acknowledge harm with a real apology. A real apology focuses on the harm to others—not the growth you’ve done or hope to do, not how you’ve learned or what you have learned.

Nonviolent communication treats others as ends in themselves, not as props for a personal educational journey.

Readers, what are your favorite principles of nonviolent communication?