Tone-Policing and Nonviolent Communication

I recently finished reading this essay, where Maisha Z Johnson uses the recent public clash between Miley Cyrus and Nicki Minaj as an occasion to talk about tone policing and the way that it's used to discount or silence black women's voices. As I was reading it, I was reminded of my study of nonviolent communication strategies. There are, I think, useful lessons to be found in thinking about tone policing in light of those strategies.

Tone Policing

The basic concern of tone policing is this: a member of an oppressed or socially marginalized group speaks candidly about their experience with oppression, speaking out against it, perhaps loudly, perhaps with discernible anger. Someone else (often a member of the privileged group) responds by complaining about the tone of the message. Johnson offers, as examples, the following kinds of responses:

"You're being too harsh"
"You're overreacting"
"You're making your cause look bad"
"I'm on your side"
"This is counterproductive"

"I'm on your side" is a bit different from the others on this list--a point I'll come back to later. But what all of these responses have in common is that they shift the topic away from the substance of what the oppressed person is talking about and towards something else: either the tone with which it is delivered (too harsh, hostile, or extreme); or the strategic failures of the speaker (counterproductive or alienating to actual and potential allies).

Strictly speaking, only the former is tone-policing. But the latter is sufficiently bound up with the former that it makes sense to treat them together. In both cases, the person offering the response distracts from the original speaker's message by complaining that how it was delivered will distract from its message.

It doesn't take much to see the problem here: If we really care about not distracting attention from someone's message, we won't respond in a way that distracts attention from their message. And that's true even if the way we distract from the message is by complaining about how the tone will distract from the message. Got that?

Nonviolent Communication

In its simplest terms, nonviolent communication is about finding ways to communicate with one another that encourage mutual understanding, reduce defensiveness, and help promote cooperative conflict resolution where everyone's needs and feelings are taken into account.

On one level, tone policing sounds as if it's about offering helpful advice with respect to these very things: "Hey, you! The way you're saying that isn't likely to encourage mutual understanding, may increase defensiveness, and may interfere with your goal of promoting cooperative conflict resolution!"

But even if that's true, talking about nonviolent communication isn't the same as engaging in it. There's a place for the former--including a place for pointing out to someone how they can be better at nonviolent communication. You might do it in a workshop about nonviolent communication strategies (or in a blog post about them). But if someone in a heartfelt moment expresses their frustration and anger about something, and I respond by saying, "You're a bad nonviolent communicator!", then I'm talking about nonviolent communication while failing to actually practice it.

When I actually seek to practice nonviolent communication, the focus is not on policing what other people say and how they say it. Rather, nonviolent communication is the effort to communicate in ways that move away from the language of judgment and accusation and towards the language of self-disclosure. And I do this both in terms of how I speak, and in terms of how I listen. The basic strategic tool for doing this is something called the "I-statement."

I-Statements

An I-statement offers a way to address my problems or concerns without making accusations (it can also be used to address things I'm grateful for, but that's another topic). The basic technique is to point out a situation or behavior that bothers or upsets me--in purely descriptive terms that don't make judgments--and then share how this situation or behavior makes me feel, and why.

An I-statement is about self-disclosure all the way down. When I share the reasons why I'm angry (or afraid, or sad) about your behavior, I do so in terms of my own needs, interests, significant desires, and core values (what I'll just call "needs" for short). I share with you something about myself that explains my emotional response.

Sometimes I may need to talk about my beliefs or perceptions as well--although there are dangers in this. It may be best to wait to talk about my beliefs for a time when emotions are less raw, a time when feelings and needs are in less urgent need of attention. But to fully explain my feelings and promote genuine understanding, sharing perceptions at some point is often crucial. If so, I should do it honestly and without judgment or accusation. It's one thing to say, "You're seeing racism that isn't there." It's something else to say, "It looks to me like you see the playing field as less fair with respect to race than I do." When we do share our perceptions or beliefs, we need to do so with humility, recognizing that our perceptions may be imperfect.

An I-statement usually culminates in a request. Not a demand or an ultimatum, but a request. The request is for something that would help me to meet my needs and resolve my emotional distress. When I deliver an I-statement, I understand that there may be more than one way to meet my needs, and that the request I'm making may be just the start of a conversation. After all, the specific way of meeting my needs that I've identified might not satisfy the needs of the other person. I need to be prepared for that, and ready to explore alternative ways that we can both get our needs met.

But if we're going to work together on finding ways to meet all our needs, it's not enough that you know what my needs are. I need to know what your needs are. This may require more than just talking in I-statements. A special kind of listening may also be needed.

Listening for Hidden I-Statements

In conflict situations, we're so used to talking in the language of judgment and accusation ("you-statements") that it's unlikely that when I share an I-statement, the other person will respond in kind. But as nonviolent communication guru Marshall Rosenberg has noted, "you-statements" can be seen as nothing but tragically failed attempts to share our feelings and needs. When I launch into a you-statement tirade, it's because I'm angry (my feeling). And I'm angry because I'm being thwarted in getting things that are really important to me (my needs). And I want things to change in a way that will resolve those feelings and meet my needs (my request).

In short, I can choose not only to express myself in I-statements but to listen for the hidden I-statements in what others say.

Of course, I might get it wrong. So, it's important that I check in: "Here's what I'm hearing. Is that right?" The trick is to try to identify the feelings, needs, perceptions, and requests of the other person, and then make sure I've got it right. If I don't, they'll correct me--maybe in more you-statement forms, but hopeful in a way that will deepen my understanding of them even as I invite them through my I-statements to a deeper understanding of me.

This kind of reflective listening--listening that's attuned to the self-disclosure behind the actual words--can be magical. When people feel heard, anger fades. When people feel understood, a cooperative spirit grows. Conflicts become shared problems that people work collaboratively to resolve, rather than a reason for animosity.

Tone-Policing Revisited

Let's return to the five tone-policing responses that Maisha Johnson talks about in her essay. It should be clear that all but one of them are clear-cut you-statements. They amount to telling the other person what is wrong with them. The exception is "I'm on your side," which I'll talk about on its own.

Tone-policing you-statements are a self-protection strategy. Someone has just said something angry, something full of feeling and deeply expressive of unmet human needs. And maybe their outrage encompasses me, and so I feel an indictment. Maybe the judgment is explicit, maybe not. But either way, my focus becomes immediately on that. I feel defensive. Maybe I agree in general terms with the judgment they're making, but I don't think it applies to me. And so I completely ignore their rich self-disclosure. Instead of listening for the feelings and needs and perceptions that lie at the heart of what they say, I launch into self-protection. I point the finger at them to deflect the perceived attack on me.

In short, I'm more concerned about avoiding blame than I am about listening. Or--as the case may be--I care more about whether you adhere to some standards of nonviolent communication than I care about what nonviolent communication is supposed to facilitate, which is deeper mutual understanding.

All of the tone-policing responses could be changed into I-statements, although in cases like this it may be far more important to listen to what others are trying to say to us--and to check to make sure that we've understood them--than it is to launch into our own self-disclosure. This is especially true in cases where the speaker is a member of a marginalized minority whose voice has been traditionally silenced, and we are members of a privileged group used to being heard. In such cases, there is reason to prioritize nurturing the voice that has been historically silenced over having our own say. There will always be time for us to speak.

But suppose I'm just too worked up to listen. Maybe I realize I'm being defensive, but that realization doesn't help. Maybe I'm even self-aware enough to know that my privileged position in society is part of the reason I'm getting so defensive. And it may well be true that I'd be less defensive, better able to listen, if the other party said things in a different way.

In that case, I might say something like the following. "I'm feeling frustrated, because I want to understand and digest what you're telling me but I'm feeling really defensive. Could you put your point another way?"

This is, in effect, an effort to unpack the hidden I-statement in the typical tone-policing you-statements. While such an I-statement might not be nearly as helpful a response as a listening one, if I'm not able to listen I don't do anyone a favor by pretending to. And this I-statement is a clear improvement over typical tone-policing responses in two ways: (1) it honestly reveals the speaker's issue rather than trying to cast blame, and (2) instead of silencing the other person by shifting away from the substance of their message, it is an invitation for the other person to continue sharing that message.

The response, "You are being counterproductive by taking that tone," changes the topic and invites everyone to ignore what the person is saying in favor of condemning its mode of delivery.

The I-statement response does not.

But what about "I'm on your side"? The problem here is a bit different. In many cases, "I'm on your side," is a comforting reassurance. But much hinges on context. When Johnson brings it up as an example of tone-policing, she has in mind Taylor Swift's response to Nicki Minaj's complaints about racism in the music industry. Johnson's worry is that, in that context, "I'm on your side" is a defensive response with an implicit judgment, namely, "You're wrongly attacking your allies." Even if the former is not in itself a you-statement, the latter is.

There may be an important difference in perspectives here that needs to be addressed. One person may voice a complaint that includes me as part of the problem causing them pain. By contrast, I see myself as their ally, trying to help them fix the problem. But when perceptions diverge like this, the solution is not to silence the opposing perspective with a forceful counter-assertion. The solution is to dig more deeply into the experiences that lie behind each perspective.

Imagine if "I'm on your side" were replaced with the following kind of I-statement: "I'm upset, because I want to be on your side in this, and I worry now that you don't see me as the kind of ally that I want to be. Could you tell me more about the kind of ally you need?"

This is not a rejection of the other person's perspective, but a request to understand that perspective more deeply. Instead of silencing or delegitimizing the other's message, it's an invitation to expand on it.

In short, tone-policing generally takes the form of you-statements. If that's true, one way we can avoid tone-policing is by committing ourselves to practicing nonviolent communication techniques in the kinds of situations where tone-policing so often rears its head.

Shouldn't we condemn those who say, "You're Tone Policing"?

I can already hear a critic say, "Accusations of tone-policing aren't good nonviolent communication. Anyone who labels someone else as guilty of tone-policing is violating the very principles that nonviolent communication tries to teach."

But here's the thing: Nonviolent communication strategies are intended to be used to guide our communication efforts, not as a template for judging the communication efforts of others. The moment I do the latter, I've abandoned nonviolent communication.

Yes, "You're tone-policing!" is a you-statement. But when I point this out, I'm talking about nonviolent communication instead of doing it. I'm mentioning its categories instead of using its strategies.

If I were using those strategies, I would never criticize or condemn those making the tone-policing charge. Instead, I'd do one of two things: (1) I might try to understand the feelings and needs and requests that underlie the tone-policing charge and then try to honestly express them, checking to see if I'm right (and then listening to see what I've missed or got wrong); (2) I might formulate an I-statement about how I feel about the tone-policing charge and why, in terms of my needs.

I think I've attempted to do the former in this post. It doesn't make much sense for me to do the latter, since I haven't been accused of tone-policing. But if I ever am, I hope I don't respond by saying, "You're overreacting! I'm on your side!"

Twelve Steps to Maximizing Hostility and Bitterness in Your Relationships

While going through some old papers over the weekend, I found a handout that I created years ago when I was regularly leading confict resolution workshops. While much of the substance of the handout sprang from my experiences facilitating Alternatives to Violence Project workshops (mostly in the women's prison in Washington State), I'm pretty sure (based on some of the language choices) that I wrote it not long after attending one of Marshall Rosenberg's workshops on Nonviolent Communication. In any event, the contents of the handout actually struck me as closely related to issues recently touched on in this blog--"moral one-upmanship," self-compassion, even religion as a "bifurcated essentially contested concept" and Pat Buchanan's defense of Norway's homegrown terrorist. In short, it seemed like something worth sharing here.

And so, without further ado, here they are...

Twelve Steps to Maximizing Hostility and Bitterness in Your Relationships.

To ensure that all your interpersonal conflicts end with as much bitterness, hostility, and resentment as possible--and, hopefully, culminate in some form of violence, even if only psychological--it is important to take appropriate steps. The following twelve steps have proved especially effective in making relationships as polarized and hostile as possible. For maximum effectiveness, it is important to follow as many of them as you can not only when you confront actual conflicts, but when you worry that you might.

1. Remember that in every conflict there must be a WINNER and a LOSER. It is crucial that you be the winner. While you may not always be able to think of the other party in the conflict as your enemy, it is essential that you at least think of them as an opponent. You and your opponent are in a zero sum contest (like football) where every loss for them is a gain for you, and the important thing is to win. Thus, if you can find out what they need and make sure they don't get it, they become losers and you win. Winning won't necessarily make you happy, but at least you're not a loser.

2. Insist that PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM. When a problem exists, try to find out who is to blame. Since they're the problem, the only way to solve the problem is to knock them out of the way or beat them into submission (which can be just as invigorating even if the beating is purely psychological).

3. Put LABELS on people. When others are doing something you don't like, decide what kind of person that makes them: a liar, a coward, an idiot, a jerk, an irresponsible wastrel, etc. That way, you know what they are and how to handle them. You cannot expect them to change their behavior, since they are the kind of people who do that sort of thing. If you can't avoid them, you'll have to rely on manipulation, threats, and violence to control them. (Bonus: You can really magnify the effectiveness of this technique if you apply it not only to other people but to yourself).

4. PSYCHOANALYZE people and let them know how screwed up they are. When in conflict with someone, try to figure out what's wrong with them. Are they suffering the effects of childhood trauma? Are they anal retentive? Are they just plain stupid? Let them know your findings, starting with phrases like, "You know what your problem is?" or "You know what you need?" Explain how they can change their lives to become better people. If this technique does generate advice for improvement, it is important that it be focused entirely on others. The technique can, however, be effectively turned on oneself if it aims purely at producing more sophisticated labels (see #3 above).

5. Always REASON WITH PEOPLE to show them that they're wrong. When you disagree with someone else, this means that they're wrong. You need to set them straight, ideally by giving them a lecture where you prove to them that you're right and they're misguided. If this doesn't change their behavior, they are the kind of people who just don't listen to reason. And we all know what you need to do with people like that.

6. Get people to do what you want through MANIPULATION and CONTROL. The important thing is that people do what you want them to do. Their motives for doing it are secondary. If you honestly share with them your needs and make requests to have your needs met, you risk being hurt. Don't give up control in this way. Instead, threaten some kind of punishment if they don't do what you want, or offer a reward if they do. Try to shame or guilt-trip them into doing it. Make them believe that they have to do it whether they like it or not. 

7. Use expressions such as ALWAYS and NEVER. When another person's behavior hurts you, it is important that they realize the severity of their crime. So point out that they always act in the hurtful way, or that they never act in ways more supportive of your needs. This way, they realize that it's not just a specific behavior they have to change; it's their whole lives. If they feel overwhelmed, tell them to grow up.

8. Use expressions such as "CAN'T" and "HAVE TO." Always keep in mind that you don't actually have choices. The reason you act as you do isn't because the behavior promotes what you value. Rather, you act as you do because you have to. Since you have no choice, you aren't responsible for what you do. When others don't do what they have to do, try to make them do it by convincing them they have no choice. If they still don't do it, blame them. They are responsible.

9. When someone criticizes you, become either DEFENSIVE or GUILTY. If another person criticizes you, then one of you has to be in the wrong. In order to avoid being the one who's labeled as wrong, defend yourself against the criticism by showing how it's the other person's fault (explain how they started it or do the same thing, or tell them that they "asked for it"). If you cannot do this successfully, then you must be the one who's in the wrong. Feel guilty and beat yourself up. The experience will motivate you in the future to be more aggressive in your defensiveness.

10. Keep in mind that you are not responsible for your feelings; OTHERS CAUSE THEM. When upset, angry, or afraid, look for who is causing you to feel that way. Blame them. Focus on changing them so that they stop making you feel bad. After all, you cannot change yourself since your feelings are caused by others. You have far more control over what happens to other people, so direct your energies there.

11. Live in the PAST rather than the PRESENT. If others' actions in the past have hurt you, dwell on that. Constantly remind them about it, and base your present treatment of them entirely on these past actions. After all, their past actions prove what kind of people they are (see #3). Since they can't change the past, there is nothing they can do to change your view of them or your treatment of them. They are helpless. You have all the power, which means you're more likely to win (see #1).


12. Be MORALISTIC rather than MORAL. The most important use for moral principles and values is not as a guide for making personal choices ("being moral"), but as a tool for judging others ("being moralistic"). Use your principles and values for the latter purpose exclusively. If others don't measure up to your values and principles, it's clearly because they don't care about right and wrong. They are bad people. Since all the problems in the world are caused by bad people (see #2), a morally good world will magically spring up around you as soon as you get rid of the bad people.