Time to be Private, Time to be Vulnerable

I have joined a new community recently, as a “Seeker.” The organization is called Seek Healing, and provides weekly Connection Practice groups where people can be heard using “Listening Tools": Reflection, Curious Questions, and Sharing Impact. For a few months now, these groups have been the best source of support I have for emotional well-being. I’m experiencing more connection and a sense of being heard than I have found even in NVC spaces for a long time. It seems that NVC takes a long time for people to learn to use well, to be present with others with warmth and gentleness, without falling into many pitfalls. I’ve been saying to anyone who will listen that I think Seek Healing’s approach may help fast-track people to what is sometimes called “NVC consciousness” (a spirit/intention of profound human connection) a lot more efficiently. 

Of course, pitfalls are present in any framework for communication. In the Listening Training that Seek Healing offers, there is a concept of “Rule Zero,” which states that if there’s something coming up for you that you don’t want to tell another person, you HAVE to say it. 

Grimace.

I’m grateful to be at a point in my life journey where I can think critically about such proclamations instead of taking them on as a commandment, and also not throw the baby out with the bathwater. This organization clearly has much to offer, but I think this “rule” is tragically misguided. There is no one rule of communication or interaction that applies in every context. 

In How to Make Collaboration Work, David Straus argues that human problem-solving tools come in pairs of opposites, such as “search for a lost item in the last place you found it,” or “search for a lost item systematically, room by room.” Other pairs include jumping in/holding back i.e. taking the lead/following others. In the context of emotions, I think “being present with” and “seeking a shift” are two approaches that each have their appropriate moments. 

A contributor to a SAGE anthology about participatory action research (I need to dig the book out of storage to find her name) also noted that the art of facilitation is more than just acquiring a number of skills for group process - it also involves discerning when each skill might be called for, in the context of live human dynamics. She did not list these skills in matched pairs, but in categories. I like this approach too. Maybe not every problem-solving tool has an exact opposite, or could have multiple opposites. For instance, in NVC we distinguish “requests” from both “demands” and from “vague wishes.”

Rather than supposing an all-encompassing rule, I like a phrase I’ve heard some NVC trainers use, such as Roxy Manning: “choice points.” In every moment, there are many forking paths in front of us of how an interaction could unfold, whether one-on-one or in a group. Facilitation might be seen as the skill of seeing those forking paths and having insight into what choices are more likely to lead us down different paths. Skilled facilitation as I understand it involves internally weighing one’s values and needs, and the values and needs of the group, and deciding what path to take. 

One of the most obvious choices in human relating is whether to express oneself (seek to be understood) or to listen (seek to understand). Many early NVC practitioners find that when we begin using our empathy skills, humans around us who have been living in a deficit of being heard may have a LOT to say. A pitfall of NVC is the idea that we must or should listen to people until they have nothing left to express. This can be a deeply nourishing experience for the person being heard, but the person holding the space has needs too. So there is a time to set boundaries. Marshall Rosenberg even wrote of the skill of interrupting people. 

I had a steep learning curve with this: a certain friend used to call me and launch into intense emotional content without checking if it was a good time for me. This friend was often in crisis and I didn’t think I was “allowed” to do anything but listen. Eventually I began practicing skillful interruption that also showed consideration for her, by saying things like, “I know this is important to you and I want to be present for it. I can’t really do that right now because I have class in a few minutes. Can I call you back later?” I continue to have many opportunities to this day to weigh out what my priorities are in a given moment when someone wants to be heard. I have now internalized this process of identifying the complex constellation of my needs in a given moment (contribution, connection, consideration, etc.) and what actions are likely to meet them sufficiently enough that I can decide when to interrupt and when to listen on more of a “gut feeling” basis - much like an old fisherman might have a hunch about where the fish will be biting in his favorite lake that day. (The Pathways to Liberation Matrix is a tool created by a group of NVC trainers that would describe this level of integration as “unconscious competence.”)

The choice to be vulnerable or not*, as Seek Healing’s “Rule Zero” speaks to, could be reframed as something that has costs. Instead of saying you “must” do something, let’s consider the consequences of not doing it. If I do not share something with someone that is in my mind and heart, how might that affect the relationship? Well, I may lose closeness with that person, or fail to build it if closeness is not yet established. Human intimacy is built on openness. Depending on the specific thing, I may even lose their trust, if they feel I have omitted something that they had a right to know. This could lead to the breakdown of relationships and eventual estrangement. If I never choose vulnerability with anyone, I may feel incredibly isolated. 

On the other hand, there are risks to being open. I attended a Radical Honesty workshop at the Buckeye Primitive Skill gathering many years ago. The facilitator asked, “When might we not use Radical Honesty?” One example was with law enforcement. If a police officer is questioning me, my goal in that moment might be to avoid getting arrested or incriminating myself, rather than cultivating intimacy. Of course, there are always exceptions. This facilitator shared an example in which police officers became suspicious that he had kidnapped his own daughter (he had not). Having no paperwork proving their relationship with him, he got really vulnerable, asking the officers to look into their hearts and see how this child was interacting with him, and if that matched how a kidnapped child would behave. This led to a good outcome in which he was not detained nor had his daughter separated from him. Is this an exception to the exception? Or does it imply a call for us to choose vulnerabiity even in the presence of intimidating authority figures with institutional power? I would say it highlights that every circumstance is unique and calls for an individual assessment of what will meet the most needs, including safety. 

Other situations in which other needs than intimacy are the priority, and avoiding openness might meet more needs, could include: 

• Going through a divorce or other legal battle with a legal adversary.

• Navigating workplace tensions where the common goal is productivity, not connection (Miki Kashtan points out that in these situations only the ‘minimum connection necessary’ should be aimed for).

• Consciously avoiding a topic because you know that it is extremely triggering to yourself and/or the other person involved, and the level of skilled self-regulation in the room is not enough to avoid escalation, potentially even into the territory of suicidality or self-harm, including the desire to self-soothe with risky substances. 

None of this is to say that Seek Healing and their offerings are not incredibly valuable. It is because their offerings and framework seem so close to perfect (to me) that I am more drawn to nitpick. An organization that does not accomplish anything I find very worthwhile would not get so much of my time and attention. Every framework has its strengths and its blindspots. And a rule about self-disclosure may be just what someone needs who has heavily relied on withdrawal and isolation as a coping strategy that is no longer working for them, or coming with a high cost. But someone in the opposite position, who perhaps overshares at risk to their safety and well-being (like disclosing a windfall to friends who will take advantage financially, or sharing vulnerable feelings with someone who will weaponize that vulnerability), might benefit from the opposite advice*: “Consider what you share and with whom wisely.”

We often “make our own medicine” in the world, and I can guess that this emphasis on self-disclosure might stem from the folks who founded Seek Healing needing more openness to find their own balance. Listening Training does have a unit about boundaries, which I have not gotten to yet in the round of training I’m taking, but this is not until Module 3. Those for whom unwise self-disclosure has become a serious liability might instead make their own Rule Zero: “You always have a choice about when and how to share personal information about yourself and your feelings.”

I highly encourage anyone reading this to check out the Listening Training, which is available on a by donation basis. I would love for more people to be aware of many of the topics covered, including challenging commonly held notions of addiction and recovery with inspiring alternatives. If you do so, I invite you to join me in holding your own boundaries around what “rules” to take on as one’s own guiding principles. I apply this to any theoretical models I encounter, and think the best ones encourage their audience/participants explicitly to remember that everything is optional. 

*Vulnerability is not actually binary. There are degrees of vulnerability. For example, I may feel incredible rage, but choose to only share with someone that I am "upset." This is not exactly a lie, and is more vulnerable than pretending I am not upset at all, but not as vulnerable as expressing my rage. It may also be a wiser option, especially if the person I'm speaking with may find rage terrifying, even if not acted out in an intimidating way. I find that choosing some partial degree of vulnerability can be a way to mitigate the negative costs of total of no vulnerability.

**It is ironic I spoke of advice here, given that both NVC and Seek Healing suggest refraining from advice when trying to connect or empathize with people, or at least to ask for consent first. But a rule about how to interact with others seems to land squarely in the category of advice to me. 

Songs that go with this think piece: 

It’s OK by Ayla Nereo

Turn! Turn! Turn! by The Byrds