The Violent Language of Controversy

Non-violent communication applied to politics.

Non-violent communication can be revealing when applied to political discussions. In non-violent communication, instead of violently thrusting labels upon another person — “You are a bad person!” — one describes their feelings without labeling the other — “When you do that, I feel hurt and upset.” This style of communication allows the other person to understand the impact of their actions without having to accept shaming labels. However, politics often involves placing labels on the other side — racist, sexist, antisemitic, and perhaps the most insidious of all: “controversial.”

Labeling a person or issue “controversial” removes the person speaking and makes their target the focus. “Controversial” — according to who? If we rewrite this claim in the language of non-violent communication, it would read: “When this subject comes up, I feel uncomfortable,” which tells a different story. A neutral observation absent the speaker’s feelings would read “Others have strong opinions on this subject.” However, the subject itself is not “controversial.” The person calling it that is “uncomfortable.” Likewise, most political accusations if voiced in non-violent communication would read “When you voice those opinions, I feel hurt, angry, threatened, etc.”

The reason political attackers do not use non-violent communication is because this language would reveal whether or not there is fragility behind their accusations. It might reveal that they are the ones creating controversy, not their intended targets. It might also reveal the violent intent behind their actions. In many cases, accurate non-violent communication would read “When you say that, I want to kill you.” When someone wants to enact violence on another, they won’t communicate non-violently. If politics is war by other means and every system of power rests on a system of language, then those who want to go to war must use violent language.

Underneath violent communication is often hurt. If someone doesn’t feel safe exploring the hurt and anger that arises in response to a subject, it’s easier for them to hurl judgment at what triggered them. Emotionally violent language allows hurt people to deflect their feelings at the expense of another. Hurt people hurt people and those who feel unsafe exploring a subject will try to make it unsafe for others to do the same. Violent language serves the function of making it unsafe for others to discuss a subject or associate with a person.

Creating safety first requires changing the language. If we want it to be safe to have certain discussions, we must name them correctly. When someone preemptively labels themselves or what they are about to discuss as “controversial,” they are engaged in a sort of self-harm. They are internalizing and repeating others’ judgments about them, instead of defining themselves by their own actions and feelings. No one is controversial. Other people are triggered. Let that be their problem and define yourself by the truth of who you are rather than other’s reactions.

---

Two-caveats: