<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What happens when we begin to perceive disagreement not as a difference of opinion, but as a personal attack? \u201cIf you disagree with me, then you are against me\u201d\u2014does this way of thinking sound familiar? What accusation lies behind the statement, \u201cIf you respected me, you wouldn\u2019t act this way\u201d? <\/strong>And how can we express anger without offending another person\u2019s dignity? These are the questions explored in the third episode of the \u201cWhat If We Spoke Differently?\u201d<\/em> podcast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Host Sofi Mkrtchyan <\/strong>discusses these issues with nonviolent communication specialists Gohar Grigoryan <\/strong>and Margarita Khudaverdyan.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n People often identify so strongly with their opinions that they perceive criticism of an idea as criticism of themselves. This gives rise to the belief that disagreement is equivalent to disrespect or a lack of affection. NVC encourages us to make a distinction: the \u201cyou are wrong, I am right\u201d approach labels a person, whereas identifying a specific action\u2014by exploring which of our needs were unmet as a result and how we felt\u2014creates an opportunity for peaceful dialogue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Nonviolent Communication, there are no good or bad feelings. Anger signals that a boundary or an important need may have been violated. Instead of telling ourselves that \u201canger is shameful,\u201d we can ask: What was violated, and how can we address it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The accusation \u201cYou made me angry\u201d does not hold up under closer examination, because our feelings arise within us and are connected to our unmet needs. The same delay may irritate one person and please another, depending on their needs at that particular moment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n NVC encourages us to say \u201cNO\u201d by rejecting not the person, but the strategy or proposal being offered at that particular moment. We must also learn to hear other people\u2019s \u201cNO\u201d without interpreting it as a rejection of us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When safety and peace are at risk, we are free to take a break and discontinue communication. Using protective force is not necessarily violence; the distinction lies in the intention: is the aim to stop a blow, or to inflict pain and humiliation in return?<\/p>\n\n\n\n During conflicts, empathy is often mistaken for betrayal. However, empathy does not mean feeling the same pain or sharing another person\u2019s conclusions. It means understanding what a person is feeling and what they need.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Listening to another person\u2019s pain does not erase our own. Understanding their needs does not mean abandoning our own experiences, boundaries, or questions of justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Journalists and those who shape public discourse are responsible not only for the information they communicate, but also for the language they use when discussing conflicts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dehumanizing language strips people of their human qualities. When the media reproduces such language, it can appear to give public permission to use the same vocabulary. There is a difference between the terms \u201cenemy\u201d and \u201cparty to a conflict\u201d: the former carries political and psychological connotations, while the latter is a factual description.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the third episode, Sofi Mkrtchyan, Gohar Grigoryan, and Margarita Khudaverdyan discuss how to express disagreement and anger without undermining another person\u2019s dignity; how to distinguish criticism of an action from labeling a person; what it means to say \u201cNO\u201d without losing a relationship; and why the use of protective force may sometimes be justified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Disagreement does not mean becoming enemies. Recognizing this distinction, while learning to listen to one another, can be a valuable tool for peacebuilding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The podcast was produced by the Public Journalism Club within the framework of the \u201cBridge \u2013 Relationship Building and Inclusive Dialogue Based on Genuine Compassion\u201d program<\/a><\/strong> in partnership with International Alert<\/a><\/strong> and LIVKOM.<\/a><\/strong> The program is funded by the New Democracy Fund.<\/p>\n\n\n\nDisagreeing with an idea does not mean rejecting a person<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n
Anger is not a bad act, but a signal<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n
Saying \u201cNO\u201d does not mean destroying a relationship<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n
Is empathy a betrayal?<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n
Language as a tool for peace or division<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n