Name: 非暴力溝通--什麼是暴力？ (Nonviolent Communication - What is Violence?)
Uploaded: 2025-06-18T11:30:21.000Z
Duration: 26 min 50 s

未來進行式

Hello everyone, and welcome to the next episode of Simon's Book Club, where I'll be discussing some of the most interesting books on psychology, neuroscience, communication, relationships, mindfulness, and consciousness.

大家好，歡迎來到西蒙讀書俱樂部的下一集，我將在這裡討論一些關於心理學、神經科學、溝通、人際關係、正念和意識方面最有趣的書籍。

程度副詞

I'm really interested in how the brain works, how consciousness works, how we construct a sense of self, and in how we can live embodied with more compassion, connection, and love.

我對大腦是如何工作的、意識是如何工作的、我們是如何構建自我意識的，以及我們如何能以更多的同情心、聯繫和愛來體現自己的生活非常感興趣。

And I hope you're interested in these ideas too.

希望你們也對這些想法感興趣。

For my last video, I talked about All About Love by focusing on Bell Hooks' All About Love.

在上一個視頻中，我以貝爾-胡克斯（Bell Hooks）的《關於愛的一切》（All About Love）為重點，講述了 "關於愛的一切"。

And in that video, I talked about the different ingredients we need for love, as outlined by the author.

在那段視頻中，我談到了作者概述的愛所需的不同成分。

And those ingredients are care, affection, trust, commitment, respect, recognition, and open and honest communication.

而這些要素就是關心、愛護、信任、承諾、尊重、認可以及開誠佈公的交流。

That last ingredient is my springboard into this video, as I think non-violent communication is the open and honest communication that Hooks is talking about.

最後一個要素是我進入這段視頻的跳板，因為我認為非暴力溝通就是胡克斯所說的開誠佈公的溝通。

If you're having difficulty having open and honest communication, in being open and vulnerable with others, and with being able to connect with people, I really think this book can unlock that for you.

如果你在開誠佈公地交流、與他人坦誠相待、與人溝通方面遇到困難，我真的認為這本書可以幫你解決這個問題。

Truly, I could say that since I've really incorporated non-violent communication into my life, I've really felt the quality of my connections with people improve.

真的，我可以說，自從我把非暴力溝通真正融入我的生活後，我真的感覺到我與人溝通的品質提高了。

I've not gotten into the arguments that I used to get into.

我不再像以前那樣爭論不休了。

I've not really left any conversations feeling icky or uncomfortable.

我沒有在任何談話中感到噁心或不舒服。

Those talks with drunk old white dudes that love conservative political figures don't really hurt me on the inside as they used to.

與那些喜歡保守派政治人物的醉醺醺的白人老傢伙哈拉時，我的內心不再像以前那樣受到傷害。

And that's because, here's the big idea, when we're having difficulty communicating with openness and honesty, I think those are the moments that we're speaking with violence.

這是因為，重要的是，當我們在開誠佈公地交流時遇到困難時，我認為那就是我們在用暴力說話的時候。

That's when we're disconnecting from compassion to the person that we're communicating with, and we're connecting more with our own pains and our struggles for power and control.

這時，我們就會失去對交流對象的同情，而更多地與自己的痛苦以及對權力和控制的掙扎聯繫在一起。

Now, this is a pattern that I've noticed.

As soon as I say the words violent communication, I often meet resistance.

我一說暴力交流，往往就會遇到阻力。

I remember speaking with my parents about non-violent communication as soon as I got into it, and they immediately tried to distance themselves from the idea of violence.

我記得我一開始接觸非暴力溝通時，就和我的父母談起過，他們立即試圖與暴力的想法保持距離。

Like, oh no, violent? We're not violent. We just express our opinions.

比如，哦不，暴力？我們沒有暴力。我們只是表達自己的觀點。

That's not what my parents sound like, by the way.

順便說一句，我父母的聲音可不是這樣的。

I don't know how to do a Polish accent, but I do know how to do a Vampire Super Mario.

我不知道如何模仿波蘭口音，但我知道如何模仿吸血鬼超級馬里奧。

The point is, I'm sure there are some of you who would probably say the same thing.

關鍵是，我相信你們當中有些人可能會說同樣的話。

Who don't think of your language as violent, especially those of you in the YouTube comments section.

誰不認為你們的語言是暴力的，尤其是那些在 YouTube 評論區的人。

So I think a really important starting point here isn't to talk about what non-violence is, but to understand violence first and foremost.

是以，我認為這裡一個非常重要的出發點不是談論什麼是非暴力，而是首先理解暴力。

So the idea of violence for many is the idea of physical violence in all of its forms of abuse.

是以，對許多人來說，暴力的概念就是各種形式的身體暴力。

So for some, violence extends to aggression or shouting and name-calling, but I think violence is a lot more subtle than that.

是以，對有些人來說，暴力就是攻擊、叫喊和辱罵，但我認為暴力比這更微妙。

The spectrum of violence has a lot more gradient to it, and violence is a lot wider than the most extreme and the most visibly damaging forms of violence that people usually acknowledge.

暴力的範圍有更大的梯度，暴力比人們通常承認的最極端、最明顯的暴力形式要廣泛得多。

Part of the resistance I face when I talk about violence in communication is a kind of dismissal of anything that doesn't hurt you.

當我談論傳播中的暴力時，我所面臨的部分阻力是對任何不會傷害你的東西的一種否定。

If you can't understand how it's hurting you, then it's not violent. It's not that bad. Right, Mario? It's me.

如果你無法理解它是如何傷害你的，那麼它就不是暴力。沒那麼糟對吧 馬里奧是我

I'm reminded of some talks I've had with parents who don't view their actions as child abuse, because their parents used to really lay into them.

這讓我想起了我和一些父母的談話，他們並不認為自己的行為是虐待兒童，因為他們的父母曾經對他們非常嚴厲。

So a little smack here or there isn't that bad, right? Spare the rod, spoil the child.

所以，在這裡或那裡打一下並不是什麼壞事，對嗎？不打不成器

But we all know that this isn't true, and the same can be said about violence here.

但我們都知道，事實並非如此，這裡的暴力也是如此。

If you don't think that your violence in language is violent because, well, a fist, that's violent, then I think you're making similar excuses as abusive parents.

如果你不認為你語言中的暴力是暴力，因為，拳頭就是暴力，那麼我認為你在為虐待孩子的父母找類似的藉口。

So let's try to get to a definition of violence here.

是以，讓我們試著給暴力下一個定義。

According to the World Health Organization, violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community that either results in or has a high likelihood resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.

根據世界衛生組織的定義，暴力是指對自己、他人、群體或社區故意使用武力或權力，無論是威脅使用還是實際使用，導致或極有可能導致傷害、死亡、心理傷害、發育不良或剝奪。

That's a long definition, and not one that I think is really useful for everyday understanding.

這個定義太長了，而且我認為對日常理解並不實用。

I think that definition is a good starting point, but it's kind of bloated, and I think that it's lacking something important.

我認為這個定義是一個很好的起點，但有點臃腫，我認為它缺少一些重要的東西。

It talks about the forms of violence and some of the results of violence, but not the reasons for exerting the violence to begin with.

它談到了暴力的形式和暴力的一些結果，但沒有談到實施暴力的原因。

Now, I want to boil this definition down to something a lot easier to remember, and here it goes.

現在，我想把這個定義歸結為一些更容易記住的東西，就這樣吧。

Violence is the exertion of power to control and coerce, and as a byproduct, is damage.

暴力是運用權力進行控制和脅迫，其副產品是傷害。

In this way, I think it can become more evident how violence shows up in our language.

通過這種方式，我認為暴力在我們語言中的表現會更加明顯。

Now, let's think about it. How often do we speak with others to try to convince them, to try to change their minds, or to try to show them that they're wrong, or to advise them, or anything?

現在，讓我們想一想。我們有多少次與他人交談是為了試圖說服他們，試圖改變他們的想法，或試圖讓他們知道他們錯了，或給他們建議，或做任何事情？

Our violence in language shows up when we're trying to make people change.

當我們試圖讓人們改變時，我們語言中的暴力就會顯現出來。

And I think that idea is going to face resistance, but don't argue against it right away. Please stay open. Just let this simmer in the background.

我認為這個想法會遇到阻力，但不要馬上反對。請保持開放。就讓它在後臺慢慢醞釀吧。

I'm going to elaborate on this while we go back to the book here.

在我們回到這本書時，我將詳細闡述這一點。

I shared my thoughts on violent communication. Now, here's what the book has to say about non-violent communication.

我分享了我對暴力溝通的看法。現在，我們來看看這本書對非暴力溝通的看法。

In studying the question of what alienates us from our natural state of compassion, I have identified specific forms of language and communication that I believe contribute to our behaving violently towards each other and ourselves.

在研究 "是什麼讓我們與自然的同情心疏遠 "這一問題時，我發現了一些特定的語言和交流形式，我認為這些語言和交流形式導致了我們對彼此和對自己的粗暴行為。

I use the term life-alienating communication to refer to these forms of communication.

我用 "剝奪生命的交流 "來指代這些形式的交流。

One kind of life-alienating communication is the use of moralistic judgments that imply wrongness or badness on the part of people who don't act in harmony with our values.

其中一種剝奪生命的交流方式就是使用道德判斷，暗示那些行為與我們的價值觀不一致的人是錯誤的或壞的。

Life-alienating communication, however, traps us in a world of ideas about rightness and wrongness, a world of judgments.

然而，剝奪生命的交流將我們困在一個關於對與錯的觀念世界裡，一個充滿評判的世界裡。

It is a language rich with words that classify and dichotomize people and their actions.

在這種語言中，有大量的詞彙對人和人的行為進行分類和二分法。

When we speak this language, we judge others and their behavior while preoccupying ourselves with who's good, bad, normal, abnormal, responsible, irresponsible, smart, ignorant, etc.

當我們使用這種語言時，我們會評判他人和他們的行為，同時專注於誰是好的、壞的、正常的、不正常的、負責任的、不負責任的、聰明的、無知的等等。

Rosenberg goes on to say that we have become fluent in a language of criticism, in judgment, evaluations, comparisons, labels, moralizing, blaming, shaming, ideas of who's right and wrong, and especially for those of you who are into Sherlock kind of shows, really into diagnosing others.

羅森伯格接著說，我們已經能夠流利地使用責備、判斷、評估、比較、標籤、道德化、責備、羞辱、誰對誰錯等語言，尤其是對於那些喜歡看《神探夏洛克》的人來說，我們真的很喜歡診斷他人。

We are highly proficient in telling people what's wrong with them and, on the flip side, we are barely comfortable, or not at all comfortable, in expressing what's alive in us, what we are feeling and what needs of ours are unmet.

我們非常善於告訴別人他們哪裡出了問題，而反過來，我們卻幾乎不願意或根本不願意表達我們內心的想法、我們的感受以及我們尚未得到滿足的需求。

We are very out of touch with our inner feelings and spend most of our words on telling everyone what's wrong with them and what they ought to do.

我們與自己的內心感受格格不入，我們的大部分言語都用來告訴每個人他們有什麼問題，他們應該怎麼做。

Here's what's wrong with your partner and here's what's wrong with your brother. Here's what's wrong with your co-workers, your boss, your neighbors, and your president.

這是你的伴侶出了什麼問題，這是你的兄弟出了什麼問題。這是你的同事、老闆、鄰居和總統的問題所在。

Here's what's wrong with people that have different values, different sexualities, different ethnicities, political leanings, diets, and body sizes.

不同價值觀、不同性取向、不同種族、不同政治傾向、不同飲食習慣、不同體型的人都有問題。

We talk so much about what's wrong with others, so much, and we could talk about that for hours, while talking about what's inside of us, that's tough.

我們談論了太多別人的問題，我們可以談上幾個小時，而談論我們的內心，那是很艱難的。

Our attention is focused on classifying, analyzing, and determining levels of wrongness, rather than on whether life is being served or not.

我們的注意力集中在分類、分析和確定錯誤的程度上，而不是生命是否得到了服務。

In the book, Rosenberg often calls this kind of moralistic judgment, life-alienating language, because it disconnects us from what's alive inside of us.

在書中，羅森伯格經常把這種道德評判稱為 "剝奪生命的語言"，因為它切斷了我們與內在生命的聯繫。

Even the term, what's alive in us, is something that I think some of you will resist, as we've been kind of trained to ignore it, to not be seen as too emotional, or to dread being thought of as needy, to look as if we've got all of our sh** together, and to often respond to people with,

即使是 "我們體內的活力 "這個詞，我想你們中的一些人也會牴觸，因為我們一直被訓練著忽略它，不被認為太情緒化，或者害怕被認為有需要，看起來好像我們已經把所有的事情都安排好了，而且經常用這樣的方式來回應別人、

We're guarded, and we've been taught to not open up to others.

我們心存戒備，我們被教導不要向他人敞開心扉。

Oftentimes, we're offensive with violent communication, and defensive in hiding our vulnerabilities, feelings, and needs.

很多時候，我們在激烈的交流中表現出攻擊性，在隱藏自己的弱點、感受和需求時表現出防禦性。

Rosenberg says that our tendency to judge people is a tragic expression of our feelings and needs, because whenever we speak with people in judgmental terms, and tell people what's wrong with them, and what they should do, well, most people don't just smile and take it with grace, and follow all of the unsolicited advice that you've offered.

羅森伯格說，我們評判他人的傾向是我們的情感和需求的一種悲劇性表達，因為每當我們用評判的語言與人交談，告訴人們他們有什麼問題，他們應該怎麼做時，大多數人都不會只是微笑著優雅地接受，並遵循你主動提供的所有建議。

No matter how right we think we are, no matter how spot-on we think our criticism may be, no matter how helpful we think we're being,

無論我們認為自己多麼正確，無論我們認為自己的責備多麼一針見血，無論我們認為自己多麼樂於助人、

I just really haven't encountered anyone gracefully listening to people tell them what they need to change.

我只是真的沒有遇到過有人能優雅地聽別人告訴他們需要改變什麼。

Nobody I know ever really likes this sh**, and this is why violent communication is tragic.

我認識的人中從來沒有人真正喜歡過這種東西，這就是為什麼暴力交流是悲劇性的。

If you want someone to change, and you're trying to get them to change through violence, you're not going to get the result that you're hoping for.

如果你想讓一個人改變，卻試圖通過暴力讓他改變，那麼你不會得到你所希望的結果。

Even if you can coerce someone into doing what you want them to do, it comes at the cost of psychological pain and damage, and to me, the ends do not justify the means. It's not worth the price you pay.

即使你能強迫別人做你想讓他們做的事，也要以心理上的痛苦和傷害為代價，對我來說，目的並不能證明手段是正確的。不值得付出這樣的代價。

Now, this isn't my idea here, it comes from the book as well, though it's said with less passion, and this kind of save-the-world bemoaning tone that I'm adopting for some reason here.

現在，這不是我的想法，這也是書中的內容，雖然說得不那麼熱情，而且我在這裡不知為何也採用了這種拯救世界的哀嘆語氣。

Let's go back to Rosenberg's happy voice.

讓我們回到羅森伯格快樂的聲音。

Two questions help us to see why we are unlikely to get what we want by using punishment to change people's behavior.

有兩個問題可以幫助我們理解，為什麼用懲罰來改變人們的行為不可能如願以償。

The first question is, what do I want this person to do that's different from what he or she is doing?

第一個問題是，我想讓這個人做什麼，與他或她正在做的事情有什麼不同？

If we ask only this question, punishment may seem effective because the threat or exercise of punitive force may well influence the person's behavior in ways we want.

如果我們只問這個問題，懲罰可能會顯得有效，因為懲罰性力量的威脅或行使很可能會以我們想要的方式影響當事人的行為。

However, when the second question is asked, it becomes evident that punishment isn't likely to work.

然而，當提出第二個問題時，懲罰顯然不可能奏效。

The second important question is this, what do I want this person's reasons to be for doing what I'm requesting?

第二個重要問題是，我希望這個人按照我的要求去做的理由是什麼？

We seldom address the latter question, but when we do, we soon realize that punishment and reward interfere with people's ability to do things motivated out of a desire to enrich life for themselves and others.

我們很少討論後一個問題，但當我們討論時，我們很快就會意識到，懲罰和獎勵會干擾人們出於豐富自己和他人生活的願望而去做事的能力。

I believe it's critical to be aware of the importance of people's reasons for behaving as we request.

我認為，我們必須意識到，人們之所以會做出我們所要求的行為，其原因非常重要。

For example, blaming or punishing would obviously not be effective strategies if we want children to clean their rooms out of either a desire for order or a desire to contribute to the parents' enjoyment of order.

例如，如果我們希望孩子打掃房間是出於對秩序的渴望，或者是為了讓父母享受秩序，那麼指責或懲罰顯然不是有效的策略。

Some children clean their rooms motivated by obedience to authority, because my mom said I had to.

有些孩子打掃房間的動機是服從權威，因為媽媽說我必須這麼做。

They respond out of avoidance of punishment, fear of feeling guilty if they don't, fear of rejection if they don't.

他們的反應是出於對懲罰的逃避，害怕不這樣做會感到內疚，害怕不這樣做會遭到拒絕。

Nonviolent communication, however, fosters a level of moral development based on autonomy and interdependence, whereby we acknowledge responsibility for our own actions and our awareness that our own well-being and that of others are one and the same.

然而，非暴力溝通促進的是基於自主和相互依存的道德發展水準，我們承認對自己的行為負責，並認識到自己和他人的福祉是一體的。

Do we really want people's reasons for doing something to be because of fear of punishment, fear of rejection, fear of abandonment, fear of your disappointment and anger and unkindness?

我們真的希望人們做事的理由是害怕懲罰、害怕被拒絕、害怕被拋棄、害怕你的失望、憤怒和不友善嗎？

I don't think we want fear of any sort to be people's motivating factor.

我認為我們不希望任何形式的恐懼成為人們的動力。

I believe we'd all be happier if people's motivation was the inherent joy in their hearts because they'd love to contribute to your well-being, to your society's well-being, rather than to avoid your violence.

我相信，如果人們的動機是內心固有的喜悅，因為他們願意為你們的福祉、為你們社會的福祉做出貢獻，而不是為了避免你們的暴力，那麼我們都會更快樂。

Violence in communication is us trying to use force and power to control others.

交流中的暴力是我們試圖用武力和權力來控制他人。

And truly, that's not the kind of world we want.

事實上，這不是我們想要的世界。

We can't keep trying to shape the world through coercion, through disciplinary actions and punishment and exile and fear and deprivation.

我們不能一直試圖通過脅迫、懲戒、懲罰、流放、恐懼和剝奪來塑造世界。

We can't keep trying to rule with an iron fist.

我們不能一直試圖用鐵腕統治。

We don't like dictators and governments, yet we keep dictating how others should act in our circles.

我們不喜歡獨裁者和政府，但我們卻一直在我們的圈子裡指手畫腳。

There are many movements now that speak up against violence.

You might have heard the phrase, speak truth to power.

你可能聽說過這樣一句話：對權力說真話。

So I think we can speak about the power dynamics at play when we use violent language against each other, and to speak to how we distance ourselves from love, connection and community when we do so.

是以，我認為我們可以談談當我們彼此使用暴力語言時的權力動態，並談談當我們這樣做時，我們是如何遠離愛、聯繫和社區的。

And if you're using violence against violence, what results do we expect?

如果以暴制暴，我們還能期待什麼結果呢？

We want to shape the world so that the old power structures don't keep us suffering and underprivileged, that don't marginalize everyone except for old rich men and their interests.

我們希望塑造一個世界，讓舊的權力結構不再讓我們受苦受難，不再讓我們處於弱勢，不再讓每個人都被邊緣化，除了老富豪和他們的利益集團。

字幕列表影片播放

非暴力溝通--什麼是暴力？ (Nonviolent Communication - What is Violence?)

deprivation

engage

empathy

practice