When I walk through the streets of my hometown, Stockholm, I see people in very different life situations. There is often a striking difference in access to resources. At one table in a fancy restaurant, a well-dressed couple is sharing a meal, while just outside, a person in worn clothes is sitting on the street asking for money.
Stockholm is the capital of Sweden, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. And still, even here, I sometimes find myself confronted with visible poverty. In other cities and parts of the world, these contrasts are often more extreme.
When I encounter this reality – both in my personal experience and through stories and reports from around the world – I notice it can evoke sadness, helplessness, or despair in me. At times, it seems as if there simply are not enough resources available to tend to all the suffering that exists.
At the same time, I also hold another awareness: the systems and structures that shape how resources are distributed are created by human beings. If resources today tend to flow in ways that create and maintain large differences in wealth, then they can also be reorganised to support the well-being of all people.
This blog post explores one of the core assumptions in Nonviolent Communication:
It is possible to meet all needs – our world offers abundant resources for meeting needs.
Nonviolent Communication (NVC) offers a powerful way to understand ourselves and others. For many, it’s a profound shift – helping us see what’s behind our reactions and opening the door to more honest, compassionate connection. At the same time, no model can capture the full complexity of being human.
In this blog series, I want to gently explore some key NVC ideas – not to challenge them, but to expand them by placing them in a wider context that includes how we grow and develop, how our brains and bodies function, how culture shapes us, and how the systems we live in influence our choices. My intention is to keep the heart of NVC intact while adding a bit more depth and perspective.
The NVC approach
This assumption is a beautiful invitation to life offered by NVC. It shifts our attention from scarcity and lack toward possibility and abundance.
In NVC, conflict and competition are understood to occur at the level of strategies, not at the level of needs. Needs themselves are universal and never in conflict. What often appears as conflict is a difference in strategies for meeting needs, or in how we imagine those needs could be met.
When I am able to stay connected to needs – my own and others’ – a wider field of possibilities opens up. Because needs are not tied to specific outcomes, I am not limited to a single “right” way to fulfil them. Instead, creativity, dialogue, and cooperation can emerge as I explore multiple strategies together with others.
This does not mean that all needs can be fulfilled simultaneously, or that every strategy is possible in every moment. Rather, it means that over time, and through collaboration, it is often possible to find ways to tend to what matters for everyone involved.
From this perspective, what looks like a lack of resources is often a lack of shared understanding, imagination, or connection to needs.
This approach invites a more nonviolent way of living—one in which I do not need to fight over strategies in order to care for my needs, but instead can stay connected while exploring how life can work for all of us.
Scarcity is about attachment to one strategy
In this blog post, I want to explore one particular angle on this NVC assumption: scarcity is often not only about a lack of resources but also about attachment to a specific strategy. Very often, when I experience disagreement or conflict, there is also a limitation in my ability to consider other perspectives and imagine alternative ways forward.
First, I want to clarify that I do not see disagreements or conflicts as something inherently “bad” or “wrong”. They are natural parts of human life. Within ourselves, in our relationships, and in society, we all have different preferences, values, experiences, and ideas about how we like things to get done.
The difficulty usually begins when I become deeply attached to my preferred strategies and lose connection with the needs underneath them. When this happens, other people’s ways of approaching life can start to seem threatening, frustrating, or simply unacceptable.
Instead of staying curious, we may try to convince, pressure, manipulate, shame, or force others to comply with our preferred strategies. At times, this escalation can move from tension and polarisation into different forms of violence – both in personal relationships and on larger societal scales. Most of us have seen this dynamic in our own lives, and we can also recognise it throughout human history and in the present time.
Four areas
There are at least four areas that can either support or limit our capacity to embrace and live this assumption of abundance and possibility. These areas influence how many options we can perceive, how flexible we can remain in moments of tension, and how easily we can imagine strategies that address multiple needs simultaneously.
The four areas I would like to explore are:
- Inner capacity
- Developmental perspective-taking
- Identity and loyalty pressures
- Culture and norms
Let’s look at them one by one.
Inner Capacity
From an individual perspective, our ability to live and act in alignment with our values depends on many factors. One important factor is the state of our body and nervous system. For example, whether we are rested, energised, and connected to our inner capacity.
I can find myself in a similar challenging situation on two different days, yet respond in completely different ways depending on my inner state. When I am rested, grounded, and resourced, I usually have a greater ability to respond with balance and care. I am more able to consider both my own needs and those of others. I become more flexible, more creative, and more open to strategies beyond my preferred solutions.
At these moments, it is easier for me to trust the possibility that needs can be met in many different ways.
On the other hand, after a poor night’s sleep, during periods of stress, or when living with ongoing fear or uncertainty, my inner world often becomes narrower. I may become more reactive, less flexible, and more attached to familiar strategies. Alternative approaches can begin to feel threatening rather than supportive.
Whatever the source of reduced inner resources – stress, exhaustion, overwhelm, fear, lack of recovery, or prolonged insecurity – the effect is often similar: my access to perspective, creativity, and connection becomes reduced. In these moments, the world itself can start to seem smaller and more scarce.
Developmental Perspective-Taking
My ability to perceive possibilities is not only shaped by my immediate state. I am part of larger developmental processes, and like every human being, I potentially develop through different ways of understanding myself, others, and the world.
A simplified way of describing this development is a shift from:
- a self-focused perspective
- to a group-centred perspective
- to a broader perspective that includes many groups and ultimately all human beings
At earlier stages, it seems natural that “my group” and “other groups” each primarily focus on their own survival, identity, or advantage. When this happens on both sides, and the world is perceived as competitive and scarce, cooperation becomes difficult and conflict more likely.
As perspective-taking expands, it becomes easier to recognise shared human needs across groups. From a more inclusive perspective, solutions that work for multiple sides become more visible and more realistic.
Identity and Loyalty Pressures
Even when I have the inner ability to understand multiple perspectives, my sense of identity and loyalty can strongly influence what I am willing to see, say, or do. Belonging to a group often comes with implicit expectations: what is considered “right thinking,” “good analysis,” or “loyal behaviour.” Moving outside these expectations can sometimes be experienced as risky, even when it aligns with my own understanding of needs and possibilities.
For example, in a group working for social change, it may be easy to form simplified images of “the other side” – for instance, assuming that decision-makers in a company are mainly driven by profit and greed. If I begin to sense the human complexity and the needs behind their actions, I might hesitate to express this within my group. I may fear being misunderstood, seen as naive, or perceived as disloyal.
Instead of focusing on understanding across sides, I might find myself focusing on defending my position within my own group. Over time, this tension can lead to frustration, withdrawal, or even leaving the group. Here, the limitation is not primarily cognitive, but relational: what feels safe or allowed within the identity of belonging.
Culture and Norms
A similar dynamic operates on a broader level through culture and shared norms. We are all part of cultural environments that influence what seems normal, natural, or self-evident. Often, we do not notice these assumptions because they seem like “reality itself.”
From within one cultural framework, other cultures can appear strange, inefficient, or even wrong. This can make it difficult to relate to their practices as equally valid expressions of human life and needs. In such moments, resources and attention may unconsciously be directed toward supporting and reinforcing the norms we already identify with, rather than exploring what is alive in other systems.
When we are able to step back and observe both our own culture and others with more awareness, it becomes easier to see the human needs expressed through very different behaviours and norms. Even when practices strongly differ from our own values, this shift can support curiosity and understanding rather than immediate judgment and patterns of exclusion or unequal attention to needs.
Conclusion
The assumption that it is possible to meet all needs – and that our world offers abundant resources for meeting needs can be understood as an invitation into a wider field of possibility and creativity. For me, it is not meant as a statement to convince others, but as an orientation to explore, moment by moment.
People we meet will carry very different experiences, values, and worldviews. For some, this assumption may seem unrealistic or even impossible. For others, it may be a deeply natural way of seeing life. Rather than trying to prove it, I find it more meaningful to live as if it is possible – and to let that exploration be my contribution to expanding possibilities.
If you’re interested in exploring NVC through a broader, more integrative lens, you’re very welcome to join the Needs Space platform or read more about it here.
Author:
Joachim Berggren
Joachim Berggren is a certified CNVC trainer. He has been a student of NVC since 2009 and has taught his understanding of NVC since 2010. He writes blog posts, offers workshops and hosts events about NVC, as well as offering individual sessions. He is passionate about and intrigued by exploring human connection and our capacity to grow and evolve as individuals and groups throughout our lifetimes.