When I listen to the news and hear some politicians speak, I’m sometimes stunned by what I see as deeply distorted beliefs. It’s like being inside a bizarre movie – except that reality is more extreme than fiction. Their words and actions can land so far outside my own sense of sanity that strong, harsh judgments arise very quickly in me. I notice how easily I can slip into seeing them as something other than human, or as completely beyond understanding. In those moments, what helps me stay in contact with their humanity – and not fully exclude them from my circle of consideration – is the NVC idea that all actions are attempts to meet needs.
When I can return to this awareness, something shifts. I sometimes sense the possible needs underneath what they are doing. I become a bit more curious and slightly more open to understanding their perspective. Not to justify or approve of their actions – but to broaden my capacity to stay in contact with their humanity, even when I deeply disagree.
Nonviolent Communication (NVC) offers a powerful way to understand ourselves and others. For many, it’s a real game-changer – 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 work, how culture shapes us, and how the systems we live in influence our choices. My intention is to keep the heart of NVC while adding a bit more depth and perspective.
The NVC approach
All actions are attempts to meet needs is one of the core assumptions in Nonviolent Communication. This is true whether or not we are aware of – or conscious of – our needs. From the most peaceful to the most violent action, the underlying driving force is understood as an attempt to meet our fundamental, universal needs.
At its best, this principle does something quite extraordinary: it shifts our perception from moral judgment to functional understanding. Instead of seeing people and actions as bad or wrong – or good or right – we ask: “What need might this action be trying to meet?”
This shift can de-escalate conflict and open curiosity and empathy. It moves attention away from “stupid actions” and assumed personal flaws, and toward a more compassionate understanding of the underlying needs people are trying to fulfil.
An evolutionary perspective
From an evolutionary point of view, behaviour can also be seen as adaptive regulation for survival and reproduction. This doesn’t necessarily contradict the idea that actions are attempts to meet needs – it broadens it.
Many behaviours are automatic, inherited, or simply misfiring in modern contexts. Some actions are not intelligent or conscious attempts at all, but outdated adaptive patterns. What may once have supported survival can, in today’s environment, become dysfunctional – still operating as if it were meeting a need, even when it no longer does.
Between need and strategy
It seems that human beings are driven both by individual and collective needs. But if we focus only on needs, we can easily miss what happens in the space between needs and actions – the shaping forces that influence how a need is actually expressed.
This is where moral intuitions, conditioning, culture, and context all play a role in shaping our strategies.
Moral intuition and automatic behaviour
People often do not consciously choose their actions in the moment. Much of what we do is driven by intuitive moral reflexes and conditioned responses. We act automatically based on past experience, and only afterwards justify our actions with the beliefs we currently hold.
From this perspective, the link between need and action is not always direct or transparent.
The cultural lens
We often say in NVC that we all share the same needs but choose different strategies. But what counts as a “valid” strategy is deeply shaped by culture. In some cultures, a response might be seen as obvious and appropriate. In others, it may be seen as unacceptable or even beyond possible.
If we look closely at a list of needs, we can also see that some cultures may not recognise certain needs in the same way – or may rank them very differently. For example, the needs for autonomy and loyalty can point in very different directions depending on cultural context and collective values.
From a culturally narrow perspective, we might ask: “Why didn’t you express your need?” The NVC answer might be a lack of awareness or skill. But broader answers could include:
-
It might be socially dangerous
-
It might violate cultural norms
-
It might threaten status or belonging
When we miss this, we risk interpreting silence or indirectness as a personal limitation, rather than a culturally intelligent adaptation.
Levels of needs and development
At different stages of human development, “meeting needs” can look very different. It is not only about personal preference or culture, but also about the depth and complexity of individual perspective-taking. For example, the need for respect may take very different forms depending on one’s developmental orientation.
If my perspective is mainly centred on myself, respect might take the form of dominance or control. If I have access to power and fear-based influence, respect may be maintained through hierarchy and a sense of superiority.
If my perspective expands to include the groups I identify with – family, friends, religion, nation, soccer team – then respect may involve honouring symbols, rituals, and group belonging.
If my care extends beyond my own identity groups, to include all human beings, respect might take the form of listening to diverse voices or supporting fairness and equality.
So the same need can produce radically different – and sometimes harmful – strategies depending on developmental context. Throughout history and today, these differences often create tension between individuals and groups, each believing their approach is the right one. At times, this has led – in the past and in the current time – to deep and even violent conflict.
Systemic perspective
If we only look at individuals, we risk missing the structural and systemic patterns that shape, promote, or suppress certain behaviours.
At the same time, if we relate to people through group identities, we risk losing sight of their individuality and humanity, reducing them to representatives of a category rather than seeing the person in front of us.
Both perspectives are needed.
A more integrated view
All actions are attempts to meet needs is one of the most compassionate lenses we can adopt. It opens understanding where there might otherwise be judgment, and much of what I’ve explored above can be seen through this perspective.
And yet, if we view human behaviour only through this lens, we risk oversimplifying its complexity.
Some actions are not thoughtful attempts to meet needs, but automatic survival responses – shaped by evolution, trauma, culture, and context. Understanding needs remains essential – but it is not sufficient on its own to understand the full complexity of human behaviour.
Without any intention of changing the original assumption, we could simply widen the lens and say:
All actions can be understood as attempts to meet needs, shaped by – among other things – moral intuitions, cultural conditioning, developmental capacity, and social context.
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
