Same Needs, Different Worlds: The Double Edge Sword of Consciousness
I have, for more than 15 years – ever since I first encountered Nonviolent Communication (NVC) – held the assumption that all human beings share the same universal needs. And even before that, I remember carrying similar intuitions: that we are, at some level, fundamentally equal; that we are inherently relational and caring beings; that we want to treat each other with humanity and respect.
From this perspective, when people act in ways that seem to contradict this, something has been disrupted – whether through dysfunctional culture, abuse and mistreatment, trauma (individual or collective), or other forms of interference. What we see is not someone’s true nature, but a set of learned, often maladaptive patterns playing themselves out. Beneath this, I still assume there is a human being oriented toward life, connection, and care.
And yet…
Whenever I am confronted with actions that are not aligned with my values or preferred strategies – or that I find harmful, confusing, or simply baffling – my immediate response is often very different.
In those moments, my thinking does not naturally move into empathy or shared humanity. Instead, I tend to move into subtle forms of judgment. A sense arises that I have clearer access to what is just and fair, while the other person is operating from a distorted or limited view of reality. This judgmental attitude appears quickly and automatically. It takes cognitive effort to return to my assumption of shared humanity.
And I am left with a question that feels increasingly important – not only for me, but perhaps for all of us:
Why is it so difficult to hold this assumption as a lived, embodied experience – rather than only as an idea in the mind?
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 assumption: shared needs, different strategies
One of the central assumptions in Nonviolent Communication is that all human beings share the same universal needs. From this perspective, needs such as safety, autonomy, belonging, meaning, rest, and contribution are shared across all humans, regardless of culture, age, sex, gender identity, ideology, or personality. What differs is not the needs themselves, but the strategies we use to meet them.
This distinction is powerful. It helps us move from judgment to curiosity. From “this is wrong” to “what need might this action be an attempt to meet?” Instead of blaming others for their actions, we can become curious about the needs behind those actions. We might not connect through our preferred strategies, but we can almost always recognise and connect at the level of needs.
This assumption has the potential to shift our attention from what separates us to what connects us. Beneath our different beliefs, values, identities, and life experiences lies a shared human reality. We all know what it is like to seek safety, long for belonging, experience loss, yearn for meaning, or desire autonomy.
Same needs, different worlds
But even if we accept this assumption intellectually, another layer remains. Because in real life, we are not only dealing with different strategies. We are dealing with different worlds.
Two people can genuinely share the same underlying need and still experience reality in completely different ways.
For example:
- Both may care deeply about safety, but one experiences it through control, while the other through freedom.
- Both may care about belonging, but one finds it in conformity, while the other finds it in authenticity.
- Both may care about contribution, but one sees it as stability, while the other sees it as change or disruption.
From the outside, these can look like opposing needs. In reality, they are often the same needs expressed through different internal maps of the world. This is where conflict becomes more complex than a simple misunderstanding of needs. While our needs may be universal, our perspectives on reality are not.
We are not only asking, “What do you need?” We are also, often unconsciously, asking, “What world are you living in?” When we experience another person’s perspective completely alien, we may actually phrase it – half joking, half serious, sometimes fully irritated – as “What planet are you from?” Behind the irony lies a genuine recognition that people can experience and interpret reality in remarkably different ways.
The illusion of “us and them”
When we encounter people whose worldview differs strongly from our own, we may notice more clearly something that is always going on: we are continuously organising reality into groups. Us and them. Right and wrong. Rational and irrational. Evolved and unevolved. Open-minded and closed-minded.
We sense these divisions in our bodies. Sometimes they even define us and shape our identities.
And yet, at the level of needs, something else is true: the separation is much less clear. The same human needs are present on both sides of almost every conflict. What changes is not the underlying humanity, but the interpretation of what it means to express that humanity.
Group identities – political, cultural, ideological, even progressive and inclusive value systems – often strengthen this sense of separation. Not because they are inherently flawed, but because they simplify complexity. Our internal maps of reality help us orient. They also make it easier to lose sight of the shared humanness that connects us all.
The double-edged sword of consciousness
Human consciousness brings something extraordinary.
It allows us to:
- imagine the inner world of others
- extend care beyond family and tribe
- create moral systems that include strangers, future generations, and even other species
- relate to abstract entities such as nation, humanity, or “all sentient beings”
- orient toward moral principles rather than only direct relationships
At the same time, it allows something else:
- we abstract away from lived, embodied reality
- we construct narratives that justify harm without feeling its impact
- we create identity systems that divide the world into moral categories
- we develop highly intelligent forms of exclusion, competition, and control
In this sense, consciousness is a double-edged sword. At a more “animal” level of existence, needs are immediate and embodied. Hunger, safety, warmth, connection – these are direct and shared.
With consciousness, something new appears: distance. We can think about needs without directly sensing them. We can think about others without experiencing them as fully human. We can hold beliefs that override empathy. This is not a flaw in consciousness. It is part of its paradoxical capacity. But it profoundly shapes how we experience reality and each other.
The curse and gift of perspective
The ability to see from multiple perspectives is one of the greatest human capacities we have. It is also the source of much of our confusion and conflict. Because once we can hold abstract models of the world, we no longer simply respond to what is in front of us. We respond to interpretations, stories, identities, and imagined futures.
Two people can look at the same situation and genuinely experience two different realities. Not because one of them lacks intelligence or care, but because consciousness allows people to make sense of the same underlying human needs in very different ways.
This is where the NVC assumption becomes both more difficult and more important. It is easy to say “we all share the same needs” when we agree. It is much harder when someone’s worldview seems incomprehensible – or even threatening and dangerous.
Beyond moral separation
Seeing shared needs does not mean agreeing with every strategy people use to meet them. It does not mean ignoring differences or excusing harm. It means something more subtle: beneath even the most alien or uncomfortable behaviour, there is still a human being trying to meet needs and navigate life.
This perspective does not mean giving up our ability to evaluate actions or set boundaries. But it can soften the certainty that we fully understand another person’s experience of reality.
It invites a different kind of question: Not, “What is wrong with them?” But, “What makes sense from their perspective?”
A closing reflection
If all human beings share the same needs, then the real challenge is not identifying those needs. The challenge is remembering them.
Especially when:
- we disagree strongly
- we feel threatened
- we encounter unfamiliar or opposing worldviews
- we are pulled into group identities that divide the world into us and them
In those moments, consciousness does not disappear. But it often narrows.
And yet, even there, something remains stable. The needs are still present. On both sides. In all directions. The same needs. Different worlds. One shared humanity beneath it all.
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.