convergent evolution towards empathy

20 Aug, 2026

(Soft aim: this is initial work towards a more comprehensive, comparative review of empathy practices!)

Marshall Rosenberg was the initial developer of nonviolent communication (NVC) in mid/late 20th century USA. In his own writing about NVC he acknowledges that it resembles practices that exist in other contexts. I often encounter such frameworks and practices: things that look remarkably like NVC. And I wonder if they took inspiration from shared or similar sources, or are evidence of what we can call convergent evolution towards empathy.

Two examples that are front of mind for me this week:

Towards the end of his career, peace and violence scholar Johann Galtung focused on a "basic needs approach", which really matches NVC (though it was not geared towards being taught as a communication practice, as NVC was developed by Rosenberg):¹

• Universal needs shared by "human beings everywhere and at all times"
• Satisfiers for needs (equivalent to NVC strategies to meet needs)
• Recognition that while needs are universal, the ways we satisfy them are not (NVC equivalent: there are many strategies to meet any given need)
• Links feelings and needs in similar basic, causal sentence structure. Galtung: I feel X unless I am permitted to Y [where Y is action meeting an implied need]. NVC: I feel X because I need / have met need Y.
• Similar definitions of violence²
• Interested, if at a more theoretical than practical level, in how nonviolence can bring people together "when a basis for equal nonexploitative partnership exists" (this "basis" feels related to NVC thinking about prerequisites for empathy).

Anne-Laure Le Cunff​ has recently suggested practices for dealing with "emotional triggers" and "emotional inquiry". These appear to draw mostly from coach/guru Marcia Reynolds, and both Reynolds and Le Cunff's self-reflection frameworks approximates NVC:³

• Noticing when we are making an assumption about the cause of an emotional reaction (NVC: noticing judgement)
• Naming what we are feeling (same as NVC)
• Recognising that naming feelings helps with embodiment
• Exploring "what feels threatened" or what you are "wanting more" of. Le Cunff even explicitly calls these "unmet needs", which exactly matches common NVC language
• Deciding what to do (NVC equivalent: making a request of yourself or someone else)
• Implicitly recognising that self-connection, self-empathy can be sufficient for transforming a painful experience: "you may realize that the threat exists mostly in your interpretation of what happened" and not need to respond in any other way.

∿∿∿

One angle: this isn't just an exercise in curiosity and concern about plagiarism.

Identifying distinct lineages and true convergent evolution provides a form of validation. I've doubted the idea of "universal needs", especially as NVC is practitioner-developed (read: perhaps not incredibly well evidenced in terms of theoretical basis). Galtung, building on Amartya Sen and contemporary interlocutors to establish a conception of shared needs in relation to peace and violence work, provides further credibility and trust in a needs-based approach.

And, we can learn by exploring the nuances and varied emphases of different incarnations of this work. NVC as formally phrased can land as cold and clunky, and people seek vernacular ways of expressing the intended essence of connection to feelings and needs. Le Cunff and Reynolds' formulations offer some ways of doing that, e.g. thinking in terms of "threats", "emotional triggers" or what you "want", rather than necessarily talking about "needs". Not talking about "self-empathy" but approaching your experience "with curiosity rather than self-blame", "like a scientist".⁴ This might be beneficial with certain audiences -- avoiding "woo woo" language!

At the same time, talking to someone else in terms of their emotional triggers might be... well, triggering. This brings back up a notable difference: NVC alone is presented as a way of connecting to other people, rather than just theory or self-reflection.

∿∿∿

What allows this understanding to emerge and flourish in a person or community? Are there common ancestors hidden behind seemingly disparate articulations of similar philosophies or "modalities"?

Maybe Reynolds draws on NVC: Training as a coach in the US, it's not hard to imagine Reynolds encountering NVC or Carl Rogers' precursor work on active listening, which Rosenberg built on. Maybe she has independently derived similar practices.

Maybe Galtung and Rosenberg have shared reference points or more direct contact with one another. They were born in the same decade, and Galtung did spend time in America.

Maybe it's not remarkable that becoming more aware, curious and enquiring about our feelings, or shared human needs, leads to similar insights. It's quite beautiful that these principles and practices can quickly become self-evident to our enquiries, and evidently beneficial.

We can keep learning together!