I very much like your image of the " Family Tree" as a tree with all the
branches representing other sources. However my vision would be the Tree with
all theses different roots!
Thanks for this fascinating and most helpful thread.
Beulah
Sent from my iPad
On 05 Mar 2016, at 12:15 AM, Patricia Robertson pkrobertson22@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Michaelene,
My email address is pkrobertson22@xxxxxxxxx - perhaps we can communicate off
the Constellation Talk email conversation about your dissertation and
references. I would be very interested in your work. Thank you.
Hello Heiki,
With your comments and the comments of Tiiu and others, I am beginning to get
a picture of a family constellation genogram with branches on the tree from
Milan, Norway, Austria, Argentina, USA, and Germany (likely more locations
too) - schools of family systems thought developing like the Morphic
Resonance of Sheldrake - just as birds and cultures evolved in similar ways
in different parts of the world at the same time - similar things were going
on without necessarily having explicit communication. The greater field of
energy is moving and shifting through and around us. Bert Hellinger is the
one who synthesized the work into the phenomenological approach of family
constellation today with a strong integration of the mystery within the
Field, which I don’t believe was present in any earlier approach or school of
thought. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.
You mentioned that "Hellinger's work does bear a resemblance to Bowen's
ideas. I do believe Böszörmenyi-Nagy is closest theoretically though. Even
his language is somewhat similar even if not as precise and resolute.”
I notice that Böszörmenyi-Nagy does refer to Bowen’s work, along with many
others, so there is some connection there. In 1979, Stuart Lieberman focused
on Transgenerational Family Therapy and he lists, Adler, Freud, Melanie
Klein, von Bertalanffy, Bowen, Norman Paul, and Bowlby (Attachment Theory)
amongst the antecedents of transgenerational theory.
I am glad you brought up the importance of translation - it has been
important in other research I have done in the past. In all of the English
translation books of Hellinger’s work that I have, the work is referred to as
constellation rather than placement and I would assume that they were
approved translations by Hellinger. I’m not certain where that one will lead
me, however, it is important to keep in mind. Thank you.
Hello Cristina,
Thank you for adding Jodorowsky to my list.
Hello Karen,
Thank you for mentioning the important connection to Moreno’s psychodrama and
sociometry - I will investigate further. I was able to find your article in
the January 2011 (Issue 17) of The Knowing Field.
I appreciate all the insight and helpful comments,
Patricia
On Mar 4, 2016, at 2:03 PM, 'Karen Carnabucci' karenc@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I also wish to add the influence of Dr. J.L. Moreno, the European-born
physician who developed psychodrama and sociometry.
Sociometry, the less-known of his work, is now more popularly known as
"social network analysis," and essentially explores the relationships within
a given system -- who is attracted to whom, who is repelled, who is neutral,
etc.
I wrote on this topic in an issue of The Knowing Field some years ago and
it's theme of my book "Integrating Psychodrama and Systemic Constellation
Work: New Directions for Action Methods, Mind-Body Therapies and Energy
Healing." I'll also be presenting on my hybrid of psychodrama and
constellation work at the upcoming psychodrama conference March 31-Aug. 3 in
Phoenix (see asgpp.org for more information).
This is very important that people understand this part of the many
ancestral roots of constellations. Many people think of psychodrama as role
play but it is much more complex than that. Bert Hellinger is a fantastic
synthesizer.
Karen Carnabucci, MSS, LCSW, TEP
Alternative psychotherapy, training & classes
Racine, Wisconsin
(262) 633-2645
www.realtruelife.com
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] ;
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 9:21 AM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ConstellationTalk] Ancestry of Hellinger's Family Constellations
Hello to the Systemic Constellation community,
I have been researching the ancestry of Bert Hellinger’s Family
Constellations and looking at the context in which the work developed. It
felt like an appropriate thing to do in my doctoral studies as I have been a
genealogist since childhood and now I am working with client’s as a body
focused systemic constellation facilitator. I want to understand the long
ancestral line behind Hellinger’s Family Constellation. Honouring the
ancestors is integral to my work and has been a lifetime practice for me.
The short version of my question is to anyone with deep roots in the
development of Hellinger’s Family Constellation work: Was the early work on
Family Constellation by Walter Toman in 1961 and the Family Systems Theory
of Murray Bowen in 1976 influential in Hellinger’s work?
The longer version:
At the back of Love’s Hidden Symmetry: What Makes Love Work in Relationships
(pp. 327-330), Hellinger with Weber and Beaumont list many of the major
influences in the work of Hellinger and the development of family
constellations. Included on the list are influences such as Martin Heidegger
and Richard Wagner, the complete works of Freud, and the Zulu peoples of
South Africa, from whom he gained the “awareness of the relativity of many
cultural values,” “perceiving systems in relationships,” “human commonality
underlying cultural diversity,” ritual as “common human experiences,” “the
goodness of cultural and human variety,” and “the validity of doing things
in different ways” (pp. 327-328). From the field of psychoanalysis
influences mentioned are the group dynamics and psychoanalysis of Primal
Therapy, Gestalt Therapy, Transactional Analysis of Eric Berne; the Family
Therapy and Family Reconstruction of Virginia Satir; whose work was greatly
influential for the development of the Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) of
Richard Bandler and John Grinder, also an influence, the invisible bonds of
Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, the hierarchy of families of Jay Haley; Hypnotherapy
of Milton Erickson, Provocative Therapy of Frank Farrelly, the Holding
Therapy of Irena Precop, and others (pp. 327-330).
Walter Toman and Murray Bowen are not mentioned as influences. I do not come
out of a background in psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, or psychology, rather
my work flows through peacebuilding and conflict analysis and management in
the world, and I’m interested in the work of Albrecht Mahr, Hellinger, and
others using systemic constellations in peacebuilding.
Since training in Hellinger’s Family Constellations in 2011, I have never
heard anyone mention the Family Constellation work of Walter Toman in 1961
as an Associate Professor of Psychology at Brandeis University. I have his
book on Family Constellation: Theory and Practice of a Psychological Game,
published by Springer Publishing Company in New York. His book includes a
great amount of information on family dynamics including 8 sibling
positions, 64 relationships with parents, portraits of family
constellations, intermediary sibling positions, and other symbolic notation
and quantitative treatment of “major aspects of family constellation.” Toman
states that he spells out how all individuals will recognize themselves,
their families and friends in the book, including relationships and
conflicts, and how we do think of these things, however, it tends to be done
“tacitly, implicitly, and without much order.”
While his work does take a different direction and emphasis on sibling order
in relationship, it does not seem totally unrelated to Hellinger’s work
either.
Toman’s work has been revisited many times over the years with American and
German editions. Toman, Walter. (Fall/Winter 1994). Family constellation
theory revisited: Part 1. Family Systems. Georgetown Family Center. Dept of
Psych. University of Erlangen-Nurnberg, Germany. (4th American edition and
4th and 5th German editions). (Publication years 1968, 1977, 1978, 1979,
1988a, 1989b, 1991a).
My assumption is that Toman’s Family Constellation work was available in
Germany during the development of Hellinger’s principles.
As well, I am also looking at the pioneering work on Family Systems Theory
of Murray Bowen (1976) and others such as Assagioli (1972) and Framo (1982).
Bowen developed the Family Diagram or early genogram expanded upon by
McGoldrick and Gerson in 1985.
Kerr, Michael E. (2000), (One family’s story: A primer on Bowen theory. The
Bowen Center for the Study of the Family), a long-time colleague of Bowens,
describes the Family Diagram developed by Murray Bowen and how it
“symbolizes a living organism, the multigenerational family emotional
system. More than any other symbol, the diagram announces the necessity to
shift paradigms, to move beyond an individual cause-and-effect model to a
multiperson systems model in understanding human behavior. The diagram
represents much more than genealogy; it represents the profound emotional
connections between the generations. People are born and die, but a family’s
past lives in the present.” “Diagrams are read chronologically from left to
right: the oldest child in a family appears furthest to the left. Males are
represented by squares, females by circles. When information about people’s
lives is collected, added to the basic diagram, and thought about, one’s own
life takes on a new understanding and meaning.”
On the Bowen Center website (http://www.thebowencenter.org/theory/), it
states that Murray Bowen, the psychiatrist who pioneered family systems
theory, which includes the 8 interlocking concepts listed below, is “a
theory of human behavior that views the family as an emotional unit and uses
systems thinking to describe the complex interactions in the unit. It is the
nature of a family that its members are intensely connected emotionally.
Often people feel distant or disconnected from their families, but this is
more feeling than fact. Families so profoundly affect their member’s
thoughts, feelings, and actions that it often seems as if people are living
under the same “emotional skin.” People solicit each other’s attention,
approval, and support and react to each other’s needs, expectations, and
upsets. The connectedness and reactivity make the functioning of family
members interdependent. A change in one person’s functioning is predictably
followed by reciprocal changes in the functioning of others. Families differ
somewhat in the degree of interdependence, but it is always present to some
degree” (para. 2). Anxiety spreads “infectiously” among family members, and
the family member that “does the most accommodating literally “absorbs”
system anxiety and thus is the family member most vulnerable to problems
such as depression, alcoholism, affairs, or physical illness” (para. 3).
Bowen Family Systems Theory (8 features):
1) Triangles ( Fusion and distancing, Adequate and inadequate spouse)
2) Differentiation of Self (Fusion or differentiation, Solid self or
pseudo self, Intellectual and emotional functioning)
3) Nuclear Family Emotional Process ( Maternal conflict, Inadequate or
over adequate spouses, Emotional divorce)
4) Family Projection Process (Child focus or triangle child, Identified
or designated patient,
5) Multi Generational Transmission Processes (Compounding
effects,Schizophrenia)
6) Sibling Position (Toman’a Family Constellation. Based on the
publication of Walter Toman’s first edition of Family Constellation: It’s
Effect on Personality and Social Behavior, published in 1961)
7) Emotional Cutoff (Family of Origin)
8) Emotional Processes in Society (Societal Regression)
It seems to me that Toman’s and Bowen’s work seem to show up as very
influential in Hellinger’s Family Constellations. Toman reveals that the
ancestral lines of his work are Freud, Adler, and Jung. Can anyone elaborate
on whether Walter Toman’s and Murray Bowen’s work and principles were
influential in the development of Orders of Family in Hellinger’s
phenomenological practice of Family Constellations that are revealed within
the greater system of The Knowing Field?
Is there any acknowledgement of this earlier work? I also wondered if part
of the reason Hellinger did not copyright his way of working with Family
Constellations is because Family Constellation already existed before he
used the label? I have heard that the reason is because he wanted Family
Constellations to expand and evolve with each new facilitator as they added
their own background and experience to the work. Any thoughts to share?
Kind regards,
Patricia
Peaceful Possibilities Consulting
MA(CAM), BA(Hon), BCom, CPA, CMA
Student, Doctor of Social Sciences, Royal Roads University
Integrative Wellness Practitioner, Educator, &
Body Focused Systemic Constellation Facilitator
403-474-0452
patricia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.peacefulpossibilities.ca
