Hello Beulah,
Thank you for your inversion of the family tree I suggested. It has me thinking
about the trunk of the tree. I suppose it all depends on where your starting
point is - what is the trunk - what is at the core - which generation you begin
with. How big is the picture you have in mind? With your version of the tree I
suspect you envision that Hellinger’s Constellations is perhaps the trunk and
all the foundational antecendents would be the roots. The larger branches
extending out from the trunk might be family, nature, organizational, and other
systemic constellations. All the new facilitators and ways of working with
constellations create the smaller branches extending out into the world today.
This is why understanding the core of my research and work is important.
I embraced the bigger picture. In my version of the tree Family Systems Theory
(Bowen) and Transgenerational Theory (1950s to 1970s) is the trunk - the
parents - including the work of Toman, Bowen (who was influenced by the work of
Toman), and Boszormenyi-Nagy (who was influenced by Bowen for sure - quoted his
work in his books). We can look to Freud, Adler, and Jung as the great
grandparents. Melanie Klein, von Bertalanffy, Norman Paul and other early
family and system researchers as the roots - the grandparents. Hellinger’s
family constellations and other approaches as the branches - the siblings of
the Family Systems family of origin. All the Constellation facilitators
synthesizing the work in many new ways would be the smaller branches off the
main branch for Hellinger’s Family Constellations - the grandchildren and great
grandchildren.
I am always interested in the greater context, how things are interconnected
and interdependent, and what the later ones take from those who came before.
This is what I refer to as honouring the ancestors as integral to my work and
research. As the new generation learns from the earlier ones, Sheldrake’s
morphic resonance comes to mind. The speed with which the new generation learns
what has taken the earlier ones decades to integrate and create. We honour the
extensive commitment and work of the generations that came before. Within one
workshop or within one book, the gems of a lifetime can be rapidly learned by
others and taken into one’s own way of working. With gratitude we receive this
immense gift.
Hello Alison,
Thank you for your idea of constellating the question. It is the way I have
sorted out my research topic and approaches so far in the process. It helped me
to sort out which theoretical frameworks to use and which methodology. It
helped me to look at my own presuppositions, biases, assumptions, beliefs,
metaphysics, and epistemologies, which will be openly revealed in my research.
I feel that constellating becomes a way of life - not separate from - rather a
part of who I am.
Hello Amena,
When I mentioned that "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.” I was not referring to
Hellinger’s personal family of origin ancestry per se, but rather, the ancestry
of the constellation work that evolved through his life. When I trained with
Francesca Mason Boring, I thought it was important when she shared those who
were influential in the development of her way of constellating, including her
indigenous roots that strongly brought in ceremony and ritual. This has a
strong influence in how I work with clients and I honour these ancestors. I
know in organizational constellations it is important to honour the ancestors
or founders of the organization who were instrumental in the development of the
company. We look back without blame and judgement to understand who or what is
missing? Who was harmed by whom? How were earlier employees treated? Is there
any secrets that are silenced? Who wants to be heard or seen? This is what I
mean about the ancestors being integral to my work. I don’t feel there is a
blank slate behind any human being or human organizational system. I feel it is
our own blind spots that don’t allow us to look back at certain situations,
dynamics or people.
As a researcher and genealogist I am interested in the family of origin
ancestry of the person as well. I find that one flows from the other. I looked
back to find out what is provided on the life of Bert Hellinger or what he has
shared with the world. I know that there is much more that has not been shared.
Anyone of a certain public notoriety such as Hellinger, with thousands
following his work around the world, work that is about having compassion for
the emotional journey of the parents and ancestors, then it is a healthy thing
to acknowledge and honour those pieces of his life that were instrumental in
the evolution of the work. Whether we look back with open healthy curiosity and
respect at the family system of others, open to learn without blame or
judgement, or whether we feel the need to protect and not look back, reveals
something we likely need to address within our own family system.
Hellinger's work continues to evolve out of the experiences and opportunities
to learn that present in his life. I am not in any way singling out Hellinger
in this process since I have looked at the ancestral lines of Freud, Adler, and
Jung, wanting to understand what has consciously, and often more significant,
unconsciously driven their work. Thank you for your response.
Hello Zaquie,
Yes, contacting Hellinger myself, a good suggestion which I did think of myself
and it is an action left open on the table. Sometimes the insight of others can
be very revealing though. Hellinger is still alive and I did experience his
work in person in 2012. I may pose some questions to him over the next few
months - through the organization that stands between he and I - when my
thoughts are organized and the relevant questions are formulated. On the other
hand, I may also find that I don’t need to ask him any questions as the
direction of my research evolves.
Thank you to everyone for their wonderful insight and ideas. I know that I
learned much that would not likely have been revealed to me by a direct
question to Bert Hellinger.
Peace and Love,
Patricia
On Mar 6, 2016, at 1:22 AM, Beulah Levinson bubbleslevinson@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
<mailto:pkrobertson22@xxxxxxxxx> [ConstellationTalk]
<ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello Michaelene,
My email address is pkrobertson22@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
<mailto:karenc@xxxxxxxxx> [ConstellationTalk]
<ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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 <http://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 <http://www.realtruelife.com/>
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
<mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 9:21 AM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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/)
<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
<applewebdata://1C313E8B-6E4A-4D86-A682-A8C31B43D5F4/patricia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.peacefulpossibilities.ca <http://www.peacefulpossibilities.ca/>
