This message bounced back at me so I will try resending. Sorry if it is a
repeat for anyone.
On Mar 23, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Patricia Robertson
<patricia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you Sheila for this great example - I read this a few years ago. I
believe it is somewhat like the idea of Malcolm Gladwell’s tipping point, or
Sheldrake’s morphic resonance, where the attainment of a critical mass which
can be a small number of a whole population suddenly shifts the energy field,
setting learning and expansion in motion beyond regions, borders, and
continents.
I continue to hope that the diligent work of the systemic constellation
community will reach it’s 99 monkey level - when the world will suddenly
understand and embrace the benefits of looking beyond an individual’s issue,
symptom or condition to the bigger ancestral picture. At Stephan Hauser’s
workshop in LA last week we were able to experience this way of learning
first hand. A master teacher shares the gems of their decades of learning,
not always knowing all the many ancestral roots of the knowledge, and yet the
new learner absorbs it quickly and is able to integrate this rich wealth of
knowledge into their own practice to share with others.
Warm regards,
Patricia
On Mar 23, 2016, at 9:47 AM, sheila saunders <peacefulcentre@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:peacefulcentre@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Patricia,
I have been reading back over this thread, and Tiiu's post in particular
reminded me of this: I think the story of "the hundredth monkey" is relevant
to your topic. I take this quote from Ken Keyes, Jr.'s book the hundredth
monkey (who likely got is from Lyall Watson's Lifetide referenced below:
"The Japanese monkey, Macaca fuscata, has been observed in the wild for a
period of over 30 years.
In 1952, on the island of Koshima scientists were provided monkeys with
sweet potatoes dropped in the sand. The monkeys likes the taste of the raw
sweet potatoes, but they found the dirt unpleasant.
An 18-month-old female named Imo found she could solve the problem by
washing the potatoes in a nearby stream. She taught this trick to her
mother. Her playmates also learned this new way and they taught their
mothers. too.
This cultural innovation was gradually picked up by various monkeys before
the eyes of the scientists.
Between 1952 and 1958, all the young monkeys learned to wash the sandy sweet
potatoes to make them more palatable.
Only the adult who imitated their children learned this social improvement.
Other adults kept eating the dirty sweet potatoes.
Then something startling took place. In the autumn of 1958, a certain
number of Koshima monkeys were washing sweet potatoes- the exact number is
not known.
Let us suppose that when the sun rose one morning there were99 monkeys on
Koshima Island who had learned to wash their sweet potatoes.
Let's further suppose that later that morning, the hundredth monkey learned
to wash potato.
THEN IT HAPPENED!
By that evening almost everyone in the tribe was washing sweet potatoes
before eating them.
The added energy of this hundredth monkey somehow created an ideological
breakthrough!
But notice. The most surprising thing observed by these scientist was that
the habit of washing sweet potatoes then spontaneously jumped over the sea-
Colonies of monkeys on other islands and the mainland troop of monkeys at
Takasakiyama began washing their sweet potatoes!*
(*Lifetide by Lyall Watson, pp. 147-148. Bantam Books, 1980. This book gives
other fascinating details. [I would quote more from Lifetide, but suffice it
to say, Lyall Watson is one of my favorites, and ANY book he has written is
well worth the read] )
Thus, when a certain critical number achieves an awareness, this new
awareness may be communicated from mind to mind.
Although the exact number may vary, the Hundreth Monkey Phenomenon means
that when only a limited number of people know of a new way, it may remain
the consciousness property of these people.
But there is a point at which if only one more person turns-in to a new
awareness, a field is strengthened so that this awareness reaches almost
everyone!
The experiments of Dr. J.B.Rhine at Duke University repeatedly demonstrated
that individuals can communicate private information to each other even
thought located in different places.
We now know that the strength of this extrasensory communication can be
amplified to a powerfully effective level when the consciousness of the
"hundredth person" is added."
Great to meet you last week, and looking forward to reading more as your
project ensues.
All the best, sheila
Sheila Saunders RN, LMFT
828.273.5015
PO Box 1011
Weaverville, NC 28787
www.systemicfamilysolutions.com <http://www.systemicfamilysolutions.com/>
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 13:04:12 -0700
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Ancestry of Hellinger's Family
Constellations
Hello Barbara,
Thank you for your suggestions. I do have Issue 7 of the Knowing Field and
find the details to be more extensive in Love’s Hidden Symmetry or on the
Wiki site created by the Constellation family. Hellinger’s own website
Hellinger.com <http://hellinger.com/> has some basic details as well. At the
current time, no speculations have been made or will be made. Gathering
information is my intent - and the intent behind my question was whether
anyone in the Constellation Talk community had any experience or knowledge
of Hellinger ever mentioning Toman and Bowen as influences, whether in print
or in person or otherwise. As I have learned through this systemic work, we
can have many influences in our lives that we are not consciously aware of
ourselves and yet they still impact our lives significantly.
More than learning a detail or two that Hellinger might share with me at
this point in time (and I will attempt to communicate with him as it seems
relevant), I want to be open to learn through all the unconscious aspects
shared through his way of working with others. I believe that reading the
lines, and reading between the lines, of each of his books, and/or watching
the many DVDs I have of his work, is part of understanding the bigger
picture, a journey into understanding other perspectives of the man. I feel
this is reflected through constellations themselves. I find that we set up a
constellation and work within the The Knowing Field to gain new insight, a
new image, or a new perspective. Many times an individual has not connected
one thing, one situation, or one person to another in time or space.
It is somewhat like those moments of great inspiration when we think we have
developed a whole new concept or idea, only to discover that it was
developed by others two decades earlier. It just hadn’t hit our radar screen
yet. We mention our brilliant idea to a colleague or friend and they tell us
we should read up on so and so. I guess that is why the more we know, the
more we realize we don’t know. As others have suggested, perhaps Toman and
Bowen were not explicit influences of Hellinger, since they are not listed
by him as the most important influences in Love’s Hidden Symmetry, however,
their influence may be unrecognized. I have just realized myself how much
the work of Toman and Bowen lives within my work as a facilitator and I
value this realization. This doesn’t minimize the importance of the
contributions made by Hellinger in any way. I make room in my heart for each
ancestor I discover.
I am, however, aware that we have our blind spots that keep us from looking
at some aspect of ourselves that may be revealed through interaction and
relationship with others. Each of us has one perspective on the world and
the more sources consulted (the members of Constellation Talk being valuable
sources) the greater body of perspectives that is gathered and the more rich
and detailed the picture that develops. My research is intentionally
transdisciplinary to bring together many perspectives from many fields and
disciplines. I don’t want to limit my ways of knowing the development of
transgenerational theory and transgenerational trauma.
Warm regards,
Patrica
On Mar 7, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Barbara Morgan theknowingfield@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:theknowingfield@xxxxxxxxx> [ConstellationTalk]
<ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I agree with Zacquie. More than appropriate, I think it is respectful and
necessary to at least attempt to ask Bert himself. If you get no reply then
you could refer to his brief biography in issue 7 of The Knowing Field.
Making speculations without checking them out is how history becomes
distorted.
Best wishes
Barbara Morgan
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Mar 2016, at 14:45, "Michael Reddy michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [ConstellationTalk]"
<ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello Patricia,
Please do take a look at Jodorowsky and Costa's book METAGENEOLOGY--SELF
DISCOVERY THROUGH PYSCHOMAGIC AND THE FAMILY TREE.
This is a very well-developed theory and practice centered around
understanding and healing intergenerational influences. it apparently grew
up in Paris in the 70's. There are a lot of profound similarities to and
yet also substantial differences from Hellinger's synthesis.
If we truly acknowledge the larger collective "souls" that as individuals
are are part of, it should not be surprising that great ideas bubble up
simultaneously as the zeitgeist evolves.
Best,
Michael
Michael Reddy, PhD, CPC, ELI-MP
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 610 469 7588 <>
www.reddyworks.com <http://www.reddyworks.com/>Relieving Chronic
Emotional/Physical Suffering using
Family Constellations | Core Energy Coaching | EFT | Shamanism
<HHFC Cover Thumb Signature.jpg>
<http://www.reddyworks.com/reddy-writes/michaels-books>
<http://www.reddyworks.com/reddy-writes/michaels-books>
On Mar 4, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Patricia Robertson pkrobertson22@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:pkrobertson22@xxxxxxxxx> [ConstellationTalk] wrote:
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/%29>, 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
<mailto:patricia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.peacefulpossibilities.ca <http://www.peacefulpossibilities.ca/>
