Dear Jane and other fellow constellators,
While I personally feel much the same, perhaps because I've never
gotten close enough to Bert for him to trigger whatever father issues
are there, it is clear that he is different things for different
people. While I agree with what you say about the mixing of family and
organizational orders in the abstract, in this case we are dealing
with both kinds of fields. For some folks, he is father - for others
he is founder. Both can rock the boat in their own ways.
It is easy for me to honor Bert as the founder - or at the very least
the conduit - of this profound and satisfying work. I am grateful to
him for the opportunity to participate in the Field. However, it is
hard for me to see him as somehow more than merely human. He strikes
me as a man who has a good bit of charisma and who has perhaps
forgotten that the fascinating places he finds himself in now were
reached by going through where he has been. I believe it would be
difficult for someone to really grasp the depth of the "movements of
the spirit mind" without a grounding in the fundamentals of
Constellation Work.
At an intuitive level, it strikes me as somehow appropriate that there
is a separation of sorts between the SCW facilitators and Bert. It
gives us even greater freedom to continue the exploration of how to
put this set of tools to work.
namaste,
Kenn Day
www.soulsolutionshome.com
On Jun 4, 2008, at 5:50 PM, Jane Peterson wrote:
Dear Wilfried, Soni, Alison, Dan, Hunter, Max and all others who are in
engaged this discussion thread:
I’ve read and appreciate the conversations on constellation talk and
appreciate the risk that individuals take when putting their ideas into a
community forum. Normally I’ve done my best to stay out of these
discussions as I have too much on my plate now. I am perplexed by the
current conversations about Bert, Sophie, ISCA, etc., and decided to enter
CT this once, (and hope I don’t regret it!). Although I personally will not
be able to continue the conversation right now (I’m in the thick of my
dissertation work – hat’s off to you, Dan, for completing), I hope that
perhaps I will be able to read more of the conversations that emerge.
Perhaps my perspective has been strongly colored by the fact that I have
done a fair number of organizational constellations and I have seen
first-hand what happens in organizations of all types when family and
organizational images get mixed. I find myself asking myself the same
questions each time I read these postings.
One question I keep asking myself, and have for many years, is: why do
people speak so ardently of, and/or regard, Bert as “father”? The way
people speak of him goes beyond simple metaphor into adulation. I myself
have a father. He had a difficult life and has since passed from my
ordinary world, and he is my father. I have never looked at Bert in any way
as my “father,” and I’ve known since I first met him that that was a role I
could not give him. Bert Hellinger is, to me, the brilliant, somewhat
enigmatic, founder of a psychotherapeutic approach to systemic issues: a man
who has done truly extraordinary phenomenological research into family
systems and the role of conscience. This research has allowed him to
articulately clearly both the function of conscience in family systems
(“what does it do?”), and the behavioral consequences of conscience in those
systems (“what are the effects?”). The work he founded and articulated has
broad applications in understanding the interpersonal dynamics in many kinds
of human systems. There is still much development of these original
insights yet to explore. I am very, very grateful to Bert, both for the
positive effects his work and insights have had in my own life, and for
providing me with a kind of work that engages my knowledge, skills and
disposition well, and that I enjoy very much. It’s lovely that this work I
love to do seems to have useful effects for those I do it with.
In my life I have been blessed with many wonderful teachers, including those
who have are founders of other works. I am very grateful and indebted to
each of them, including Bert Hellinger. I could not do constellation work
without what I gained and learned from the teachers I encountered before I
met Bert. So I am truly delighted to bow before all of them. If I am
fortunate I will continue to meet other wonderful teachers and I will
continue to learn from others in the rich exchange of ideas and perspectives
that have helped me grow as a human being. None of those teachers, however,
are “parents” for me – not even metaphorically speaking. The teachers I
have been fortunate to spend time with have helped me make something
constructive out of the life my parents gave me. Though it is a common
expression, I find descriptions and discussion about Bert as “father” or
“father/mother” of constellation work surprising in terms of the depth of
passion, ardor and anguish involved.
Whenever “family” ideation gets mixed with “non-family” systemic structures
the possibility for distortion of roles and relationships ensues. Whether
one argues for the benevolent, generous parent view of Bert or the demanding
father view, neither of these can be accurate and these views mix political
and personal worlds in unhealthy and confusing ways.
So, I’ve been wondering as I’ve read these many postings… What would this
conversation look like if no one spoke of Bert as a “father,” and instead we
spoke of him as the “founder” of a particular approach to problems that
arise in human systems? I’m curious how we would have to construct our
conversations if we did not use the word “father” in those discussions?
What would we then be talking about?
Since I’m now writing in CT, I have one more topic to I’d be interested in
hearing others’ thoughts about. Another “confusion” it seems to me from my
perhaps naïve perspective is the tension surrounding the various “forms” of
constellation work. For example, the discussion about “classic” or
“traditional” constellations vs. (fill in the variation of your choice)
movement of the soul, movement of the spirit-mind, chaos or coyote
constellations, blind constellations, ritual constellations, non- facilitated
constellations… and so on.
This seems to be confusing the “forms” with the “essence” of the work
itself. For me constellation work is not any particular “form” or format,
it is a deep and ongoing exploration of the underlying topics that Bert has
articulated so well – understanding what conscience is and how it functions
in systems (and in us), including how it functions in systems over time.
This, combined with new understandings of the complexity of systems, gives
us a rich arena for exploration and development as facilitators. Although
the “forms” expressed by different types of facilitation contain underlying
assumptions about the “work,” it seems that we are free to use different
forms, to experiment with form, to investigate the relationship between
“form” and “the work,” as we are lead to do so. It also seems to me that
there is enough momentum in the field that this experimentation probably
will continue, regardless of what Bert or anyone says is the “proper” form.
If Bert has discovered a new form of the work that expresses certain ideas
well, then I am eager to learn it. I’ve also learned a lot from Sneh’s
coyote constellations, from Fran’s “constellation as ceremony” approach,
from Daan’s approach to inter-group conflicts, and so on. These developments
bring new insights into this field of exploration. Added to this is the
very interesting idea, drawn from the work of the likes of Husserl and
Merleau-Ponty of taking a phenomenological approach to working with the
expressions that arise in representatives. Well, there is much more to say
on these topics.
Thanks for reading.
Many blessings,
Jane
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
