PS: One more precision: This phrase is a socio-anthropological statement for
a patrilocal choice and tells us nothing about what to do in a specific
constellation. And like any other piece of knowledge from the humanities,
it's good to know about it, but you don't have to in order to do
constellations. It would even be harmful if you "tried" to apply it - that
would narrow the process.
Hm, I'm not really comfortable with what I wrote about no knowledge from
humanities being absolutely necessary for facilitating constellations. What
would be the crucial knowledge a facilitator has to have beyond from what we
learned by work and publications of constellation people? What else needs to
be included? Or does this already include everything?
I'm very curious what you think...
Best wishes,
Martin
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:24 AM, martin hell <hellsmartin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear all,
I don't know so much about Bert's recent point of view - haven't seen him
for a while. But I was following closely the debate there was on this famous
sentence. It's a recurrent one. I never heard any variants. In German it
goes:
"Die Frau folgt dem Mann, und der Mann dient dem Weiblichen."
so it's
"The woman follows the man, and the man serves the female."
I think we should not use the word "feminine" since it sounds (at least
to me and I'm not a native speaker) like socially constructed gender, which
Bert does mean. He is talking about the archaic forces, and he defines them
somehow in this phrase, and I don't see much reason to think what he points
to finally comes down to a familiar ying-yang conclusion. Although ying-yang
is a beautiful metaphor and makes a lot of sense on its own, no doubt.
So here is my interpretation: Only the woman can give birth, and as s
mother she is absolutely crucial to the baby-child. This gives them an
incredible weight. In order to balance the man-woman relationship, so they
can be truly equal, the man has to furnish a huge service as well. A big as
risking his life for giving birth to a child, which was very dangerous until
very recently. So he has, in this archaic equation, to guarantee the safety
and wellbeing of woman and children to give as much as she gives by being a
mother. This is very difficult, and not to make it any harder for him, she
is supposed to follow him where he can do it best - where he can be of the
greatest service to the nurturing and potentially life-creating power of the
female, but not necessarily service to a potentially capricious feminine
will. Just like "following" is not meant in the sense of hierarchical
submission - both partners are equal if they equally give and take.
Best wishes,
Martin
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Dan Booth Cohen <danbcohen@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
David and All -
Compiling the insights gained from Constellations works well on what Eva
Madelung calls the systemic plane, but is best avoided on the
biographical
plane.
There's a famous thought experiment in moral psychology that considers a
case from the Korean War. A group of about 30 villagers was hiding out
in
the basement of a house. In order to prevent the group's discovery by
enemy
soldiers nearby, and certain death for everyone, a mother smothers her
crying baby. The moral question is about the mother's choice to kill her
baby to save the group as opposed to sacrificing them all in service to
maternal love. Psychologists have designed sophisticated tests to study
moral behavior in such extreme situations.
Systemically, Constellation facilitators can ask a different question
entirely, one that research psychologists cannot touch, but which we can
answer. What would the baby choose in such a situation? Our answer comes
from the experience of many Constellations: We see children
unequivocally
sacrifice themselves to save their parents. In this sense, our
experiences
give us insights into the hidden architecture of love.
On the practical level, if we begin a Constellation with such a
preconception locked into our minds, if we think we know the answer from
the
start, the Constellation is ruined before it begins. In Constellations
revolving around issues of men, women, and relationships, what I see
defies
categorization and generalization. The individuals and couples that come
to
my circles are struggling to endure their relationships. As a
facilitator,
I am rarely concerned with who leads or serves, but simply trying to
allow
them to experience a feeling of relief that unfreezes whatever has
seized
them.
Research psychology is committed to quantitative methods. The
psychologist
Kerlinger wrote, "Scientists are not and cannot be concerned with the
individual case. . . . The unit of speech in science is always the set,
the
group . . . The existential individual, the core of individuality,
forever
escapes the scientist. He is chained to group data, statistical
prediction,
and probabilistic estimates."
By this definition we are not scientists, but systemic philosophers. We
can
say, "Facilitators are and must be concerned with the individual case.
The
unit of speech in Constellations is always a particular person and their
place in the family system."
Dan
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--
Martin Hell (lic.)
Familienwissenschaftler
Abteilung für medizinische Psychologie
Bergheimerstrasse 20
69115 Heidelberg
+49 6221 3271642
+49 176 64112042 (Mobil)
