Dear Deborah and others,
Thank you for this discussion. I too witnessed the discontinued
constellation with Angelika and walked away confused and assuming
that I had missed a significant element.
In my training and experience, the necessity for doing work is that
the client has an issue which directly impacts his or her life. This
impact and the request of the client is what gives us a mandate to
work with them. It is not our place to manage the client. We are
neither omnipotent nor omniscient and we will make mistakes. It's
inevitable. Only by accepting that and moving forward in good faith,
can I do effective work in service to my client.
So I find the perspective that I feel I'm hearing from some
facilitators rather confusing. It seems that there is an opinion that
we should get permission from both partners before doing work with
one. If a married person who was in an abusive relationship came to
me to have work done, should I hold off until and unless I get
permission from their abusive spouse? Will the work we do with one
partner change things for both people and the whole system? Well -
that's the whole idea, isn't it?
I have the greatest respect for Stephan Hausner, and I was not
present for the statement attributed to him about not working with
one person because spiritual progress on their part might damage the
relationship. To that statement, I would have to say, it's not my
business as the facilitator to judge what is good or bad. My place is
to help the hidden dynamics come to light in a way that eases
whatever issues the client has presented.
I look forward to further discussion.
namaste,
Kenn
On Oct 22, 2007, at 1:31 PM, Deborah Gavrin Frangquist wrote:
Dear Everyone,
I am very glad this question has come up here. In over 7 years of
constellation experience, I had never witnessed a facilitator refuse to
work with one partner without the consent of the other, and I was quite
startled (witnessing the same constellation with Angelika to which
Francis referred) when it came up. I talked with her and with Francis
later, and I received insight into their perspective, but I have
remained uncomfortable with what I took to be complete unwillingness to
facilitate a constellation for one member of a couple without the
explicit permission of the other member.
Barbara's and Johannes' posts below address the fact that people marry
into each other's systems, and we as facilitators must understand that
we are working with that enlarged system. Yet even in the special
relationship of marriage, each one remains also a separate person who
can take individual responsibility within the marriage, including
responsibility for how my relationships within my family of origin
affect my behavior with my husband (as well as my behavior with my
children).
I would not facilitate a constellation that was primarily intended to
create change for someone not in the room/not requesting facilitation,
but I cannot imagine constellation work without the acknowledgment that
change for the client will of course affect others with whom the client
interacts. I do my best to make that clear in interviews and in
facilitation.
Another point to consider is that, for women from many countries,
including for me, there is special sensitivity because we lost civil
rights when we married - rights such as receiving financial credit in
our own names, the right to make contracts, establish domicile, etc.
Although the laws in the United States have changed since I married in
1968, and I understand they have changed in most other countries as
well, the social attitudes are still very much in transition, and what
we as women had internalized about whether it was even okay for us to be
ourselves is even slower to change. So to me it is very important how I
frame the conversation about the reality that when one partner changes,
that is a change within the system and will affect the other partner as
well. As Barbara points out, change triggered by the internal work of
one partner is at least as likely to be good for the couple as to be
problematic. I would add that, especially in a long marriage (I have
been married 39 years), the marriage is more likely to remain alive, a
context in which love flows freely, when each of us takes responsibility
for "dealing with my own stuff" than when we always wait for the other
partner to be totally in step before we take action - including action
toward personal growth.
Deborah Frangquist
Barbara Eggenberger wrote:
Dear Johannes,
As the representative for the wife in this constellation, I felt tremendous relief when my husband's rep. engaged with his father. I felt immediate release from what felt like a deep entanglement. After that exchange, my husband's rep. engaged with me more directly and that engagement lead to both of us meeting each other in a different way. We both gave a little and came together in an exciting new way. How would you have done it differently?
It seems to me that one order of this work is that what my ancestors do not deal with does affect those who come after them. People who marry enter each other's systems and become entangled or impacted by the energetic blocks in that system. Love doesn't flow. If one partner refuses to address her system issues and the other partner is impacted by that blockage, how is it wrong for the aware partner to bring it up as a problem?
Thanks so much for your engagement,
Barbara
I understand what you mean when you say this focusing on the partner's need to work on himself is damaging but only if the focus is defensive and a projection, i.e., a way to avoid one's own issue. When the concern is valid and sincere, as I experienced it to be in this case, then a lot of good can come of it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Johannes B. Schmidt
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 1:02 AM
Subject: [SPAM]AW: [SPAM]AW: [ConstellationTalk] Confidentiality!
Dear Barbara,
In the constellation you mention the issue was pushed away from the client
onto the non-present partner. One could get the impression that one is
looking at the partner's issue whereas we can only work with the issue in
the room, which is a client's presentation.. The issue in the room was the
question of the woman that her partner is resistant to the idea of
self-development. This was this woman's view of the situation, who obviously
had the idea in mind that a partner needs to work on himself. This is a very
common and often damaging question in itself that does more harm to
relationships than any constellation. And this is what one works on. In the
constellation we finally got a little interaction that affected this woman
and thus, kind of, returned the issue back to her inner process luckily
ensued.
I usually take care that participants understand that a constellation
depicts an inner process and that a constellation never shows the totality
of a couple relationship. A constellation shows the currently activated
critical percentage of a burning question in a couple relationship as one of
the partner's is struggling with or as they both cam to picture their issue.
It can not show the totality as it is driven by the instantaneous activated
issue at hand of a client. Whenever I work with a couple I point that out
and they immediately understand. The non-activated, positive aspects do not
appear at that moment as the focus is shifted to this one particular aspect.
And, no matter what is written here, the effectiveness of an intervention
depends on the inner condition of the intervenor. So what you think about
couples will colour the constellational set-up and the processes you get.
Hope this clarifies a little bit.
Best
Johannes
_____
Von: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Barbara
Eggenberger
Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. Oktober 2007 00:11
An: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [SPAM]AW: [ConstellationTalk] Confidentiality!
Dear Johannes and all,
I find what you say here so enlightened and affirming for how I feel myself,
however, I was under the impression in Ed Lynche's workshop on couples at
the conference that you were upset with him for setting up the husband when
the husband wasn't there and also for the wife divulging personal
information about her husband in his absence.
What's the difference? If it is all about her anyway, what was it you seemed
upset about?
Confused,
Barbara
----- Original Message -----
From: Johannes B. Schmidt
To: ConstellationTalk@ <mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:04 AM
Subject: [SPAM]AW: [ConstellationTalk] More Recording !
Dear David, dear all,
interesting discussion.
I understand e v e r y constellation as the set-up of an inner process of
the client ! This, in fact, means that nothing is ever revealed about your
family. What is presented is what kind of inner image or relationship a
person developed with regard to Her/his family.
A constellation does not reflect the reality of a family. Content is the
most unreliable part of a constellation. A constellation, I am repeating
myself, shows what kind of inner image developed in a client in his personal
history about his family. Reliable are the QUALITIES that show up but not
the actually related story. I can refer countless stories about that. Hope
everybody makes sure that this becomes a common understanding in the
American field.
Sometimes, the inner image does coincide with some seemingly "objective"
aspect of the real life situation. All the better. In my opinion, whatever
is on the tape reflects internal aspects in this specific (videotaping)
situation, with this particular facilitator, with the particular inner state
of the client in mind, with the particular group of people present. This
should be somehow related to the viewer. In Germany exactly this
misunderstand led to devastating press coverage by the press. By the way,
the same holds true for every story, sorry constellation, you may read in
Bert Hellinger's books.
About facilitators: My experience is that we are living in a time where many
conventional boundaries dissolve. We need no professionals who hide behind
their expertise, role, knowledge, papal infallibility or whatever. The more
I show my own vulnerability in constellations seminars, constellation
trainings, or any other "professional" settings the more people can be human
themselves, open up and engage in a profound inner process that they
experience as highly rewarding. Therapists, facilitators, consultants,
priests, social workers, counsellors, etc. need to be within themselves at a
place where they expect their clients to get to. I hope we will get many,
many tapes of American facilitators who display their own vulnerability to
the public and thus help to create a field of honesty, humbleness,
authenticity and existential humanness that becomes contagious within the
whole field and inspires people to trust their hunger for the same kind of
process.
In this sense I hope the American facilitators will be soon ahead of their
European colleagues.
Finally, to quote the (in-)famous Chris Walsh and his Killer- Koala: "Hasta
la Vista"
So long
Johannes B. Schmidt
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ConstellationTalk@ <mailto:ConstellationTalk% 40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@ <mailto:ConstellationTalk% 40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von sheila saunders
Gesendet: Samstag, 20. Oktober 2007 18:31
An: constellationtalk@ <mailto:constellationtalk%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
Betreff: RE: [ConstellationTalk] Recording
David, and other readers,
Thanks so much for continuing this dialogue. I think it is an important one
and I hope that others will weigh in on it. As for the release I sent a copy
of, yes, there is a contradiction, one that is clearly identifed in the
document with the word "notwithstanding", which means "in spite of,
nevertheless, however, although." i.e. both things exist in the presence of
the other.
The tapes of Bert's work dating back to the mid 90's have been an essential
aspect of how I learned the work when I started. There was little writing at
the time and these tapes provided the only opportunity next to workshop
attendance, to learn from the source of Bert's own learning, and from where
he developed his understanding about The Orders of Love. In these tapes, I
have seen the personal pieces of a number of US facilitators, myself
included. If a potential client saw me work and decided I was not the person
they wanted to work with, they have made the best decision for us both. A
client always has the prerogative of working with or not working with me and
lack of confidence based on their interpretation of who I am or who I'm not
after seeing me do some personal work, is as good a reason as any. When my
shame around my own work or issues comes up, I deal with it, realizing it is
about me, not about any other person. Keeping my issues under wraps because
of it only fuels it.
This does not mean that I would work anywhere with anyone under any
circumstances. I make some discrimination about this, and still have been
fortunate to have had many opportunities to work, all in the presence of
peers, colleagues or strangers, some of it taped. In general, though my
issue is highly personal to me, it is rarely personal for anyone else. I
become vulnerable in relation to my response to an issue or when faced with
the opportunity for resolution. All the inter- and intra- psychic dynamics
or historical events so exhaustively explored in conventional therapy, give
more opportunity for the client to wallow around in their own ego -
something I would REALLY not want on tape! (In fact, it is often when
someone is operating out of ego, that their objection to being on tape is
greatest). I have come to realize that it is not in the issue, but rather
in my ability to take steps towards the resolution, that is a greater
measure of my character, and the area which demands the most courage and in
which I reveal my vulnerability. It is also the most important aspect of
developing myself as a guide for others on a similar road.
As for my family, gosh, if I had recordings of all of the kavetching I have
done about each and every member of my family of origin over the years, I
could lay a road to China. I wasn't worried about their confidentiality
then. Slander, pure and simple, all of it. So now, when I am looking in a
serious way, at the outcome of events that my family members/ ancestors
experienced and endured, I use my own inner compass to determine whether or
not I have permission to proceed; and if I may proceed, I make every effort
to do so with respect, openness and non-judgment. I am also discriminating
about who I ask to assist me in my process, seeking out those who use a
well-developed maturity and inner compass to guide them as well.
Sorry I wasn't more concise. All the best, sheila
Sheila Saunders, RN, LMFT www.systemicfamilysolutions.com
2007 US Conference on Systemic Constellations www.constellationsusa.com
PO Box 1011 Weaverville, North Carolina 28787
828-273-5015
Be realistic; expect a miracle.
But be patient.
The impossible takes slightly longer than the difficult.
To: ConstellationTalk@ <mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>yahoogroups.com> From: david@innersuccess.
<mailto:david%40innersuccess.net.au> net.au>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:18:13 +1000> Subject: [ConstellationTalk]
Recording Guidelines> > Thanks Sheila, for posting this document re
recording guidelines. But > I have a dilemma.> > I do have my own issues re
confidentiality, I am very sensitive about > this. So I own up to this! But;
I think there is a conflict in the > document that was posted, and I guess
anything that is used for > educational purposes, it still seems like a
breach of confidentiality > to me.> > Confidentiality is such a big issue.
We can consent to recording > constellations, but I suppose we need to
consent for our family as > well, or maybe get permission from all of them
before hand. Our > families usually figure pretty strongly in our
constellations! > Getting permission from our families seems similar to
getting > permission to doing the constellation in the first place, but thepermission is for something different.> > I have pasted below the twoparagraphs I feel are in conflict in the > document posted by Sheila.> > *I
understand that confidentiality concerning all attendees and their >
situations as presented in the group is expected and required. I > hereby
agree to refrain from discussing the work outside of the > workshops, except
in such a way that each participant's identity > remains confidential.> >
*Notwithstanding any previous statement, I also consent to the > conference
sessions being audio or video taped, and for the ensuing > copies to be used
for educational purposes, by myself and by others > who purchase such
copies. > > David.> > Melbourne, Australia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
Deborah Gavrin Frangquist
Careers & Workplaces for Real People
415-346-6121
www.DeborahFrangquist.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
