Dear Barbara,
That's an interesting question. As you know, there are many different
views about what representatives' reactions in a constellation
actually mean and how to utilize them.
I support a very phenomenological position. Phenomenologically, when
representatives turn around it the only thing I can know for sure is
that the representatives turn around. Any additional meaning it may
carry must emerge from the constellation itself.
According to this position, any other meaning it may have should not
be imposed on it from our previous experiences in other
constellations. Obviously there are patterns that repeat over and over
again, and our previous experiences in other constellations are a part
of what we get paid for to facilitate, but I feel strongly that we
need to remain methodologically "clean" and treat all interpretations
as hypotheses. The only source of knowledge about the meaning of a
movement comes for the constellation itself.
If you watch the tapes from Hellinger's early USA trips, you will see
the same representatives appearing in different cities. You will
notice that some representatives react to any systemic turbulence with
a favored reaction. Some fall down, some start to sway or shake, some
get weak. Once we noticed this repetitive pattern in representative
reactions, we became very cautions about interpretations.
There is a concept from phenomenology that Erv Polster, a well known
Gestalt therapist, picked up called "bracketing". That means that the
facilitator suspends any interpretation as much as he or she can.
So, this is most likely more than you wanted to know, but your
question gave me an opportunity to raise this issue in the forum. I
saw that you have already received some suggestions about how to
interpret it, but my recommendation nevertheless is not to interpret
at all (ultimately not possible, I know, so let's say as little as
possible). That is, I recommend not trying to know, but to remain open
and curious about the possible meanings. Premature knowing closes down
curiosity and diminishes the openness of the knowing field.
This by the way, is a place where Bert has been inconsistent in his
teaching. At some times he has eloquently defended the
phenomenological position, and then at other times, he has abandoned
it all together. I don't think it is necessary to be consistent, but I
have seen that many students have been confused and haven't noticed
this inconsistency in his work.
Just to be clear, I realize that many very skillful facilitators see
this point differently than I do, so I am not saying that the position
I am defending is the RIGHT one, but I have found it to be a huge
support in helping me to protect myself and my clients from the
grandiosity that haunts the constellation work field. I feel safest in
a certain kind of unknowing.
Thanks for the question. I hope that it opens a fruitful discussion.
Hunter
On 30.05.2008, ad 22:41, Barbara Eggenberger wrote:
I have a question about what it means in a constellation when
someone is
slowly turning around and around as if looking in all directions?
Someone
once said that it is an indication of a perpetrator and if that is
so, can
someone explain it to me? For instance, does it mean that person is
representing a perpetrator or is looking for one? Also, what is an
appropriate response? I have had this show up in three separate cases
recently and though I was able to reach resolution, I find myself
feeling
uneasy that I might be missing something important.
Logo
www.barbaraeggenberger.com
916.484.5016 503.727.2595
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
