I am pleased at the discussion that has ensued, and think there are many
important things here to explore.
To clarify, one of my originating concerns is the use of shame by constellation
facilitators - for instance, in response to a student asking about something in
the discussion afterwards about a constellation, being told emphatically that
it was a ‘stupid question’.
And yes, there is much shame that emerges in people’s trauma, and that can
therefore get processed in constellations in a healing way.
And, there are also issues of the way constellations are done, and taught. This
overlaps with a wider issue of the practice of psychotherapy. One of the things
that has been learned over the last 50 years is that confrontative styles of
therapy can result in clients experiencing shame. Constellation facilitators
have a range of styles, some of these lean towards the more confrontative. And
because constellation facilitators often assume some degree of interpretive
authority, this can lead to clients/students feeling exposed in ways which can
evoke shame.
The educational consensus these days is that shame not good for learning, yet
some philosophies of experiential learning (including those held by some
constellation facilitators) see that students need to be ‘woken up’ in some
way, and that at times doing that sharply is in service of helping them break
through limited identities or stuck ways of thinking.
In some ways this references contrasting philosophical positions in the field -
such as say that of differentiation and attachment theory. The latter is more
focused on people’s context, their limited circumstances, and their needs,
while the former is more focused on autonomy, choice, self support and the
painfulness needed sometimes for growth. You can see some of these
philosophical threads in constellation theory and practice.
Robert Lee has some particularly good writing on shame - eg The Voice of Shame
(http://www.amazon.com/Voice-Shame-Connection-Psychotherapy-Institute/dp/0881632821/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1458113440&sr=8-2&keywords=robert+lee+shame).
His orientation is that shame monitors and results from a spectrum, from
isolation and exposure on one hand, and community and support on the other.
Growth often requires exposure, but too much can lead to the emergence of shame
- which is a social indicator to pull back. In that sense only shame is simply
a source of information. But of course, repeated experiences of shame,
especially when accompanied by abuse, entanglements etc, lead to shame becoming
a completely toxic experience - a sense that ‘something is wrong with me’. Mild
forms are experienced as embarrassment, which of course is not necessarily
toxic, but this easily escalates with the degree of exposure or isolation into
full blown shame.
I think one thing that is signficant is the need for facilitators to be aware
of shame dynamics, in the process of clients exposure. There is much about the
constellation process which reduces this, including the use of representatives
and the resulting collectivity of the process. However, its something to watch
out for certainly, as it can shut things down very quickly.
Chris’ view of shame as having appropriate and potentially ‘dampening’
qualities I think is fraught. If I think back to instances where I have
experienced shame in my life, including with other professionals (the very well
taken point about the fraughtness of peer supervision for instance that was
made), they are always instances of some degree of trauma, and unfortunately
they tend to be passed on. So if a therapist does something that triggers a
client’s shame, its easy for the therapist to feel shame themselves (even if
nothing is said), and then displace that in unconscious ways back onto the
client, leading to what Lee refers to as a shame spiral. This also happens in
couples relationships.
This is also what is potentially fraught about any exericise of authority.
Doctors and mental health professionals - for instance those who perform
assessments - who maintain a very vertical stance can often inadvertently
shame clients. So to the degree to which constellation works moves away from
the safety of the phenomenological, towards for instance interpretive
authority, this can become a danger.
I certainly think that awareness of these dynamics at all levels is important,
and good to talk about with each other.
Vinay
