(First of five parts)

Versión en español aquí

Surely if you have done some constellation, you will have heard of what they usually call “systemic principles”.

Hellinger’s proposal (1) offers “order,” “belonging,” and “balance.” Jan Jacob (2) incorporated “origin”. And both decided to leave to what they call “mind-spirit” what they could not explain with the previous ones.

The question is: are these principles really systemic ones? What do they mean? What are they used for in constellations? And where were they born?

In this space we will dedicate some articles to explore this topic.

Let’s start with belonging

The word “pertenecer” (spanish Word for belonging, Tr.Note) is formed from two words per (completely) and tenere (to have). That is to say “to have in full” and refers to property, that is, to the act of possessing. (in english, belong is formed of two elements, be, from the verb to be, an long, and ancient form to express desire and later in time, also express extensive properties, Tr.Note)

And although throughout human history we can see atrocities in our management of “property,” this seems to be more linked to our helplessness than to our sufficiency. Just look at nature, plants and animals take what they need to survive and do not own anything.

Some refer to belonging more as a topic of meaningness, relating to linking.

This is the framework in which constellations use it. And they give it “as a fact”, for example: you were born into a family and you belong to it. You are a collaborator in a company and you belong to it. Then you establish loyalties derived from that linkage.

My original questioning to this concept was when I observed that human beings did not act this way and ended up cracking up when I looked at these “masters” acting different from the preaching of “belonging”.

So back to nature, animals establish “bonds” to survive. The herd, the flock, the shoal are forms of collective association to survive.

And for this it is really important that they contribute with what the collective requires or they will be excluded.

So do human beings, except survival in our case has become a more complex issue from our experiences and constructions.

Then we may think that someone with another skin colour or other preference or other way of thinking puts our survival at risk, when it is not a real threat.

If we look at the issue from the BlumensteinTheory® we humans do not belong.

We do establish links through our contributions. So if we want to form a bond we need to contribute.

Human beings are the environment in which the social system emerges from our contributions. Of which we are 100% responsible.

And then I do not have to blame my Dad or my Mom, neither my great-great-grandfather nor the man who left Aunt Cuquita.

The responsibility is mine. And if I have a good life or not is my responsability too.

So the constellation is not for the facilitator to make magic and emerge a hidden dynamics (to which I see a thousand risks, just listen to stories of bad experiences about it).

The constellation is a way through which we explore our constructions of reality, the contributions we make, the possible meanings of those contributions and, as far as the future is concerned, new alternatives.

Have you constellated recently? Did you see new alternatives? Tell us about your experience!

Katia del Rivero

NOTES

1. Bert Hellinger is known internationally for family constellations. Some confuse him with the creator, but he himself recognizes in one of his books that he learned them from other therapists. Some people think that his therapy is systemic, but he himself speaks of his approach as spiritual. Although I studied with him, I do not consider him my teacher.

2. Jan Jacob Stam is a disciple of Hellinger. Many recognize him and the group he belongs to as a pioneer of organizational constellations. He was my teacher for seven years. I chose to distance myself when I began to question his approach, ever closer to Hellinger’s spiritual gaze, and when, in my eyes, his behavior and teachings had important gaps between the one and the other.