Heiki:
Thanks for reprinting the Potsdam Declaration. For those of us newer in
constellations, might you also share who authored this, who signed it (not
every name, but rather - all people in attendance at x, etc.,) and what has
become of it since then? That is, do people invoke this regularly? Was it put
aside? Has it become a code of conduct? This would be very helpful.
In general I have appreciated this conversation very much. We do deal with
what could be thought of as esoteric energies and often working with those
kinds of energies conjures up the idea of a cult - blindly following a revered
and feared leader. To see this diversity of opinion shared here, all
respectfully, and in many cases in a very learned manner, says a lot about the
health of this movement. This is heartening to one new in the field.
Katherine Curran
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 20, 2017, at 3:33 PM, Heiki Eesmaa heiki.eesmaa@xxxxxxxxx
[ConstellationTalk] <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Potsdam Declaration on Systemic Constellation Work (revised)
The work with role-playing and constellations has a long tradition in family
and systemic therapy. Such work is rooted primarily in therapeutic techniques
as they were developed in Family Sculpture work or in Psychodrama. In the
form practiced by Bert Hellinger, it has achieved a wider public recognition
that it never had before.
Regrettably, Hellinger has increasingly distanced himself from his original
systemic work. But he is still to be given credit for his contributions in
strengthening constellation work.
Above all, he has developed new and innovative procedures that promise to
resolve the dynamics of entanglements.
However, today we have reached the point where, not only essential parts of
the practice of Bert Hellinger --- and many of his followers ---, but also
many of his statements and procedures are to be regarded explicitly as
incompatible with the fundamental premises of systemic therapy, namely:
* Neglecting to clarify statements and their related directives
* The application of mystifying and "self-immunizing" descriptions
("something greater", "taken into service of . . ." etc.)
* The unqualified use of generalized formulations and dogmatic
interpretations ("always when", "bad effect", "punished with death", "the
only way", "forfeit the right," etc.).
* Employing potentially humiliating interventions and submission rituals ?
* The allegedly compelling linkage of these interventions with specific
models of human types and their associated world views (e.g., regarding
gender issues, parenthood, dual nationalities, etc.)
* The idea that one person can reach a truth that is denied to the other
person. This leads to the use of absolutist terminology and implies that, in
a partnership, it is pointless to strive for cooperation in the relationship.
By contrast, we validate many examples and permutations of constellation
work, all being done in the context of a systemic- constructivist
understanding of therapy, and within the framework of a competent and
responsible therapeutic relationship.
We understand these points as constructive attempts to develop further this
already proven therapeutic technique and also to submit it to more and more
scientific testing.
To that extent we also resist any vague or imprecise criticism of this kind
of practice.
Constellation work "beyond Hellinger" should be developed further as a
therapeutic instrument, but the close connection with his name is not to be
maintained any longer today.
July 2004
