"My point is that competence in this field is not synonymous with
training, though I am extremely grateful for the training we received.
It is a necessary but not sufficient precursor to competence."
Kenn, you've put it so well. This issue is not specific to constellation
work at all, although it certainly relates to the conversations we have
had here about gateways and about certification. I believe that active
participation with others in the field, over time, is also a necessary
aspect of competence. Such participation may be as a trainer, as a
trainee, or - specifically in our work - as a representative with other
facilitators. It also occurs in /The Knowing Field/, in this online
forum, at conferences and intensives, and in other ways. The
phenomenological approach is in many ways a refutation of "expertise" as
it exists in the dominant educational paradigm - which also contributes
to the incomprehension we sometimes encounter when we try to explain
constellation work within that paradigm.
And then of course there is practice. There is a story that Pablo
Casals still practiced the cello daily when he was in his 90s. Pema
Chodron and Jack Kornfeld and all the others still meditate daily (a
lot). We all do well to practice a lot - whether we do that in workshop
groups, in ad hoc groups, in individual sessions, or any other way.
Happy New Year to all - here on the west coast of the U.S. we still have
nearly 8 hours of 2012 left.
Deborah
*Deborah Gavrin Frangquist
Career & Life Design for Professionals, Artists & Executives
**415-346-6121; mobile 415-642-0225*
www.ChosenFutures.com <http://www.chosenfutures.com/>
On 12/31/2012 2:27 PM, kenn day wrote:
Michael, Dan and Company,
Some interesting things arising here lately. I tend to read when I can
and respond rather tersely. This is one point that seems to need to be
made though: while training is very helpful, no amount of training can
instill competence if the practitioner lacks the necessary sensitivity
to the field, or the capacity to see beyond their own issues into the
field of the client.
My wife and I attended what probably remains the most exhaustive and
intense training available in SCW. Six full weeks of work over a two
year period, with extensive personal work in between. Our trainer was
Heinz Stark, who is a master of the form and an excellent teacher as
well. This is to say that we had every opportunity to take in and to
excel in the presentation of Constellation Work. In spite of this,
there were those from our group who appeared at the end of the
training to still be somewhat lacking in competence.
On the other hand, we were introduced to the system by a dear friend
who had only encountered it a short time before we met in Cornwall.
She was able to perform competently without any formal training and
only a limited exposure, because she has the capacity to do so.
My point is that competence in this field is not synonymous with
training, though I am extremely grateful for the training we received.
It is a necessary but not sufficient precursor to competence.
What do the rest of you think?
namaste,
Kenn Day
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 31, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Michael Reddy <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:michael%40reddyworks.com>> wrote:
Dan and All,discussion. Deborah, I also agree completely about the paradigm shift
Thanks to everyone for the wonderful contributions to this
aspect of this. I've written in TKF about this, and will share that
with you privately.
Is it just anecdotal or what? I mean it seems too vague to be useful
On Dec 31, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Dan Booth Cohen, PhD wrote:
Only about 1 in
10 trainees achieves competence.
Dan, first, I'd be interested to know where you get this statistic.
as stated. So second, I would like to know, to belong to your
population of "trainees" here, what is required? Consider the
following very different groups that could all be labelled "trainees."
each over aournd 6-9 months. Does no reading, nor any kind of practice
GROUP A--attends for example something like 3 sessions of 3 days
exercises duirng this time. Is really more there for the personal healing.
else forms a clear intention to facilitate, reads, and faithfully does
GROUP B--attends about the same 18 days of training, already has or
any assigned reading, exercises, or practicing
practice, now adding a second lengthy training, or else at least three
GROUP C--same 18 days, plus clear intention, plus excercises and
to four 2 or 3 day workshops with different facilitators.
private practice-constellations for friends and relatives, and/or
GROUP D--Does everything listed for Group C, but also starts doing
gathering the same friends and relatives for small group experiments.
May not charge for these.
regularly for at least a year an organized "practice group" of
GROUP E--Does all of the above, plus has access to and attends
fledgling facilitators who take turns working on each other
broadest sense of GROUP A achieves competence, that's one thing--and
So, Dan, if you want to say that 1 out of 10 "trainees" in the
it may be true. But we all know that many come to trainings and don't
really form a clear intention to facilitate. They are getting personal
healing and/or testing the waters. Of course, it would be great to
know what proportion of people "just testing" this really is. And
maybe the quality of the trainings and a sense that facilitating is
difficult scares some away from forming the clear intention.
in the smaller Group C category don't achieve competence? And what are
But now, are you still claiming that 1 out of 10 "trainees" who are
you asserting about proportions of those in Group D and Group E who do
or do not achieve competence?
preceeding activities, now adding some active professional supervision
(Notice that I did not yet include a GROUP F, which includes all
afterwards).
statement, as opposed to just something that sounds very depressing,
It seems to me that, in order to make your assertion into a useful
at least this kind of clarity around what constitutes "training" must
be achieved. Not to mention even yet, what your standards are for what
constitutes "competence."
depressing statements about our work go unchallenged--especially from
Something in me does not want to let poorly conextualized, very
someone of your stature. They can further deter people from wanting to
try to learn in the first place, which I do not feel is what we want.
We want people to want to learn, and we want very much to get better
at the training, and at achieving felxible, but real consensus about
what constittutes "competence."
a person become competent at private constellations without doing a
OK, now, another set of questions comes up for me here as well. Can
lot of work in groups? Can a person become competent at private
constellations without at least practicing group constellations for a
time? While I agree that the form needs to be liberated fromt he
group-only connection--I'm not sure it can be wholly independent of
group work. Could you have learned what you do privately without
facilitating a lot of group constellations (at whatever level of
competence)?
Best,
Michael
Michael Reddy, PhD, CPC, ELI-MP
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:michael%40reddyworks.com>
610 469 7588
www.reddyworks.com
Holistic Health & Happiness
DIAL IN TO OUR FREE, WEEKLY, QUESTION & ANSWER
TELECONFERENCE--THE CONSTELLATION CALL
Q&A on Family Constellations and Coaching
Tuesdays 8-8:45 PM EST
(530) 216 4363 PIN 481775#
What is The Constellation Call?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
