Hey all
I really appreciate hearing all the responses and views. Its given me a lot
more to think about.
One problem I have is with a dynamic thats being expressed - understandably in
a constellation group - regarding judgement vs acknowledgement.
The great strength of the constellation work is its breadth - looking at the
bigger picture, the cultural, family, biological forces organising the
behaviour of a family or individual. We can see the profound
interconnectedness, and understand things which appear to be black and white
(right and wrong) from a much more complex and systemic point of view.
That view, taken more broadly, takes us into the spiritual very easily, the
domain where things just simply 'are', and everyone and everything is
profoundly connected.
Thats a beautiful perspective, and unarguably true at the most basic level.
And, theres a classic error which occurs in the thinking related to just about
any kind of spiritual philosophy, which is to apply systemic thinking too
absolutely.
In the relative world, there is up and down, ethical and unethical, pain and
pleasure. It all depends which way you look at it, true, but if we dont also
reference that point of view, we get a kind of moral relativism which can be
just as dangerous as ignoring the systemic facts of correspondence and
complexity.
I am not an advocate for reductionism.
And, I think that some of the comments about judgement are making this kind of
error I am speaking of.
The human mind depends on judgement to orient in the world. We can indeed move
to a more synthetic way of looking at things, but its only at moments (as a
gift) that our judgement gets suspended. Theres nothing fundamentally wrong
with maps of any sort, as long as you dont mistake them for reality.
So I disagree with some of the comments about moving beyond judgement.
Its true, judgement generally results in condemnation, shaming, and all the
multiple things which dont work in relationship. But judgement can also be used
benevolently. I make many judgements, moment by moment, in facilitating a
constellation; although I am flexible and responsive to what occurs, those
judgement are useful guides. They are based on my understanding of systemic
principles, my own experience, what the reps are saying...etc. But they are
indeed judgements.
Perhaps people are talking more specifically about negative judgements, which
are used to put others in the bad guy category. Its true, systemics helps us
step away from that kind of linear blame.
And, I think if we are too dogmatic about a systemic view, we can move away
from individual responsiblity and choice. Despite systemic influences, we are
in the end, choosing beings - viz Frankl. Surely constellation work is not
proposing that theres not really free will!
So I think its dangerous to simply sweep away Allen's actions with terms such
as 'love', to excuse it somehow because Soon-Yi has unknown loyalty binds, or
to compare it with a relationship between two people 10 years apart.
Sure, if Woody or Soon-yi, or Mia, came to do a constellation, I would put on
my systemic hat, to see what is revealed, for the purpose of transformation.
But none of them seem to have evidenced that interest. And no, I am not
suggesting we try to constellate them to find out whats going on.
I am more interested in the interface between systemic understanding and the
knowledge that - plain and simple - a man (who is a public figure) 35 years
senior to a 15 year old, who he knew as an adoptee since the start of her
pubescence is a relationship which is questionable in terms of the power
dynamics, and the resemblance to what we socially define as abuse. I would not
imagine that anyone on this list would disagree with laws that forbid sexual
abuse of all forms. Thats a strong and essential social judgement, which sets
a social standard.
We can be semantic and say cause she was 15 at the time its not really abuse.
Ok, its not abuse, but its not just a kind of systemically neutral situation
either. At times like this, cant non-judgement be a cop out from making it
clear socially what is ok? I am asking these questions, not didactically, but
in a searching/challenging kind of a way.
On an oblique but related note - the recent banning of several olympic
atheletes for racist tweets. These are public figures, who have power and
influence by virtue of their position. And clear judgements are made, and clear
actions taken, to signal what is not ok.
So why would we apply this to Woody's actions, as a very public filmaker, about
matters of relationship, family and sexuality?
I think understanding has a place. And I think clear boundaries have a place.
Ah, but where and how do the two meet, thats my question to each of you..
Vinay
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
