Issue 30, June 2017
- Barbara Morgan: Editorial
- Bert Hellinger: Guilty, too
IN THE SPOTLIGHT
- Diana Claire Douglas: In conversation with Francesca Mason Boring
- HISTORY OF NATIONS, CULTURES & RELIGIONS
- Anngwyn St. Just: Battle of the Burkini: Hypocrisy Galore
- Harrison Snow: Facilitating at the Intersection of Social and Personal Change
- Gwladys Jousselme, PhD.: The Abortion Wound
- Francesca Mason Boring: Sacred Representation
- Christopher Beattie: Supporting Movement of the Soul: Walking Paths that Diverge and Converge. Part I: Hellinger's Axiom re Reciprocity in Relationships
- Steve Vinay Gunther: Ethics
- Bruce Nayowith: Thoughts on a recent Constellation Talk discussion
- Anon: Hellinger's Children
- Richard Griffin: The Pasture
- Max Dauskardt: A Constellation at Bad Reichenhall, Germany
- Dr. Chris Walsh: Confessions of a Corporate Shaman by Harrison Snow
- Jane Jame: Systemic Coaching and Constellations: The Principles, practices and applications for individuals, teams and groups by John Whittington
- Shirley Bennett Tormey: I am We
- Shirley Bennett Tormey: Resurrection
- Jamie Hasenfus: Dreams of Chaos
- Jamie Hasenfus: Connecting Threads
Issue 30, June 2017
“You’re guilty.” People who say something like this to another person become guilty, too. What happens in individuals who pronounce someone guilty? By rejecting someone they are identifying with the guilty person, even though it may not look like this on the surface. In rejecting the guilty person and their guilt they show that they are fascinated by and attracted to what has occurred. Otherwise they could just leave the guilty person alone. But there is a fascination by their own guilt, which they are not facing, for that would cause fear. By pronouncing someone else guilty, they pronounce themselves – the part inside that does feel guilty – not guilty.
So under what kind of circumstances do people become interested in someone else’s guilt, perhaps even with a strange fervour? Do they need a guilty person in order to feel better about themselves? What would happen in their soul if they left the guilty person alone without judging, if on the outside they did not speak about it to others, and on the inside they did not respond with curiosity and emotional involvement? By pronouncing someone else guilty, people obviously become guilty as well.
Battle of the Burkini: Hypocrisy Galore
Anngwyn St. Just
Objections to the Burkina also assert that this full-bodied swimwear could risk disrupting public order during a time when France is in the aftermath of ongoing targeted terror attacks, supposedly by ‘The Islamic State’ and currently undergoing a perpetual State of Emergency, and therefore this swimsuit presents ‘security issues’. Here the mind boggles, since I cannot quite see how a suicide-bombing apparatus could be successfully concealed beneath a burkini, especially since anyone’s beach bag would do nicely. Nevertheless, the madness continues and in keeping with this highly charged political climate, it is alleged that such traditional garb displays a loyalty with terrorist attacks which makes no sense given that in Nice, among those 86 who were allegedly killed, were 30 Muslims wearing traditional attire. Given our proverbial human nature, such as it is, this irrational hysteria is somewhat comprehensible in the aftermath of recent, multiple, so-called ‘terror events’ (check out: Operation Gladio B). This latter accusation by municipal offcials is especially interesting in light of the fact that their own French government, along with our NATO member states, has been supplying weapons and training to listed terrorist organisations in Syria. (21stcenturywire.com, August 25, 2016).
And, while we are on the subject of France’s professed concern for women’s rights, we might reasonably ask: Where exactly do ostensibly enlightened French values stand in relation to their country’s global commitment to women’s rights? Consider, if you will, that in 2015 President Hollande committed $15.3 billion foreign investments to Saudi Arabia, thus becoming that Arab, extremist, Wasabi, Muslim, country’s third largest investor. In uber-repressive, paleo-medieval Saudi Arabia, women are strictly forbidden to drive, open bank accounts or show their faces in public and even foreign women cannot swim. Violation of attempted or even suspected intent of violation of these edicts are likely to result in gruesomely severe, physical and psychological punishments. (theguardian.com, August, 27, 2016).
The Abortion Wound of the Womb
Gwladys Jousselme, PhD.
A part of our soul died the second our child died. Our heart cries out for the loss of the baby we loved, even if we didn’t know about it consciously or allow ourselves to fully love and welcome him/her. A void remains. A string has broken in our heart and our life song won’t be the same anymore…3
After abortion our cells are longing for the baby that was lost. We need to give them in our imagination what was lost, so they can complete and finish energetically what began one day and was stopped so tragically, so, if and when we have another pregnancy, the subsequent baby is not trapped by the cells’ longing for the previous baby.
The victim wound is not only on the body level, but on the emotional level as well, since we are the victim of circumstances surrounding an unplanned pregnancy and the absence of support from family and society, to say nothing of the dismissal of the partner a lot of the time4 . At a time of great openness and vulnerability that pregnancy offers, we may be thrown death-blow stone sentences:5 “I am out of here;” “It is your body;” “It is your choice;” “We do not want to interfere;” “Do not keep the baby;” “Do not ruin your life;” “It is your fault.” Feeling alone and not strong enough to deal by ourselves with a pregnancy and the upbringing of a child, we close and harden our hearts in order to go through the abortion.
Supporting Movement of the Soul: Walking Paths that Diverge and Converge. Part I: Hellinger’s Axiom re Reciprocity in Relationships
Even my own speciality, ‘body-oriented psychotherapy’, which assumes that when previously trapped emotions are allowed to flow freely, change will come spontaneously, mostly fails to help couples achieve their aim. Time has taught me that freedom of emotional flow, rather than focused thought, is a true precursor of human change, but that more is needed if there is to be a ‘movement of the soul’ that is sustained. In fact, uncontained freedom of emotional flow in couples’ work is usually destructive, as will be further referenced below.
My drift into couples’ work has come because of the realisation that humans stubbornly hang on to their habitual ways of feeling, thinking, and acting regardless of the style or type of psychotherapeutic intervention which they receive. Even when I am at my best as a concerned and accepting but challenging therapist, the client struggles. And even when a break-through is achieved, that breakthrough is usually left behind with the closing of my door. It is the ability to sustain a new insight and the willingness to break free of the past that are so very, very difficult.
However, when two people make a commitment to one another, and live together, the reality of the impediments to human change shifts. There then exists another human being who sees us far more clearly and accurately than most of us see ourselves. (Caveat: there is great variance in this, as individual needs related to the partner can cloud perception to a greater or lesser degree). There now exists a ‘perfect storm’ in terms of who we are: we are seen hourly, daily, continually; all our weaknesses and shortcomings are visible to any perceptive partner. Our needs are exposed.