Constellations’ Miths: Order
(Second of five parts)
In this week’s post I would like to explore what in constellations is called “order”.
Some even conceptualize it as the “first systemic principle.”
Surely because of the book of “Orders of Love” published by Gunthard Weber in Germany and that is with which Hellinger “jump to fame.”
In my eyes it is one of the most controversial principles and its use and meaning even more.
This concept refers in origin to the order of arrival to a system and is what Hellinger bases his original theory (I call it original because he himself has had different stages of development: family constellations, constellations of the spirit, Hellinger science and the last, “Cosmic power”).
The idea is that humans, in this idea of belonging (see previous article), take a “place” (a different order) through our loyalties and assume “destinies” that do not correspond to us.
The “solution” is to respect the order, ie my place of arrival, where those who are behind give and those who are after take.
And this extrapolates to all areas of life.
Sounds logical!! It works?
The first time I came across this “live and full color” concept was when the owner and principal of the school where I studied the first of more than 20 trainings I have taken in constellations, decided to “burn me publicly, like a Salem witch” In the yard of her school, with all her students and teachers present, because “I skipped the order”.
What did I do? I founded Systemic Vision, after five years of paid study.
In this look, I had no right to make use of what I paid without asking permission for a matter of order. Is that order? Who or whom decided so?
Other manifestations of this “order” are:
• The duty to honor and not question teachers, because they are masters (forgetting that teacher is a person who emerges from a process of co-creation, not a “being”)
• The duty to honor and not question parents because they are parents (forgetting, it seems to me, two distinctions: the distinction between biological and social systems, and that father in the social context is also the person who emerges from a process of cocreation).
This order seems to end in the construction of a hierarchical model under which a level control structure is invited.
What if we go back to nature?
In nature we do not observe order, we can say that we observe organization. That is, a way in which the contributions of the members who co-create the system are channeled to serve the purpose of the collective.
And what is this purpose? Take care of life.
Then we can see that this organization is completely dynamic.
The old lion is challenged by a new one who can take care of the herd. The duck that has taken the lead of the formation happens to take the final place so that one with fresh energy can take the function of greater resistance to the wind.
And it is not a matter of order (if by order we mean a predetermined form of organization), it is a matter of survival and for it all contributions are useful.
Sometimes there is no contribution more useful to the survival of the herd than leaving the leadership of it, for example.
In this organization there does not seem to be a “distinction” of greater-minor, first-second, old-young, guide-follower, before-after, more-less; Is only a functional accommodation / re-accommodation to care for the survival of life. Of what life? The life of the pack and the members of the pack.
In this context, we can ask ourselves: where do our human conflicts arise?
1. At the moment when we construct our reality and give meaning of comparison to these movements, accommodations, organization, re-accommodations, re-organizations.
2. At the moment that there is no purpose built / shared for the social system that guides the accommodation.
3. The moment we do not construct together the forms that facilitate / guide the realization of these movements. When is it known that the lion should leave the herd? When he loses the battle of the challenger. Does it look awful to you? It is only one way, you and I can create our own.