AE-7 Map – 11 Audios – AE-7 Model – 33 Cases – 105 Cases – Book I
PC-32-A-En — “To Be Safe, I Cannot Upset Others”
Exploration Through Family Constellations
Exploration Through Family Constellations in SPANISH >>>
In PC-32-En, we explored Hanane’s case from different perspectives.
The available information about her work with Peter Crone describes that she grew up in:
AN UNPREDICTABLE ENVIRONMENT
and that from a very young age she felt she had to:
KEEP THE PEACE
She learned to:
STAY QUIET · BE CAREFUL · HOLD BACK WHAT SHE FELT
in order to:
AVOID CONFLICT
and:
PROTECT THOSE AROUND HER.
Through the AE-7 Model, we used Reverse Engineering and proposed the following prison to explore:
“TO BE SAFE, I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS.”
But this formulation belongs to our psychological map.
We should not enter a Family Constellation trying to prove it.
Nor do we have enough information to determine:
WHO CREATED THE UNPREDICTABILITY
WHO CREATED THE CONFLICTS
WHOM HANANE WAS TRYING TO PROTECT
WHAT ROLE HER FATHER PLAYED
WHAT ROLE HER MOTHER PLAYED
or:
WHETHER THERE WAS ANY TRANSGENERATIONAL DYNAMIC.
Therefore:
WE ARE NOT GOING TO INVENT THE MISSING STORY.
We are going to broaden our perspective.
First toward her immediate family system.
And, only if the information or the phenomenon justifies it, toward previous generations.
Our initial question is:
WHAT APPEARS WHEN HANANE OBSERVES HERSELF IN RELATION TO HER SYSTEM?
We do not know the answer.
That is why we begin with what we do know.
WE BEGIN WITH WHAT HANANE BRINGS
Before formulating:
“TO BE SAFE, I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS”
we already know something about Hanane’s experience:
“KEEPING THE PEACE”
was part of the way she learned to navigate that environment.
This distinction is fundamental.
“KEEPING THE PEACE” belongs to the experience described.
“TO BE SAFE, I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS” is a later formulation obtained through our AE-7 investigation.
Therefore, we begin with:
HANANE · FATHER · MOTHER · “KEEPING THE PEACE”
We place a representative for each one.
The representative of:
“KEEPING THE PEACE”
is not there to claim that Hanane kept the peace between her parents.
We do not know that.
Nor does it mean that her parents were necessarily the ones creating the conflict or unpredictability.
Nor that the origin of this experience must be found in her family.
It represents what we do know:
Hanane’s experience of feeling that she had to keep the peace.
And it will be our thread of investigation throughout the Constellation.
Every time a movement, a new person, or a new representative appears, we can return to the question:
WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW WITH “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
THE INITIAL CONFIGURATION
We observe:
HANANE · FATHER · MOTHER · “KEEPING THE PEACE”
We do not interpret yet.
We look at:
POSITION · DISTANCE · ORIENTATION · GAZE · TENSION · MOVEMENT
Where is Hanane?
Where are her father and mother?
Where does “KEEPING THE PEACE” appear?
Close to Hanane?
Between Hanane and one of her parents?
Between the parents?
Far from everyone?
Oriented toward someone?
Toward somewhere else?
What happens when Hanane looks at it?
And when she does not?
Does either parent direct their attention toward it?
Does the representative of “KEEPING THE PEACE” seem related to someone?
Or does no particularly significant relationship appear?
We do not know.
All of this is information.
But:
INFORMATION IS NOT YET AN EXPLANATION.
If “KEEPING THE PEACE” appears between the parents, that does not prove that Hanane mediated between them.
If it appears close to the mother, that does not prove that she was protecting her.
If it orients toward the father, that does not prove that she was afraid of him.
If it appears beside Hanane, that does not explain why she needed to keep the peace.
A configuration:
SHOWS A PHENOMENON.
Then we need to investigate:
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
First:
WE OBSERVE.
Then:
WE INVESTIGATE.
“KEEPING THE PEACE” AS THE THREAD OF THE EXPLORATION
From this moment on, every change in the configuration also allows us to observe what happens to this fourth representative.
If Hanane moves:
WHAT HAPPENS TO “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
If she moves closer to her father:
DOES ANYTHING CHANGE IN “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
If she looks at her mother:
DOES ITS POSITION, ORIENTATION, OR TENSION CHANGE?
If we later introduce another representative:
WHAT RELATIONSHIP APPEARS BETWEEN THAT NEW ELEMENT AND “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
We can even temporarily remove “KEEPING THE PEACE.”
And observe.
What changes in Hanane?
What changes in her father?
What changes in her mother?
What movements appear when that experience is temporarily no longer represented?
Then we can reintroduce it.
And compare.
WE PLACE → WE OBSERVE → WE REMOVE OR MOVE IF APPROPRIATE → WE COMPARE → WE OBSERVE AGAIN
We are not trying to prove anything.
We are investigating.
HANANE IN FRONT OF HER PARENTS
We can allow Hanane to stand in front of her parents without asking her to do anything.
She does not have to move closer.
She does not have to move away.
She does not have to forgive.
She does not have to understand.
She does not have to stop protecting anyone.
She does not have to recover her voice.
She does not have to solve anything.
Simply:
LET HER BE THERE.
And we observe.
Can she remain calmly in her place?
Does she look at her father?
At her mother?
At both?
At neither?
Does an impulse to move closer arise?
To withdraw?
Does tension appear?
Calm?
Vigilance?
A need to do something?
And while we observe:
WHAT HAPPENS TO “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
Does it remain the same?
Does its orientation change?
Does it move closer or farther away?
Does it relate to Hanane?
To either of her parents?
Does nothing particularly significant happen?
We do not need to obtain a particular response.
IF HANANE PLACES HERSELF BETWEEN HER PARENTS
Something like this may appear:
FATHER ← HANANE → MOTHER
If it does, we observe it.
But we do not conclude:
“HANANE MEDIATED BETWEEN HER PARENTS.”
We can test a small movement:
FATHER · MOTHER
↓
HANANE
and observe.
What happens?
Does tension increase?
Decrease?
Does she want to return to her previous position?
Does fear appear?
Sadness?
Discomfort?
Relief?
Does nothing change?
And now we have an additional reference:
WHAT HAPPENS TO “KEEPING THE PEACE” WHEN HANANE IS NO LONGER BETWEEN HER PARENTS?
Does it move?
Does it remain where it was?
Does it move closer to someone?
Does its orientation change?
Does nothing happen?
The important information is not only:
WHERE HANANE WAS.
It is also:
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SHE CHANGES POSITION?
And:
WHAT HAPPENS THEN TO “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
We still do not need to conclude that Hanane was trying to keep the peace between her parents.
PHRASES AS AN EXPERIMENT
If the configuration shows that exploring positions may be useful, Hanane can try:
“YOU ARE MY PARENTS.”
“I AM YOUR DAUGHTER.”
And we observe.
If an involvement with the relationship between them genuinely appears, we might try:
“WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN YOU BELONGS TO YOU.”
And we observe again.
What changes in Hanane?
What changes in the parents?
And:
WHAT CHANGES IN “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
Here it is important to distinguish between two things.
“KEEPING THE PEACE” is a representative we have placed and whose relationship with the configuration we observe.
The previous phrases are possible intervention movements that Hanane tries.
They are not truths that we introduce into the field.
A PHRASE IS NOT A CONCLUSION.
IT IS A MOVEMENT WE CAN TEST AND WHOSE RESPONSE WE OBSERVE.
Does posture change?
Breathing?
Tension?
Distance?
Does rejection appear?
Relief?
Nothing?
The phenomenon once again guides the next step.
IF HANANE ORIENTS TOWARD ONE OF HER PARENTS
A particularly intense orientation toward one of them may appear.
We do not need to immediately call it:
CARE · FEAR · PROTECTION · DEPENDENCE · LOYALTY · VIGILANCE
First, we observe.
We can allow a small change in distance.
Or orientation.
And see what happens.
And what happens to “KEEPING THE PEACE” when Hanane changes that relationship?
Only afterward, if biographical information supports it and the phenomenon is consistent with it, can we formulate:
A HYPOTHESIS.
Not a conclusion.
IF NOTHING PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT APPEARS WITH THE PARENTS
This result has exactly the same methodological value.
It may be that:
HANANE · FATHER · MOTHER · “KEEPING THE PEACE”
form a relatively calm configuration.
No mediation may appear.
No protection.
No reversal.
No particularly significant orientation.
Then:
WE DO NOT INVENT A FAMILY DYNAMIC.
The documented pattern in her experience can be investigated without needing to find a family or transgenerational explanation.
THE CONSTELLATION IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO CONFIRM OUR MAP.
WHEN WE INTRODUCE A NEW ELEMENT
Only after observing the initial configuration do we decide whether there is sufficient reason to introduce something else.
It might be:
CONFLICT · “I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS” · PLEASING OTHERS · MY VOICE · OTHERS · ME · SAFETY · MY RESPONSIBILITY · THE OTHER PERSON’S REACTION · LIFE
or any other element that emerges during the work.
But:
WE DO NOT NEED TO PLACE THEM ALL.
An element is introduced when there is a reason to investigate it.
That reason may come from:
WHAT APPEARS IN THE REPRESENTATIVES
KNOWN BIOGRAPHICAL OR FAMILY INFORMATION
or:
A QUESTION THAT CLEARLY EMERGES DURING THE EXPLORATION.
Then:
WE PLACE → WE OBSERVE → WE COMPARE.
And with each new addition, we maintain one reference:
WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW WITH “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
CONFLICT
We have a legitimate reason to consider this element: the available information describes that Hanane learned to avoid conflict.
If the process justifies it, we can place a representative for:
CONFLICT
and observe.
Not to reconstruct what conflict existed.
Not to decide who caused it.
Simply to explore:
WHAT HAPPENS IN HANANE WHEN “CONFLICT” IS PRESENT?
Does she move closer?
Away?
Does she become tense?
Does she look toward someone?
Does nothing happen?
And:
WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN CONFLICT AND “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
Do they orient toward each other?
Does the presence of CONFLICT change “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
Does Hanane change?
What happens if we remove CONFLICT?
Does “KEEPING THE PEACE” change?
Does nothing change?
We do not need to decide that:
CONFLICT → KEEPING THE PEACE
is necessarily Hanane’s architecture.
We are investigating it.
“I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS”
Later, if there is sufficient reason, we can introduce a representative for:
“I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS”
Now we are introducing something different.
It is not the initial experience.
It is a formulation that appears later within the AE-7 investigation.
Therefore, we do not use it to explain “KEEPING THE PEACE.”
We observe it.
What happens when it appears?
How does Hanane relate to it?
And her parents?
But especially:
WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN “I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS” AND “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
Does any relationship appear?
Does one change the other?
Does no significant relationship appear?
What happens if we remove “I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS”?
DOES “KEEPING THE PEACE” REMAIN IN THE SAME PLACE?
We do not decide in advance that:
“KEEPING THE PEACE” = “I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS.”
They may be related.
They may not be.
The Constellation allows us to investigate.
PLEASING OTHERS IS A STRATEGY
We can introduce a representative for:
PLEASING OTHERS
if the process justifies it.
But through AE-7 we know something important:
PLEASING OTHERS IS A STRATEGY.
By itself, it does not tell us what it is trying to achieve.
The same behavior can have completely different meanings.
First, we observe:
What relationship appears between Hanane and PLEASING OTHERS?
And between PLEASING OTHERS and “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
Does the presence of PLEASING OTHERS change anything in the configuration?
Then we can ask:
WHAT DO I NEED TO PLEASE OTHERS FOR?
And:
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO ME WHEN SOMEONE GETS UPSET?
There may appear:
“I’M IN DANGER.”
“THEY WILL REJECT ME.”
“I’VE DONE SOMETHING WRONG.”
“I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW THEY FEEL.”
“I DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS.”
or something completely different.
Therefore, PLEASING OTHERS does not automatically prove:
SAFETY · BELONGING · ADEQUACY · SIGNIFICANCE · INNER AUTHORITY
The strategy is a clue.
IT IS NOT THE ROOT.
SAFETY
Here we need to be especially careful.
SAFETY
does not come directly from observable behavior.
It is an important hypothesis for exploration within the AE-7 Model.
Therefore, we do not introduce it automatically.
If there is sufficient reason during the process, we can place a representative for SAFETY.
And observe.
What happens when it is present?
Is there any significant relationship with Hanane?
With CONFLICT?
With “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
With “I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS”?
With her parents?
With another element?
Does nothing appear?
We do not begin by asking:
“CAN HANANE STILL BE SAFE EVEN IF THERE IS CONFLICT?”
because that question already establishes the architecture.
We keep a fundamental possibility open:
PERHAPS SAFETY IS NOT THE CENTRAL TERRITORY THAT EMERGES.
OTHERS AND ME
Another possible experiment is to introduce representatives for:
OTHERS
and:
ME
We do not assume that Hanane will look toward OTHERS and abandon ME.
We observe.
What happens with Hanane?
What happens with OTHERS?
What happens with ME?
And:
WHAT HAPPENS TO “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
Does it orient toward OTHERS?
Toward ME?
Does it remain the same?
Does it change when Hanane also includes her own position?
If something like this appears:
ME ← HANANE → OTHERS
we can investigate what happens when she changes her orientation.
Not to force her to choose herself.
Not to separate her from others.
But to explore:
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SHE ALSO INCLUDES HERSELF?
If the phenomenon supports it, she can try:
“I CAN SEE YOU WITHOUT STOPPING SEEING MYSELF.”
And we observe.
We can deepen the exploration:
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE OTHER PERSON IS DISAPPOINTED?
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE OTHER PERSON IS ANGRY?
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE OTHER PERSON DISAGREES?
We do not introduce these situations to teach her that conflict is safe.
Not every conflict is safe.
We investigate the meaning she attributes to the other person’s reaction.
MY VOICE
There is another piece of information that justifies exploring:
MY VOICE
because we know that Hanane learned to stay quiet and hold back what she felt.
If we introduce a representative for MY VOICE, we do not assume that it is far away.
Nor that she is afraid of it.
Nor that she needs to recover it.
We observe:
WHAT RELATIONSHIP APPEARS BETWEEN HANANE AND HER VOICE?
And also:
WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN “MY VOICE” AND “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
Can both be present?
Does one change the other?
Does Hanane feel that she has to choose between them?
Does no tension appear?
We do not know.
If appropriate, Hanane can try:
“I CAN LISTEN TO YOU.”
And we observe.
Later, it may make sense to experiment with:
“I CAN EXPRESS WHAT I FEEL.”
“I CAN SAY NO.”
“I CAN SAY WHAT I WANT.”
But only when the phenomenon leads us there.
We are not trying to automatically transform:
SILENCE → SPEAKING
We are trying to expand:
AUTOMATISM → CAPACITY TO CHOOSE.
She can speak.
She can remain silent.
She can wait.
She can set a boundary.
She can withdraw.
She can negotiate.
The difference is that she can choose her response.
AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR OTHER PEOPLE’S REACTIONS?
Another territory particularly relevant to PC-32-En may appear.
We can represent:
MY RESPONSIBILITY
and:
THE OTHER PERSON’S REACTION
We do not assume that Hanane takes responsibility for other people’s emotions.
We investigate it.
What relationship appears between Hanane and MY RESPONSIBILITY?
And with THE OTHER PERSON’S REACTION?
And what happens now with:
“KEEPING THE PEACE”?
Does it change when the other person’s reaction is represented?
Does it move closer?
Does its presence increase?
Does it move away?
Does it remain unchanged?
We can explore:
WHAT PART OF WHAT THE OTHER PERSON FEELS IS MY RESPONSIBILITY?
What happens if someone is disappointed?
What happens if someone becomes angry?
What happens if Hanane sets a boundary and the other person is not happy?
We can distinguish:
CONSIDERING THE OTHER PERSON
from:
MAKING MYSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR REACTION.
If the process leads there, Hanane can try:
“I CAN TAKE WHAT YOU FEEL INTO ACCOUNT WITHOUT AUTOMATICALLY MAKING MYSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.”
Or:
“I CAN LISTEN TO YOUR REACTION WITHOUT AUTOMATICALLY ABANDONING MY OWN EXPERIENCE.”
And we observe.
These are not statements she has to accept.
They are movements we can experiment with.
BEFORE EXPANDING TOWARD PREVIOUS GENERATIONS
We expand toward previous generations only if there is a reason to do so.
We can investigate family history.
Not to find an ancestral trauma that explains her experience.
Not to prove that pleasing others, avoiding conflict, or keeping the peace are inherited patterns.
But to understand the system more fully.
If we have real information, we can investigate:
WARS · MIGRATIONS · DISPLACEMENTS · LOSSES · DEATHS · SEPARATIONS · VIOLENCE · PERSECUTION · INSTABILITY · EXCLUSIONS · FAMILY CONFLICTS · EARLY RESPONSIBILITIES
We can also ask:
WHO HAD TO KEEP THE PEACE?
WHO LEARNED TO STAY QUIET?
WHO AVOIDED CONFLICT?
WHO HAD TO ADAPT TO OTHERS?
WHO COULD EXPRESS DISAGREEMENT?
WHO COULD NOT?
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE FAMILY WHEN SOMEONE SAID “NO”?
But we do not investigate only difficulties.
We can also ask:
WHO HAD A STRONG VOICE?
WHO KNEW HOW TO SET BOUNDARIES?
WHO SHOWED COURAGE?
WHO WAS ABLE TO NEGOTIATE, BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER, LISTEN, OR RESOLVE CONFLICTS?
Family history may contain:
DIFFICULTIES
and also:
STRENGTHS · CAPACITIES · RESOURCES
No genealogical fact proves by itself what is organizing the present experience.
It gives us something we can investigate.
“KEEPING THE PEACE” AND PREVIOUS GENERATIONS
If we introduce a grandmother, grandfather, or another relevant person, we do not abandon our starting point.
We observe:
WHAT HAPPENS TO “KEEPING THE PEACE” WHEN THIS PERSON ENTERS THE CONFIGURATION?
Does its orientation change?
Does it move closer to that person?
Does it move away?
Does Hanane change?
Does either parent change?
Does nothing happen?
Perhaps we find:
GRANDMOTHER → MOTHER → HANANE
with several generations in which staying quiet, adapting, or keeping the peace seemed important.
Or perhaps another configuration appears.
Or none.
If a similarity appears:
SIMILARITY DOES NOT PROVE CAUSALITY.
REPETITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN TRANSMISSION.
We can investigate:
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE REPRESENT THESE GENERATIONS TOGETHER?
And:
WHAT HAPPENS THEN TO “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
If the process allows it, Hanane can try:
“I SEE HOW YOU DID IT.”
“I SEE WHAT WAS NECESSARY FOR YOU.”
“AND I WANT TO DISCOVER HOW I WANT TO LIVE IT.”
Without claiming that the current pattern was inherited from that person.
CAN EXPRESSING HERSELF THREATEN BELONGING?
If we discover generations in which staying quiet, adapting, or keeping the peace was important, we can investigate a possible loyalty.
We do not assume it.
We ask:
WHAT HAPPENS IF HANANE DOES IT DIFFERENTLY?
What happens if she says what she thinks?
What happens if she sets a boundary?
What happens if someone becomes angry with her?
What happens if she stops keeping the peace?
What happens if she lives with greater freedom of expression than other women or men in her family?
Nothing may happen.
Or there may appear:
GUILT · FEAR · SHAME · SADNESS · DISTANCE · SENSE OF BETRAYAL · FEAR OF NO LONGER BELONGING
Only then do we investigate a possible relationship between:
BELONGING ↔ ADAPTING
or:
BELONGING ↔ STAYING QUIET
And we maintain our reference:
WHAT HAPPENS TO “KEEPING THE PEACE” WHEN HANANE EXPERIMENTS WITH DOING IT DIFFERENTLY?
If appropriate, she can try:
“I AM PART OF THIS FAMILY.”
“AND I WANT TO DISCOVER WHETHER I CAN EXPRESS MYSELF DIFFERENTLY.”
Here AE-7 asks again:
WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE FOR STAYING QUIET OR PLEASING OTHERS TO MAKE SENSE?
Perhaps SAFETY appears.
Perhaps BELONGING.
Perhaps ADEQUACY.
Perhaps INNER AUTHORITY.
Or something we have not yet considered.
NOT EVERYTHING WE FIND IN THE SYSTEM IS A DIFFICULTY
If we broaden our perspective toward family history, we do not look only for:
CONFLICT · FEAR · SILENCE · VIOLENCE · ADAPTATION · LOSS
We may also find:
DIPLOMACY · SENSITIVITY · EMPATHY · CAPACITY TO LISTEN · SOCIAL INTUITION · COURAGE · COOPERATION · RESILIENCE · CAPACITY TO BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER
This is especially important in PC-32-En.
Because perceiving others is not necessarily the problem.
Being sensitive to how they feel is not necessarily the problem either.
Seeking agreement is not necessarily the problem.
The strategy may contain valuable capacities.
The question is:
WHAT DOES SHE WANT TO KEEP?
AND WHAT NO LONGER NEEDS TO BE AUTOMATIC?
Perhaps Hanane wants to keep:
EMPATHY · CONSIDERATION · SENSITIVITY · DIPLOMACY · CAPACITY TO LISTEN
without needing to maintain:
HYPERVIGILANCE · AUTOMATIC SILENCE · CONSTANT ADAPTATION · FEAR OF UPSETTING OTHERS · RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHER PEOPLE’S REACTIONS
We are not trying to transform:
CONSIDERATION → INDIFFERENCE.
We are trying to distinguish:
CONSIDERATION
from:
SELF-ABANDONMENT.
And we can observe:
WHAT HAPPENS TO “KEEPING THE PEACE” WHEN HANANE CAN KEEP HER CAPACITIES WITHOUT NEEDING TO USE THEM AUTOMATICALLY?
CULTURE · HISTORY · ROOTS
If Hanane’s history makes it relevant, we can also broaden the investigation toward:
CULTURE · COUNTRY OF ORIGIN · MIGRATIONS · RELIGION · FAMILY ROLES · SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS · WAYS OF EXPRESSING CONFLICT · WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING AUTHORITY
But we need to be especially careful.
We do not attribute a psychological pattern to a culture.
We do not assume that a tradition explains her experience.
We do not turn a cultural identity into a cause.
We ask:
WHAT DID IT MEAN IN HER FAMILY TO BE A “GOOD DAUGHTER”?
WHAT HAPPENED WHEN SOMEONE DISAGREED?
HOW WAS ANGER EXPRESSED?
WHAT WAS VALUED IN WOMEN AND MEN?
WHAT WAS CONSIDERED RESPECT?
WHAT WAS CONSIDERED DISOBEDIENCE?
Only what is relevant to her specific history enters the exploration.
CONFLICT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN DANGER
This distinction is important in PC-32-En.
We do not claim:
“CONFLICT IS SAFE.”
Because not every conflict is safe.
There are relationships and situations in which conflict may involve real risk.
What we can investigate is:
WHAT DOES THIS CONFLICT, WITH THIS PERSON, IN THIS SITUATION, MEAN?
Likewise:
DISAPPOINTING SOMEONE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN HARMING THEM.
SOMEONE BECOMING ANGRY DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT I HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG.
SETTING A BOUNDARY DOES NOT BY ITSELF DETERMINE WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE RELATIONSHIP.
We do not use these formulations as new truths.
We use them to open questions and observe what experience appears.
WHAT WE LEAVE FOR PC-32-B-En
There is an important methodological distinction.
Different ages or moments in Hanane’s life may spontaneously appear in a Family Constellation.
But we do not need to introduce in advance:
HANANE AS A CHILD
↓
HANANE AS AN ADOLESCENT
↓
HANANE AS AN ADULT
The specific exploration of:
BABY · CHILD · ADOLESCENT · YOUNG WOMAN · ADULT WOMAN
belongs primarily to:
PC-32-B-En — PERSONAL CONSTELLATIONS.
In this way, the two pages do different work:
PC-32-A-En OBSERVES THE SYSTEM.
PC-32-B-En OBSERVES THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE BIOGRAPHY.
WHAT DOES SHE WANT TO TAKE WITH HER?
After broadening our perspective, we can ask:
WHAT DO I WANT TO KEEP?
WHAT DO I WANT TO DEVELOP?
WHAT DO I WANT TO EXPERIENCE DIFFERENTLY?
Perhaps Hanane does not want to stop being considerate.
Perhaps she wants to stop needing everyone to remain unupset.
Perhaps she does not want to stop listening to others.
Perhaps she wants to listen to herself as well.
Perhaps she does not want to seek conflict.
Perhaps she wants to discover that she does not have to avoid it at any cost.
Perhaps:
“I WANT YOU TO BE OKAY”
can stop meaning:
“I NEED YOU TO BE OKAY SO THAT I CAN BE OKAY.”
Then the movement is not about stopping pleasing others in order to start upsetting them.
It is about recovering options:
LISTEN · EXPRESS HERSELF · REMAIN SILENT · NEGOTIATE · SET A BOUNDARY · MOVE CLOSER · MOVE AWAY · SAY YES · SAY NO
CAPACITY TO CHOOSE.
WE RETURN TO “KEEPING THE PEACE”
Before finishing, we deliberately return to our starting point.
At the beginning we had:
HANANE · FATHER · MOTHER · “KEEPING THE PEACE”
Now we look again at the representative of:
“KEEPING THE PEACE.”
What has happened to it during the process?
Is it in the same place?
Is it looking in the same direction?
Does it maintain the same distance from Hanane?
Has its relationship with the father or mother changed?
Does Hanane look at it differently?
Has it moved closer?
Farther away?
Does it remain exactly the same?
Can Hanane move even while it remains present?
Can she listen to her own voice even while “KEEPING THE PEACE” remains there?
Can she tolerate some reaction from another person without immediately having to take care of it?
Has something appeared that we could not see before?
We can ask:
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN FOR “KEEPING THE PEACE” TO STOP OCCUPYING THE SAME PLACE?
We do not ask:
“HOW DO WE MAKE IT DISAPPEAR?”
Because keeping the peace may even be a valuable capacity in certain circumstances.
We do not need to eliminate it.
We want to discover whether it can stop being an automatic necessity.
WE DO NOT NEED A PREDETERMINED FINAL CONFIGURATION
We do not know how a real Constellation would end.
It may end with:
HANANE · FATHER · MOTHER · “KEEPING THE PEACE”
in different positions.
It may end with the same representatives in similar places, but with a different experience.
There may appear:
HANANE · “KEEPING THE PEACE” · MY VOICE
or:
HANANE · “KEEPING THE PEACE” · OTHERS · ME
or:
HANANE · “KEEPING THE PEACE” · CONFLICT
or:
HANANE · “KEEPING THE PEACE” · LIFE
Someone from the system whom we had not considered may appear.
Or no particularly significant family dynamic may appear.
All these possibilities are valid.
The final question is not:
“HAVE WE MANAGED TO GET HANANE TO STOP KEEPING THE PEACE?”
It is:
WHAT HAS CHANGED IN RELATION TO THE INITIAL CONFIGURATION?
A POSSIBLE MOVEMENT
Only if the process genuinely leads there might Hanane try phrases such as:
“I CAN SEE YOU WITHOUT STOPPING SEEING MYSELF.”
“I CAN LISTEN TO WHAT YOU FEEL WITHOUT AUTOMATICALLY ABANDONING WHAT I FEEL.”
“I CAN TAKE YOUR REACTION INTO ACCOUNT WITHOUT AUTOMATICALLY MAKING MYSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.”
“I CAN EXPRESS MYSELF AND OBSERVE WHAT HAPPENS.”
Or perhaps:
“I CAN SET A BOUNDARY AND DISCOVER WHAT HAPPENS.”
There might even appear:
“I CAN WANT THERE TO BE PEACE WITHOUT NEEDING TO BE THE ONE WHO KEEPS IT.”
These are not positive affirmations.
They are not representatives.
They are possible movements Hanane can try.
And we observe.
What happens in her?
What happens in the system?
And:
WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW WITH “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
Perhaps it changes.
Perhaps it does not.
We do not need a correct final phrase.
The question remains:
WHAT HAS CHANGED IN HER EXPERIENCE?
THE MOVEMENT OF PC-32-A-En
WE BEGIN WITH THE VISIBLE EXPERIENCE
HANANE · FATHER · MOTHER · representative of “KEEPING THE PEACE”
↓
WE OBSERVE
POSITION · DISTANCE · ORIENTATION · GAZE · TENSION · MOVEMENT
↓
WE KEEP “KEEPING THE PEACE” AS THE THREAD OF THE EXPLORATION
What happens to it with each movement in the configuration?
↓
WE INVESTIGATE
What appears between Hanane, her parents, and “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
↓
WE TEST A MOVEMENT
a position · a distance · a phrase · removing or reintroducing a representative
↓
WE OBSERVE “KEEPING THE PEACE” AGAIN
What has changed?
What remains?
↓
WE INTRODUCE ONLY IF NECESSARY
CONFLICT · “I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS” · PLEASING OTHERS · MY VOICE · OTHERS · ME · SAFETY · MY RESPONSIBILITY · THE OTHER PERSON’S REACTION · LIFE
↓
WITH EACH NEW REPRESENTATIVE WE ASK
WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW WITH “KEEPING THE PEACE”?
↓
AND ONLY IF THERE IS A REASON:
PREVIOUS GENERATIONS · LOSSES · MIGRATIONS · SILENCES · POSSIBLE LOYALTIES · STRENGTHS · RESOURCES
↓
WE RETURN TO THE STARTING POINT
“KEEPING THE PEACE”
↓
WE COMPARE
WHAT HAS CHANGED?
WHAT HAS NOT CHANGED?
WHAT NEW INFORMATION HAS APPEARED?
↓
THE PHENOMENON GUIDES THE NEXT STEP
AE-7 AND FAMILY CONSTELLATIONS
We are observing the same experience from different perspectives.
Through the AE-7 Model, we begin with strategies such as:
STAYING QUIET · HOLDING BACK · AVOIDING CONFLICT · PLEASING OTHERS
and ask:
WHAT FOR?
Then we continue the Reverse Engineering:
BEHAVIOR → STRATEGY → EMOTION → FEAR → MEANING → PRISON → ESSENTIAL ROOT
until we investigate what meaning may make that strategy necessary.
In PC-32-En, we proposed exploring:
“TO BE SAFE, I CAN’T UPSET OTHERS.”
and especially the territory of:
SAFETY.
But through Family Constellations, we do not begin there.
We begin with the experience we already know:
“KEEPING THE PEACE.”
And we ask:
WHAT APPEARS WHEN HANANE AND THIS EXPERIENCE ARE OBSERVED IN RELATION TO HER SYSTEM?
A relevant family dynamic may appear.
A repetition across generations may appear.
Something completely different may appear.
Or no significant systemic or ancestral relationship may appear at all.
ALL OF THESE POSSIBILITIES ARE VALID.
Family Constellations do not need to confirm AE-7.
And AE-7 does not need to explain in advance what appears in the Constellation.
We do not begin by asking:
“WHO TAUGHT HER TO PLEASE OTHERS?”
“WHOM DID SHE HAVE TO PROTECT?”
“WHO CREATED THE CONFLICT?”
“WHO DID SHE INHERIT THIS PATTERN FROM?”
because we do not have enough information to answer those questions.
If a family repetition appears, perhaps the most fruitful question is not only:
“WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?”
but:
“WHAT DOES DOING IT DIFFERENTLY MEAN TO ME?”
What does expressing myself mean?
What does saying no mean?
What does it mean when someone gets upset?
What does not keeping the peace mean?
What does setting a boundary mean?
What does it mean when another person is disappointed with me?
And from there we can return to AE-7:
WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE FOR THIS STRATEGY TO MAKE SENSE?
Hanane does not need to learn to upset others.
She does not need to stop being considerate.
She does not need to stop perceiving how those around her feel.
She does not need to become indifferent to conflict.
She can preserve:
SENSITIVITY · EMPATHY · CONSIDERATION · DIPLOMACY · CAPACITY TO LISTEN
and discover whether she needs to continue using them automatically to:
KEEP THE PEACE.
The movement may be:
SEE → DIFFERENTIATE → INVESTIGATE → EXPERIENCE → OBSERVE AGAIN → RECOVER THE CAPACITY TO CHOOSE
From:
“HOW DO I MAKE SURE NO ONE GETS UPSET?”
toward:
“WHAT IS HAPPENING, AND WHAT DO I CHOOSE TO DO?”
From:
“YOUR REACTION DETERMINES WHAT I CAN EXPRESS.”
toward:
“I CAN LISTEN TO YOUR REACTION WITHOUT AUTOMATICALLY ABANDONING MY OWN EXPERIENCE.”
We do not know what Hanane’s answer will be.
Nor do we know in advance what will ultimately happen to:
“KEEPING THE PEACE.”
And that is precisely why we keep it in front of us throughout the entire investigation.