Theory of SySt®

In SySt, Insa Sparrer and Matthias Varga von Kibéd have both increasingly come to
emphasise the aspect of language. We conceive SySt as a transverbal language that can be
“spoken” in the most diverse of fields and which provides additional information to verbal
language, incorporating both knowledge in the form of the individual’s bodily experience and
that which exists between us.

We consider the following to be the roots of SySt:

Group simulation procedures, i.e. procedures based around working with people arranged
as symbols representing the elements in a client system. All of these procedures originate
from Moreno’s Sociometrics and Psychodrama, where we encounter the idea of implementing
role-play from the world of the theatre in a form of lay theatre designed for healing purposes.
With the help of precise information, the client introduces a role-player to the role. The client
watches the role-play as an observer. In doing so he experiences a form of externalisation: the
client is able to observe his “problem” from outside. After role adoption, new life concepts for
the client can be put to the test with the help of role expansions (by the role-players or at the
request of the client).
In the Family Reconstruction and Sculpture Work of Virginia Satir, Moreno’s concepts are
adopted, and highly detailed role-play is complemented and abridged using symbols and
ritual. Satir also sees role-playing as central. Her goal is less a matter of new life concepts and
more to do with a reconciliation within the family, gaining understanding and an ability to
leave the past behind.

In Bert Hellinger’s Family Constellations, the place of role-playing is taken by the

representation of people. Role-players become representatives who symbolise people.
Representatives express what they perceive, see, hear and think. They are given no role
assignment and no longer act out a role. Hellinger speaks instead of the “foreign feelings”
perceived by the representatives.

In SySt we introduced the term representative perception. We interpret the different

perceptions arising among representatives as a perception phenomenon and not as a
translation of feelings as per Hellinger. Although we also speak of representatives, we only
ask them about the changes in their bodily sensations in order to minimise interpretation. We
ask about what is “better”, “worse”, “the same” or “different”, in order to gain an indication
of the direction in which things should proceed. This allows us to perform purely hidden
work.

The solution focused approach of the school of Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg,
from which we adopted the following:
 Difference-based work. For example, we ask representatives, about differences and not their
absolute feelings.
 Future-oriented work. Solutions are constructed with the help of SySt.
 The inclusive and not knowing attitude. The “leader” – we tend to say “facilitator” or “host” –
of a SySt is an expert in methodology, while the client is adept at content. Working with a
group of clients, the facilitator does not decide who is right or wrong; rather he or she adopts
an all-party position vis-à-vis the entire group, highlights contradictions and consequences,
takes no decisions. The search for guilt and innocence, right and wrong, is replaced by the
search for solutions appropriate to the entire group.
 The holding of a solution focused conversation before and after the structural constellation. In
principle, SySt should always be cloaked in a therapeutic or counselling process.
The hypnotherapeutic approach of Milton Erickson, from which we adopted the
following:
 The diligent approach to language: observation of word associations, the emotional and
psychological effects of words and implicit statements
 Different forms of pacing and leading
 Different forms of reframing. For example, among representatives we distinguish those with
intended reframing. These are representatives who, between the first and the final (solution)
picture, pass through a process of transformation and become something else. Obstacles, for
example, can become protective walls, and then, in the solution picture, helpers; a hidden
benefit can first be transformed into the price that must be paid for the solution before finally
becoming the preciousness . Another form of reframing occurs in the host’s echoing, in which
he or she changes unappreciative answers by the representatives so that they suggest
possibilities for the desires that lay behind them or recontextualises them through the
introduction of a given perspective – for example, “From the perspective of X, Y is perceived
to be so and so.”
 The observation of the constellation event as a trance phenomenon. For example, this allows
us to observe in the representatives of a SySt such things as age regression, changed time
perception, amnesia, analgesia and perception changes such as sharper memories.
 Different forms of utilisation. For example, the trance phenomena of the representatives are
utilised to map systemic elements. The idea of symptoms as trance elements can be traced
back to the hypnosystemic approach of Gunther Schmidt, whose systemic enhancements of
Erickson’s hypnotherapy played an important role in the development of SySt.
The systemic approach. From our perspective, SySt should preferably be imbedded in the
framework of systemic/solution focused therapy, counselling or mediation. We therefore also
emphasise an initial context and case clarification and follow-up sessions to work with
systemic/solution focused approaches.
The philosophy of Wittgenstein as a philosophical background to SySt.
Charles Sander Peirce’s theory of signs, George Spencer-Brown’s concept of distinction, the
syllogistic square of Aristotelian logic and the idea of the negated tetralemma from the work
of Nagarjuna (the founder of Madhyamika Buddhism) as a basis for specific SySt formats.

There are references to the family constellations of Bert Hellinger. However, the paths
between his and our work have diverged increasingly. Structural constellations work was
from the beginning clearly different to family constellations. For a while we hoped that, with
the influence of Gunthard Weber, family constellations would take on a form that was
compatible with a constructivist human and worldview – for Gunthard Weber is indeed one of
the co-founders of the Helm Stierlin constructivist school. However, Hellinger’s own work
took an entirely different course to ours, and we did not share his basic concept: while we
were working on a solution focused, constructivist, difference-based and low interpretation
basis, Bert Hellinger was emphasising the aspect of the given, of reality as seen by him, of
expert knowledge, and developed a content-based teaching about orders and dynamics.

Hellinger has increasingly moved away from the original family constellations. He now
positions representatives himself and often works with trained representatives. This makes it
harder for the observer to see that representation is a basic human ability, and that in principle
anyone is able to access the knowledge that exists between us, not just well trained elite. In
his “Movements of the Soul” Bert Hellinger allows the representatives to move slowly and
according to their own impulses, in order to reveal the dynamics rooted in the past. The focus
of his work thus shifts to the past, dramatic art and entanglement.

SySt lead us in a different direction. Whenever possible we try to perform hidden work and
pay close attention to differences in order to reduce the risk of interpreting. We leave the
interpretation of the constellation events to the client.

We work through the client’s case, while allowing the client to position the representatives his
or herself, allowing the client’s vision to “flow” into the constellation. And, as opposed to
Hellinger, we are very interested in scientific investigation and encourage this activity.

© SySt® Institut, Leopoldstr. 118, 80802 München, Tel: +49 89 36 36 61, info@syst.info
Impressum, Datenschutz, Teilnahmebedingungen