Gunther, S.V. (2017). Reflflections on Ethics. The Knowing Field, Issue 30, June.
Personal Reflections
xt
Ethics
Steve Vinay Gunther
Steve Vinay Gunther is an international Gestalt trainer,
teaching in Asia, Mexico, the US and Europe. He was
founder of the Northern Rivers Gestalt Institute in Australia,
and was actively involved in the development of Gestalt
Therapy in Australia for two decades. He publishes a weekly
Gestalt Case studies blog, translated into 20 languages.
He works as a therapist in the fields of Gestalt, Family
therapy, and Career Coaching. He has been running Family
Constellation workshops in Australia, the USA and Japan
since 2000, and has applied the work to Aboriginal groups. 
He has been involved with men’s work since the 1980s;
he wrote a book of advice for men about relationships
with women (Understanding the Woman In Your Life)
which was a bestseller in Mexico for many years.
He has practised and studied meditation, spirituality
and psychotherapy over a 40 year period, and has
brought these topics together in an integrative
meta model. He is currently Professor of Spiritual
Psychology at Ryokan College, Los Angeles.
With his wife, Sutara Ling, he has pioneered an arena of
relational psychology termed The Unvirtues. He is currently
enrolled in a doctoral programme in Social Ecology,
researching the topic of the interpersonal psychology of
power. He has a long-standing interest in the interface
of psychology, spirituality and social transformation.
spirited@depth.net.au  into leadership roles in the field. Conferences, magazines,
www.depth.net.au
www.gti.today
the knowing field
Systemic constellations is a broad area of practice which
encompasses many different styles. Facilitators come
from many walks of life, and to date, there is no single
accrediting body or defining code of standards. As a
modality which charges money, it falls into the professional
arena and thus deserves the type of scrutiny which is
appropriate in any helping profession. Professional practice
requires attention to the issue of professional ethics
which includes core principles, expected standards, and
proscribed behaviours. The diversity of SC, and the lack
of a central authoritative body makes this task diffucult,
while at the same time, allowing for open debate.
Traditionally, professions were organised into guilds. These
undertook the function of managing the boundaries, rights,
responsibilities and benefits that accrued with the practice
of a particular craft. They also protected the interests of
the craftspeople, and in the end, controlled the market
in a way which was often not in the best interests of the
populace. Industrialisation mainly killed off the guilds,
and with that also went a kind of protection for the crafts,
which got absorbed into the machine of capitalism.
Within systemic constellations
(SC) there are both pressures
towards and opposition
against becoming a guild.
Today these have evolved into professional associations.
The same basic issues remain: boundaries, rights,
responsibilities and benefits. Some are conferred with the
imprimatur of the state, and monitor statutory registration.
Others are more focused on affiliation, association
with colleagues and professional development.
Within systemic constellations (SC) there are both pressures
towards and opposition against becoming a guild.
Originally training was centred around Hellinger as leader
and innovator; his ideas, practices, guidance and vision
set the stage. His concepts and practices still remain at
the core of SC. However, there is now enough collective
knowledge and experience for others to have stepped
33

books, online discussion groups, formal training and collegial
contact all contribute to the developing definition of SC.
In the formation and evolution of the identity of SC, key
issues emerge to be addressed. Already, there has been
extended debate around many of these topics: requirements
for entry into practice; the question of whether family
constellations is therapy or not; the interface of SC and
shamanism; the interface of SC and mental health issues; the
extension of SC into the business sphere, the boundaries of
SC and fortune telling; the appropriateness of using SC for
the issues of people who have not asked or consented to
be at the centre of the work and much more. These are all
important topics to be addressed, and ongoing dialogue and
debate are essential in the development of our field. Indeed,
given so much valuable conversation has already occurred,
I will attempt here to summarise some of this dialogue.
On an organisational level, we have the formation of ISCA
(International Systemic Constellations Association) and
other national associations. These provide opportunities
for the identity of membership, forums for communication
and access to resources – the ‘easy’ part. The harder part is
the practice of overseeing members’ work which creates a
power dynamic between the Association and its members.
In the formation and
evolution of the identity
of SC, key issues emerge
to be addressed.
One important issue that emerges in this context is
the question of ethics. No-one is likely to question the
importance of acting ethically, and I’m sure we are all in
agreement that the power conferred to us as practising
professionals must be used with awareness and
responsibility, to reduce the possibility of doing harm. But
the complexity of what that means in practice is what is at
stake. There are various therapeutic interventions that can
be claimed to help clients, yet they may involve methods
which use varying types and degrees of force, or potentially
expose people to re-traumatisation. Who evaluates our
procedures, who determines if an action – or its effect
– is ethical? Colleagues, the client, an organisation?
Professional codes of ethics generally attempt to articulate
broad principles to guide ethical action, and there are
codified steps which have been proposed as essential in
ethical decision-making (e.g. see Hadjistavropoulos & Malloy,
2000). The more that codes move from general guidelines
to specific applications, the more useful they are, and at
the same time, the more restrictive and prescriptive they
become – more like laws than principles. An over-focus on
externalities, such as the requirements of these types of
the knowing field
codes of behaviour, leads to a reliance on sanctions to reduce
‘bad behaviour’, whereas ethics is better characterised
by the idea ‘to make well’. (Maitrepierre, 2010 p.1).
The issue of monitoring ethical behaviour is, however,
important; the emphasis in SC tends to be on self-
monitoring. Without sufficient overseeing, any professional
can be in danger of an inflated sense of competence,
unaware misuse of power, or complacent stagnation in
terms of practice. In SC the answer is mostly provided
in terms of getting the right kind of supervision, which
can contribute towards ameliorating the dangers of
unintentionally effecting harm or practising at an insufficient
level of competence. However, practitioners do not
always recognise when they need supervision, how much
they need, or from whom it would be best received.
The type of peer supervisory relationships often preferred
in SC is more collegial, whilst paid supervision from a
more skilled professional has more of an authoritative,
vertical component to it; these modes have their particular
advantages and disadvantages. Most supervision involves
reporting about the work, whereas live supervision means
the supervisor is either present, or may view videos of the
work – a more accurate base for feedback. SC facilitators
are more difficult to supervise in many ways, as there is
enormous complexity in the work; there are many different
ways of working, and there is a significant component
which is subtle, intuitive and hard to reason out.
Another way to support ethical practice is via professional
development – keeping knowledge and skills up to
date through participation in collegial forums, and
learning from other practitioners. This also appears to
be a preferred way in the constellation community.
The level of skill that practitioners bring to the work
can also be understood as an ethical issue. With more
training programmes available, there are now many formal
ways to enter into the practice of SC. However, there is
some question as to what is a sufficient – one could say
ethically sufficient – skill level for practitioners to attain
in order to work as a professional in the SC constellation
field. In the discipline I come from – Gestalt therapy –
the standard minimum training is generally four years
of part-time study, involving at least 150 training hours
a year, plus supervision and personal therapy work.
I designed and ran a Gestalt therapy training programme
which was originally 3 years long (before standards had
been established). I found that trainees were simply
not ready for practice after 3 years, and 4 years was
minimally required. For me this was an ethical question.
I could not in good faith tell people that they could
practise professionally after 3 years of training.
I am not saying here just what should be the requirements
of training in SC – simply that the degree of preparation
of practitioners is one facet of the question of ethics.
34

There has indeed been a lot of discussion in the SC field
about the question of entry requirements, and there is a
wide range of views. The issue of who decides on what
is required is one of power and authority, whether that be
accrediting bodies, or individual trainers who construct
their own criteria for fitness to practice. There seem to be
no minimum standards agreed to in SC in this regard.
Another element central to ensuring an ethical practice is
the personal development undertaken by practitioners.
Most experiential therapy trainings require a minimum
number of hours of personal therapy. This ensures that
practitioners have had a solid experience of being in the
client position, and that they explore their own shadows,
disowned selves, and unresolved entanglements. However,
like supervision, the need for this does not stop on
graduation; unless practitioners continue to participate
in their own personal work, the capacity to practise
ethically can be constrained. How much of this personal
‘exploring your shadow’ work should be expected of
SC facilitators, and in what form? This tends to be seen
as an individual consideration, and as with any kind of
ethical values in SC, there are no explicit standards.
Underneath all these points is the lurking question of
accountability. SC practitioners are accountable – to whom?
Certainly to clients, but clients are in a power-down position,
and ultimately, can only vote with their feet. To peers – but
other than then constraints of peer supervision, this can be
a very limited form of accountability and may not involve
certain confrontation which could be essential if a practitioner
is going off course ethically. To a supervisor who is paid,
or more senior? This may allow for a greater degree of
overseeing and guidance, but depending on how often it is
done, and with whom, it also has its limitations. Additionally,
self-reporting can tend to involve some self-editing,
which may not always be picked up by the supervisor.
So we inexorably come to the question of overseeing by
an organisation. In one sense, ethical codes do not have
much substance unless there is an authority who ultimately
holds practitioners accountable. This is the direction of the
majority of professional bodies – the pairing of an ethical
code, and mechanisms to address alleged breaches of
those codes. Indeed, it is generally a requirement of claims
to legitimacy of a professional body, to have such complaint
mechanisms. Self-regulation does not always work out
well when the professionals are in positions of power, and
without an external authority, are practically unassailable.
So there appear to be many good reasons for a professional
organisation to police its codes – public confidence,
maintaining a high ethical standard amongst members,
and providing a venue for clients who feel they have been
harmed, to complain. Within this rationale is contained
also the possibility of ‘de-frocking’: stripping a professional
of their accreditation, licence, or membership, as a
consequence of unethical practice, and consequent harm
the knowing field
done to clients. In fact, this framing of the ‘duties’ of
professional associations is so widespread now, there is
little questioning of the validity of such a role. And many
government bodies require such policing mechanisms
as a part of approving licensure in a particular field.
However, if we look at the issue critically, there are
significant problems which occur with such overseeing. In
the SC sphere, there has been a great reluctance to create
bodies with such power over practitioners. One aspect
of this is our understanding of the dangers of exclusion
in systems. We see time and again the entanglements
that result from exclusion, and so are reluctant to create
organisations which may then operate to expel people
who take up a role in the field of the ‘bad guy’.
No-one is likely to question
the importance of acting
ethically, and I’m sure we
are all in agreement that the
power conferred to us as
practising professionals must
be used with awareness and
responsibility, to reduce the
possibility of doing harm.
Another aspect of the reluctance to set up a regulatory
body is an orientation towards diversity – the wish to
allow for many different ways to practise SC work.
Defining practice – what exactly is ethical and what isn’t
– inevitably entails dealing with a range of viewpoints,
which may not be reconcilable to the degree of being
able to establish agreed cannons of practice.
The very nature of much SC work – for instance Movements
of the Spirit, seems hard to put codifying boundaries around.
Some of it is very subtle, and what would be the markers
of what is and isn’t ethical facilitation? Further, because the
work is so embedded in ‘the field’, almost everything can
be subsumed into universalisms such as ‘it’s all part of the
field’. In this sense, SC practice parallels the spiritual and
shamanistic domains. All experience is seen as part of The
Tao; almost everything is ‘permitted’ in a philosophy which
is explicitly about ‘being with what is’. This can be paralleled
by constructivist ethics, which tend to be agnostic about
what morals and ethics should be (Hoffmann, 2009).
SC is not the only modality to encounter these issues;
various existential therapies which emphasise authenticity
have a high degree of tolerance for behaviours, as long
as they are authentic and in ‘good faith’. Judgement is
35

bracketed, and there is an implicit faith that ‘the field’ will
provide the learning experiences people need. The ethics
of existential thought are often somewhat different to
social, legal, moral or religious ethics. It is thought that it is
in the consequences of our actions that we find an ethics
provided by life itself; the consequences for us show up in
either increasing entanglements, or getting free of them.
This emphasis on the field is fundamental to SC, and in fact
to all systemic therapies. Part of the genius of Hellinger is his
grasp of field-thinking, which provides a completely different
perspective on many difficult ethical situations, including
perpetrators, social movements, and family dysfunction.
From this meta view, the question of ethics is not black
and white; the attribution of responsibility is distributed in
a system, and everything is connected to everything else.
Blame has no valid role, and in some ways, normal moral
thinking is turned on its head. For instance, the suggestion for
the facilitator to stand by the perpetrator in the constellation.
Ethics in SC is often
framed in terms of an
attitude of humility towards
the Knowing Field.
This produces a disruption in normal thinking about ethics,
and makes the determination of ‘what is an ethical facilitation’
much harder. It also makes it almost impossible for any
organisation to police such questions, judge whether an
action was professionally ethical, attribute responsibility for
breaches, or offer appropriate action as a consequence.
In many of the discussions on the Constellation Talk
international discussion group1 about these issues,
‘the field’ is often invoked, or implicitly referred to
– for instance in warnings not to judge, or through
injunctions to view things from a larger perspective.
Unfortunately, these same responses have at times been
used historically to defend ethically harmful practices
in spiritual or religious spheres, making priests or
other spiritual authorities virtually unaccountable.
A recent dialogue
These issues have been played out and brought to life in
a recent and extended discussion on Constellation Talk1
in reference to a particular video (from Russia) showing
Bert and Sophie Hellinger engaging in certain actions
with a client that many of the practitioners who observed
the video deemed to be unethical (e.g. Sophie hitting
the client with a microphone). A range of viewpoints was
presented, and issues regarding the use of authority,
physical force and accountability were discussed.
the knowing field
Given that SC facilitators draw on Bert’s teachings as
source, it is challenging to see him engage in behaviours
which we may consider to be unacceptable or might judge
to be unethical. He can be ‘let off the hook’ by arguing
that spiritual authority contains room for actions which on
cursory glance seem harmful, but may have a benevolent
effect. Indeed, in the constellation at issue, it appeared
that there were life and death issues for the participants,
and that the constellation may have had a positive effect.
Many ethical issues were raised, such as: where does the end
justify the means, under what circumstances, and on what
basis is it appropriate to make judgements about the ethical
behaviour of others? I have distilled some of the points made
as the discussion brought to the fore issues of authority,
trust and ethics in SC. Unless otherwise noted, people are
referenced from their contributions to the discussion.
Trust in the field and don’t judge
Ethics in SC is often framed in terms of an attitude of
humility towards the Knowing Field. Joanna Malinowska
summarises this as “nothing is excluded, everything
belongs, even opposites, and nothing is true or false,
everything is.” 2 This all-encompassing sense of life
is grand in vision, but can also lead to a relativism
which makes ethical boundaries hard to define.
Attempts to undertake this definition in relation to
other people’s work is discouraged by Hellinger, who
once gave Barbara Morgan the following advice:
“Strife and division are necessary and inevitable.
My advice to you is not to comment upon the
activities of others and not to allow other people’s
comments to affect your own activities. That
way you will have peace in all that you do.” 3
Thematically, this reflects a SC position of trusting the
Field, and focusing on our own issues with power. Whilst
this may seem to be a wise position, there are larger
issues that still confront us. In the face of actions we
may deem unethical, are concerns on the one hand
about being silent and complicit, or on the other hand
of the dangers of moving into self-righteousness and
condemnation of others. Giselle Charbonnier says,
“I am not clear between the need of
denouncing when I presence an abuse,
and another part of me who says ‘it is not
your business, she’s not your client’.” 4
Client autonomy
Sneh Victoria Schnabel emphasises client responsibility,
suggesting that it doesn’t matter so much what the
36

facilitator is doing, “it is the client who makes the move,
it is ultimately his or her decision.”5 This is an echo of
Hellinger’s principle that we have to be careful about
taking up a superior parent role; that we must confront
clients as adults. This keys into a long debate in therapy
circles between the philosophy of client responsibility (cf
Frank Farelly, David Schnarch, Fritz Perls), and the view of
clients as coming from a regressed place, and therefore
needing understanding and allowance for the vulnerability
of that position (e.g. Harville Hendrix, Robert Hobson, Stan
Tatkin). SC does indeed contextualise the client’s issues
in terms of the structure of their field, yet the emphasis
on the client’s adult status highlights their responsibility.
This is extended by the discouragement of blame in SC.
A movement away from a client’s adult responsibility
can be seen to foster a kind of unhealthy dependency: a
concern in therapies which emphasise the importance of
independence and self support and therefore may operate
in a more confrontative way. Managed care companies also
take up this mantle in an effort to cut costs. However, a
more nuanced understanding requires us to consider that ‘it
depends’ on the client as to how appropriate it is to respond
to, or withhold from, gratifying their dependency needs
(Weiss, 2012). SC sometimes takes the more confrontative
route, facing clients with their ultimate existential choices.
Zaquie Meredith suggests that we are not responsible
for the client, as there are “forces that we can neither
command or predict.” 6 However, an over-emphasis on ‘fate’
diminishes the impact that we do have. Maria Goossens
points out that this orientation needs to be underpinned
by attention to the choices that we are constantly making
as facilitators: for instance, which direction we head in,
which sentences we use and whether to continue or to
stop a constellation. Just like other professionals, we have
people’s lives and well-being in our care. So the argument
circles back to suggesting that as responsible facilitators
we are responsible for clients, in certain ways at least.
Is heart enough?
Ethics in SC are generally seen as being about ‘the heart’,
and a number of writers have echoed this sentiment. I have
argued that in the facilitation field, essential proficiencies
include personal awareness, skills and knowledge. Not
everyone has these in equal measure, and a lack of one
or the other can be problematic, or even dangerous. This
dovetails to the question of training requirements, and what
constitutes necessary preparation for being a facilitator.
Ethics also includes recognising our limits.
Chris Walsh points out:
“The greater soul does not protect the participant
from the facilitator’s ego. And it is very hard
to remain honestly aware of the workings of
the knowing field
our egos in this work. It is easy to overlook the
limitations of our skills. It is easy to superimpose
some restricted worldview that we have on
the constellation we are supervising.” 7
This returns us to the importance of supervision,
and the necessity for ongoing personal work to
expand on our (always) limited awareness.
SC paradoxically claim
a phenomenological
orientation, while at the
same time, referencing
structural ideas which provide
guides as to how love may
‘flow best’ in systems.
Leslie Nipps points out that trusting the Field unconditionally
is not enough; the philosophy of SC also considers the
operation of conscience, belonging, and loyalty, which
often occurs on an unconscious level.8 Any of us can
be caught up by the dynamics of a particular field,
skewing our facilitation work. It’s for this reason that
systemic family therapy employed the use of a one-
way screen, to provide a larger perspective on what
was happening in the therapy room with the family.
Judith Hemming critiques an open-ended view of fields:
“Unlike a lot of other intervention methodologies,
(constellations) draws on the lawfulness
of systems so that we’re less in a post-
modern fog of ultimate choice, infinite choice:
we’re back in a world where everything has
consequences.” (Hausner, 2015, p.314)
Here she is challenging a type of ethical slipperiness
which can arise from constructivist views.
Power
This discussion inexorably raised issues about the use
of power in SC. The starting point arose from questions
about Bert and Sophie’s authoritarianism in a particular
constellation. But constellation facilitators generally use
authority. SC paradoxically claim a phenomenological
orientation, while at the same time, referencing structural
ideas which provide guides as to how love may ‘flow
best’ in systems. As soon as you codify notions of what
37

is ‘better’, you encounter the question of who determines
this, on what basis, when. Many SC facilitators use
some degree of interpretive authority to declare what a
constellation ‘means’, what the issues it reveals are, and
what interventions are appropriate to address this.
Whilst some facilitators (e.g. Vivian Broughton) articulate
opposition to this kind of authority, a large number of
practitioners do indeed assert their interpretive position
in declarative form. So the question of authority and
ethics does not belong to Bert and Sophie alone.
For the most part, the guidance of a SC arises out of insights
of the facilitator. Facilitators often invoke grand narrative
themes such as ‘fate’ and ‘love’; yet belief that one has a
corner on the truth can lead to grandiosity, coercion and
even violence (the latter being the concern of the discussion
about Sophie’s intervention). A paternalistic attitude can
lead to facilitator interventions which are legitimated in
terms of being ‘good for’ the client – an assertion derived
from the ‘more-knowing’ position of the facilitator. Robert
Grant points out that many of the problems in human
history have arisen out of well-intended acts, invoking the
authority which arises from such ‘knowing’ stances.9
Harming clients
In the discussion about the appropriateness of the use
of force in SC work, Olga Baranova suggested that
constellations are like “a surgical operation on the soul…
the scalpel cannot be asked to be ‘softer’.” 10 This is a hard
edged view of power – presenting the holding of authority in
SC as the basis for legitimising the employment of harmful
means, for the purpose of a benevolent end. This touches
on core debates about the ethics of means vs ends.
Joanna Malinowska cautions against the dangers of
invoking the Field to justify harmful interventions:
“The danger to humanity is to allow the way of
thinking that we can or should cause pain or harm
to individuals for a ‘common good’. To believe that
any of us can be excused from the responsibility
for our own words and actions because’God works
through us’ or ‘the future generations will benefit’.
Unfortunately, humanity is never free from this way
of thinking, and it always brings demons back, as
it blinds us and justifies wars and genocides.” 11
Alison Rose Levy outlines the importance of locating
our grand perceptions in localised identity:
“We act from a presumption of our own good,
therapeutic intentions as foremost. That in and
of itself is a belief system formed in a specific
time and place in history. Relying primarily upon
one’s well-meaning therapeutic intention to
authorise intuitive impressions from the field
the knowing field
without first accounting for one’s own ethnic
identifications and/or privilege and how that shapes
perception, social opportunity and stance, may
confer a false presumption of innocence.” 12
Anngwyn St. Just highlights the significance of cultural
relativity when making evaluations about the use of force:
“In some cultures, a facilitator assuming the
role of cosmically empowered disciplinarian is
accepted and even revered, and in others it can
present grounds for a very serious lawsuit.” 13
I have heard the issue of cultural difference raised by
some SC facilitators, who believe that for instance
in the Chinese context, there is a higher degree of
cultural resilience regarding criticism, confrontation,
and the employment of authority. In this perspective,
it is seen as unfair to judge questions on the nature
of harm done, from outside the culture.
Focusing on the individual facilitator – regardless of
culture – Vivian Broughton (2013a) draws attention to
the impact of our own trauma and narcissistic injuries;
in the facilitator role it is possible to be triggered into a
survival mode, and hence potentially use the power of
our authority to result in perpetration to the client. She
points out that none of us are above this danger.
Consideration of these issues has been going on for some
time. The Potsdam declaration of 2004 represented a formal
attempt by some facilitators to distance SC from certain
aspects of Hellinger’s statements and interventions. This
included mystifying descriptions, dogmatic interpretations,
humiliating rituals, and absolutist claims to truth. However,
I don’t think it’s just about Hellinger’s behaviour; SC is
vulnerable to moving in this direction, and these are ethical
issues which we all need to address in our own work.
Codification of ethics
Giselle Charbonnier points to two polarised approaches
to ethics:
“1. The dimension of the visionary/zen master/
shaman, who’s supposed to be in direct contact
with a ‘higher’ divine law; does not follow fixed
rules, and, anyway, takes the risk of the spiritual
consequences of her/his own actions.
2. The institutionalised dimension, with
codes of ethics.” 14
SC generally distances itself from adopting an
institutionalised approach, though some entities such
as the South African association use a formal code
(SSASA, 2008). Hellinger takes up the ‘visionary’ end
38

of the spectrum; SC facilitators generally lean more
in that direction than the organisational one.
One point of confusion is in regards to the question of
whether SC is more a spiritual/shamanistic modality, or
a psychological one. If the former, it could be argued
that there could be a role for the ‘zen stick’ – the
benevolent use of confrontative authority, to induce
awakening, or at least correct poor posture.
However, SC overlaps with the sphere of psychotherapy,
and draws extensively from that field in terms of theory
and practice; within that domain, there is no room
for claims to spiritual leadership as a justification for
any kind of intervention. The facilitator-as-therapist is
understood as being a skilled practitioner who applies
knowledge and theory about human dynamics in a
careful, professionally ethical and respectful manner.
Claims to operate from a higher interpretive authority are
seen as problematic, as this can work against the very
phenomenological approach which SC claims to take.
However, ethical policing
requires ethics police and an
entire system of accreditation,
registration and enforcement.
Chris Walsh suggests that we need to draw an artificial
conceptual barrier in SC between psychology and spirituality:
“It is artificial because spirituality permeates
everything. Nonetheless, this artificial barrier ensures
our psychological practices remain accountable.” 15
Generally however, there are fears in SC that attempting
to establish accountability through codified ethics will
steer us towards a type of conservatism, narrowing
our vision and limiting openness to things we don’t
currently know about. SC translates between the
visible and invisible realms, whereas codifying
emphasises structure and tends to fix meaning.
At the same time there are critiques of open fluidity: because
the boundaries of SC are by nature often unclear, a solid
foundation is important in terms of prior training, professional
experience and theory maps. In fact, regulating structures
do not have to be rigid; they can also utilise organic models,
which have a capacity to adapt in changing circumstances.
One option is to frame codes in terms of being a voluntary set
of standards. However, to mean anything more than a ‘ticking
the boxes’ process in an organisation, hard edges and clear
boundaries suggest the need for policing and enforcement.
the knowing field
Ultimately, enforcement has teeth through a possible range
of consequences, at the very extreme including expulsion.
This conjures up the spectre of ‘in’ and ‘out’; but
exclusion runs counter to the inclusive spirit of SC, which
emphasises and celebrates diversity. An important value
in SC involves creating space for many people and many
types of practice, with no-one playing authority and saying
‘you are not good enough’. This is our spirit of collegiality,
connection, and community. The danger of course is
that, even with peer supervision, poor work can be done,
perhaps people may get hurt. This concern emerged in one
discussion on the list about a suicide which had occurred
after a constellation and apparently connected to it.
However, ethical policing requires ethics police and
an entire system of accreditation, registration and
enforcement. This involves administrative processes
which are enormously time-consuming and easily become
expensive, inefficient, and ultimately corrupted. Chris
Walsh suggests – and I concur – that organisations
inevitably attract psychopaths and obsessives into
positions of power, and it’s downhill from there.
Vivian Broughton (2013b) writes eloquently on these issues
in her report about an ISCA work group on ethics:
“The difficulty with rules is that as soon as there
is a rule, there immediately follows situations
that are exceptions to the rule, arguments
as to why such a rule cannot work, and then
modifications followed by more modifications,
in the end paralysing the original intention.
What do we do in situations that … transgress
our values of practice, perhaps affecting our own
practice and us personally… our good name? If we
have clearly stated rules or guidelines, how do we
enforce them? Potentially this gives rise to many
procedures: grievance procedures and complaints
procedures. Committees are formed to decide
on this and arbitrate on that, each ‘case’ causing
a reconsideration of the effectiveness of the rule.
Committees to make the rules, to assess situations,
to advise and make decisions, to mediate, admonish,
condemn, punish (and here is a whole other raft of
complexities), or to decide against the complainant
(i.e. for the alleged transgressor). And who will
do all of this? And why? And what if, in the most
extreme of cases, the issue heads for the courts?
[It is easy for us] to get lazy, using [an] external
authority as something that, so long as we stay within
the guides, allows us to give up on the continual
uncomfortable struggle of deciding for ourselves
in a given situation what is right and what is not? Is
this not, in effect, supporting a devolving of essential
personal responsibility to some outside authority…?”
39

Even if there was enough agreement on minimum standards,
the policing of ethical codes has not proved particularly
successful when the last 50 years of professional therapy
associations is examined. For instance take the issue of
the one professional breach of ethics that there is universal
agreement about: prohibition about having sex with clients.
Although there is clearly not the same tolerance that there
was 50 years ago for this practice, the actual incidence
amongst professionals has not dramatically reduced
(Schoener, 2013). It seems that the elaborate mechanisms
aimed to stop this practice have only had limited success.
Part of the problem in the professional sphere has been
that the operation of regulatory bodies has basically been
templated on the legal system, but operating in a less
than efficient way. At the worst end this has created star
chamber types of hearings, rife with conflicts of interest, a
lack of natural justice, and deep harm to practitioners and
even clients who can be sidelined in such process (Gunther,
2014b). Clearly, the SC community does not want to address
ethical questions through such means. In fact there are
calls for the whole idea of regulation to be re-evaluated (for
instance, see Gunther, 2014a; Tudor, 2011); such critiques
re-inforce the reluctance in the SC to codify and regulate.
Instead, we are left with an open debate. Certainly,
discussions such as have occurred on Constellation Talk
are an essential part of this: raising issues, expressing
contrasting viewpoints, challenging assumptions and
questioning sacred cows. This creates a healthy climate
for addressing questions of ethics. However, only a
portion of facilitators participate in the list, and so there
is value in raising these topics in additional venues, such
as this magazine. Perhaps SC training programmes
could also incorporate the topic as an essential feature,
structuring in discussion about important ethical themes.
Notes:
1. To register for this private group:
http://www.constellationflow.com/form.asp?formID=1
2. Joanna Malinowska 25.4.17
3. Barbara Morgan 27.4.17
4. Giselle Charbonnier 29.4.17
5. Sneh Victoria Schnabel 25.4. 17
6. Zaquie Meredith 31.3.15
7. Chris Walsh 1.4.15
8. Leslie Nipps 20.4.15
9. Robert Grant 2.4.15
10. Olga Baranova 22.4.17
11. Joanna Malinowska 25.4.17
12. Alison Rose Levy 3.5.17
13. Anngwyn St. Just 25.4.17
14. Giselle Charbonnier 29.4.17
15. Chris Walsh 21.4.17
the knowing field
REFERENCES
Broughton, V. (2013a). Ethics, morality and constellations
facilitation. http://www.vivianbroughton.com/?p=836 15.05.17
Broughton, V. (2013b). Thinking about ethics.
Retrieved from Vivian Broughton website: http://
www.vivianbroughton.com/?p=986 15.05.17
Gunther, S. V. (2014a) A Critical Examination of the
Enforcement of Professional Ethics. Psychotherapy
and Politics International, 2(12), pp. 111–128.
Gunther, S. V. (2014b) Who Minds The Minders. https://
www.academia.edu/7160728/Who_Minds_the_Minders
Hadjistavropoulos, T., & Malloy, D. C. (2000) Making ethical
choices: a comprehensive decision-making model for
Canadian psychologists. Canadian psychology = Psychologie
canadienne, 41(2), 104-115. doi:10.1037/h0086860
Hausner, S. (2015) Even if it costs me my life. Systemic
constellations and serious illness (C. Beaumont,
Trans.). Routledge, New York, NY, USA.
Hoffmann, M. J. (2009) Is Constructivist Ethics an
Oxymoron? International Studies Review, 11(2), 231-
252. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2009.00847.x
Maitrepierre, E. J. (2010) Ethis, Deontology,
discipline of judges and prosecutors in France.
Paper presented at the 143rd International Training
Course Visiting Experts Papers, Tokyo, Japan.
Potsdam Declaration (2004) “Potsdamer Erklärung
der Systemischen Gesellschaft zur systemischen
Aufstellungsarbeit”– überarbeitete Version. Retrieved http://
www.syhom.de/dokumente/potsdamererklaerung.pdf 15.05.17
Schoener, G. R. (2013) Sexual Misconduct By
Professionals: Some Historical Perspectives.
Retrieved from http://www.therapyabuse.org/p2-
professional-sexual-misconduct_Schoener.htm
Code of Conduct, (2008) Systems Constellations
Association of South Africa.
Tudor, K. (2011) Question of Regulation and
Registration. In K. Tudor (Ed.). The Turning Tide:
Pluralism and Partnership in Psychotherapy in Aotearoa.
LC Publications, Auckland, New Zealand.
Weiss, A. G. (2012) The Lost Role of Dependency
in Psychotherapy. Gestalt Review, 6 (1), 6–17.
40