July 16-19, 2017 at Knoll Farm Refuge in Fayston Vermont
Bring your open heart – and your cautious one. Bring your curiosity – and your challenges. Bring your joy – and your grief. Come with the questions that are alive for you.
There is only one requirement: the willingness to enter the doorway of presence and meet what arises.
~What to expect~
Expand how you know through presence, empathy and body-awareness.
Engage in collective practices that generate illuminating discoveries about personal and collective challenges, and reveal new paths forward.
Return home with powerful new tools and a new community of practice.
At the New Ways of Knowing retreat, we will focus on dismantling what we consider to be the core illusion that maintains dominant systems: the belief that we are separate. Through practices that engage presence, empathy and body-awareness, you will discover how to go beyond the individual into the collective, generating what we playfully call the “group oracle”. You will have a profound experience of our interconnection, one that will enrich and expand your worldview.
When we can see the world through the lens of interconnection and relationship, everything changes.We move from isolation to community, from power-over to co-creation, from difference and separation to uniqueness and belonging.
Facilitated by Nadia Khan Kimmie and Alison Fornés, two skilled and intuitive guides, and supported by the land and the ancestors, we invite you to join the circle!
I was one of a small group of facilitators invited to do a systemic constellation around racism. The facilitator, Judy Wallace, asked us to generate a list of what should be represented. With the group size we had, we decided on White Power, Black Bodies, Child, Earth, Poor White Person.
I was the one who named “black bodies”. It came out of a recognition that had been stirring for months – that the painful legacy of slavery and racism from its origins through today is defined by the dehumanizing practice of simultaneously valuing and fearing black bodies, but which in my experience was rarely spoken of.
Representing black bodies, I found myself circling the center of the room, while white power stood just outside my circle. White power had a calm but piercing attention on the other white people in the room. Both white child and poor white person were not eager to align with white power, though white power was happy to include them in his power.
As I circled the room, I felt numb, moving forward on a momentum that was not my own. White child tried a few times to connect with me. Their energy was curious and open, though white power tried to keep them away from me. In my representation, I could see the child, but couldn’t mirror their energy.
A shift occurred when a representative for LOVE came in the field. When love arrived, the numbness of black bodies transformed into rage. I felt it rise from my belly, and into my throat like a fire. It was at this point that white child became fearful of black bodies, and ran behind white power, who offered its protection.
When the child ran to white power, I didn’t want this, but the trauma and grief in this body simply could not communicate in a way that the white child would understand. It wasn’t that the desire to make a connection wasn’t there – it simply wasn’t available as a possibility under those conditions.
We most often see the systemic trauma expressed as rage. I had a palpable experience of rage in this constellation, but really, we can see it everywhere.
On Facebook, and came across this argument about Van Jones:
“The time has passed for Van’s “Love Army” idea. How effective, exactly, do you think such an idea would have been in the American Revolution? There is a time to fight. And sometimes, the fighting isn’t pretty. When there is a preponderance of evidence that the biggest root of the Trump Base voting choice boils down to “Fear of Diversity” HOW reasonable is that? HOW can you rationalize something irrational? Or address such a person with any fact based, reasonable argument?” – FB comment in response to an article about Van Jones.
This was part of a long stream of comments this same person was making. Her frustration and anger were palpable, and FB was a useful outlet. The comment was written by a white woman, but I have seen similar expressions across the media by people of color. They express frustration at the idea that “love” and “empathy” should be considered tools for change. I understand these cries, and could easily argue on their side.
But when I step back, I recognize deep in my heart that love and empathy are not burdens for me – unless I am carrying another burden that is asking to receive the flow of love and empathy first. That burden, I believe, is unexpressed grief.
Rage and grief live together – two sides of the coin. Both need safe places for expression. In this constellation, the presence of love was able to soften my representation enough to access rage, but in that moment, I could feel it still wasn’t safe enough for the deep release that the body needed.
Any reader of this article will likely recognize their own grief at the collective and systemic trauma that runs through American society. It affects us all uniquely, and I believe this is a combination of the way in which this trauma literally lives in our bodies, and how sensitive we are to the larger collective field.
I also see that if we find ourselves unable to extend empathy and love to someone, or a group of someones, it is because we are carrying a grief that still wants attention. Grief can also be a form of loyalty. We hold onto it, not letting ourselves become soothed, for it is the way we show our connection to what has been lost.
While I have been able to find some safe spaces for grieving, it is still far too rare. The grief of systemic trauma is a unique form of pain. It is subtle, it lives in the shadows, and it seems to hide when you turn to face it. This is why each new event can activate a new round of grieving – and it needs to find expression.
My prayer is that we add “grief rituals” to our self-care practices. I believe there is an alchemy in communal grieving, and, my friends, alchemy is required for the kind of transformation our hearts desire.
About Alison: Alison Fornés, MEd, is a systemic constellations facilitator who works with parents, educators and changemakers. Her mission is to introduce people to the power of their empathic intelligence: that you have within you the capacity to change complex systems when you unlock your ability to perceive hidden dynamics. You can find more about her work at alisonfornes.com
The person calling is a wise and thoughtful leader in her organization. She explained that she was amidst end of year fundraising, and scheduling meetings to review her organization’s performance and direction.
But the reason for her call was that she was angry, and she couldn’t get over it.
She had been meditating daily and taking long walks in the woods. She was reflecting on her own mistakes and how to improve, she was empathizing with her colleagues and how they experienced the year. Yet every morning, she would wake with a rising anger at two of her closest colleagues.
Several months earlier, disagreements and misunderstandings had created a painful rift that continued to deepen. She called me wanting help, because she knew that she would not be able to address the larger needs and mission of her organization if this conflict continued.
Hidden dynamics. People come to me because the work I do as a systemic constellations facilitator reveals the unseen dynamics driving our conflicts. These dynamics are usually found in older, unresolved conflicts that are being activated by the current one.
As we sit together, I am reminded of something I wrote down when I was being trained. “There’s a truth and a lie. Our work is to figure out what they are, and put them in their right place.”
The client described the nature of the conflict and I started to sketch the system: The client. Her partner. Her colleagues. The project they were working on. The money to fund the project.
But as I listened, I heard other words, some she spoke, some hidden underneath: Betrayal. Shameful mistake. Forgiveness. Magic.
As we felt into each element, a complex and beautiful picture emerged. The conflict was triggering a return to a “Shameful Mistake” in the client’s past. We didn’t discuss what this was, we simply felt how, when faced with her colleagues accusation, it drew her back into the “Shameful Mistake”. At the same time, the power of the client’s “Magic”, that is, her capacity and visionary leadership, was misunderstood by her colleagues and perceived as threatening. These insights were the truth.
The healing movement came as a surprise: the “Betrayal” wasn’t betrayal at all. There was, in fact, no betrayal in this system. This was the lie. Instead, “betrayal” felt itself as spacious, generous and accepting. It was Grace. A large tree, Grace offered it’s comfort to the Shameful Mistake, transforming it into a life-supporting resource.
With the truth and the lie in their right place, we could feel that the client and her colleagues could face each other. The misunderstandings were gone, replaced by openness and forward movement.
My work in empathic intelligence and sharing it with educators and changemakers is rooted firmly in a healing / therapeutic modality called Family Constellations. Below you will find the story of my first FC workshop. And if you would like to learn a version of this process designed specifically for teachers and facilitators, check out my course: Introduction to the Empathic Seminar.
February 18, 2012 – Hampden, CT
I showed up at the workshop with a combination of butterflies in my stomach and a heaviness in my chest. The butterflies were excitement, but the heaviness in my chest was less clear to me.
I had done a little research, so I had a general idea of what to expect: we would be chosen to represent members of a person’s family system. However, this basic description information of the process revealed nothing of what I was about to experience.
A man took the chair next to the facilitator. He described his issue: He had a confusing relationship with his mentor, a man he had great admiration for. Their visits would begin well, but they often found themselves in conflict, and he would leave feeling confused. He wanted to understand what was happening because he was supposed to be writing a book with his mentor, but they weren’t making progress.
The facilitator asked him to set up a representative for himself and his mentor. The man looked around the circle of workshop participants. He chose one man to represent his mentor, another to represent himself. He walked each of them to the center of the circle and placed them facing each other, about six feet apart. The two representatives stood silently in the center of the room, looking down. They both described themselves feeling “wobbly” and unstable.
The facilitator asked the client to set up a second representative for himself and his mentor. He placed the “second mentor” to the right of the first. He chose me as the second representative for himself. I stood across from the “second mentor”.
Having never done this before, I was nervous and uncertain. What was I supposed to do? What if I did it wrong? I don’t remember the facilitators specific instructions. There might not have been any instructions at all. I was simply asked, “what do you notice?”
What I noticed was that I my limbs felt weak. I even felt like I should probably lay down, and the facilitator instructed me to follow my movement. As I lay face down on the ground, I started to feel cold, and then I was shivering. I felt an unusual pressure where my body touched the floor, as if a magnet were pulling me into the ground.
“Who is that?” the facilitator asked. The client looked at me on the floor and said, “I think that’s my sister.”
“My sister died as a child. I was 6 and she was 9. My parents, in their grief, just packed up the house and we moved to another city. We almost never spoke of her again.”
As he said these things, I felt myself lighten. The warmth came back to my body, and I looked up at him with a sense of playfulness and happiness that “I” was being spoken of.
Later, the facilitator asked me to stand. As I stood, I made eye contact with the man who had been chosen as “the second mentor.” As I looked at him, I was overcome with emotion – so much love! I have described it since then as sunlight – not the sunlight we often see coming through the window, with little flecks of dust floating in it. I felt it as clear, radiant love. The facilitator said, “This is your father.”
The facilitator invited us to follow our movements, and “my father” and I embraced. A powerful, joyous embrace, it felt like a true homecoming.
In the last post I described an Empathic Seminar about the “N-Word”. In this post, I’ll debrief the experience and address some common questions.
What happened in the “N-Word” exercise?
We created a constellation of the system by identifying three points in the system: “Black Person,” “White Person,” and “N-word”. Three people stood in the center of the room and represented each of those nodes. Then, they just reported what they noticed. That’s it!
Where did the information come from? Were the participants role playing?
What we discover when we step into the system in this way is that the system creates a field of information that we perceive as physical sensations, emotions, and thoughts.
It’s not role-playing. I guide the participants to attend to their felt-sense (Key #2), and if we start talking too much, I cue folks to drop back into their bodies.
To help participants build confidence in the work, I often work blind – that is, I do not tell the representatives what they are representing until after we experience into the system. This way, they can have their experience without trying to make up what they think should be happening.
Is the information accurate? How do you know?
The number one challenge participants have is being able to trust themselves and their experience. For some, this trust comes easily. For others, perhaps because they are more analytically oriented, working in this way is more challenging. Because we are so used to relying on language and thought to convey information, it can take some practice to feel comfortable listening to one’s somatic (body) response as a source of information.
The most common question I get, the one that I still ask myself, is: Can I trust this information?
My answer, having been engaged in this process for the past 6 years: Absolutely. I trust the information from this process more than analytical approaches. That’s not to say that I always trust how the information has been interpreted! But I do trust how my felt-sense responds in the system.
The undefended body is the reason I have such trust in this process. Unlike our ego, which naturally takes a position and defends it, our somatic response is authentic and innocent. Though we may need practice listening and interpreting it, it does not deceive.
However, this process does not preclude thinking and research! So many lines of inquiry open up after this brief process, with each experience stimulating more possibilities. On the other hand, we have all had the experience of inquiry being shut down through argument or debate, especially when we are discussing emotional and triggering topics.
With this N-word example, we could follow up the process by conducting interviews or other research to see if there was any evidence to support what we learned.
But for folks who remain skeptical, I offer a simple question: do you trust your thoughts? Where do your thoughts come from? If you haven’t given this any serious consideration, Google the question and read through the results. Very stimulating research.
What’s the takeaway?
You have a superpower: one that reveals hidden dynamics, and can make sense of complex systems. It is hidden in this little thing we call empathy, but when you learn to engage it fully, you will perceive the world with a new capacity.
In today’s post, you will read about an Empathic Seminar I introduced at a school in Bronx, NY. This is a firsthand account of the Fourth Key to Unlocking Your Empathic Intelligence: Field Testing. I further debrief this exercise in my final post.
“I want to know why my students use the N-word with each other. Don’t they understand the history of that word?”
The questioner was an older African-American teacher from the Bronx. He said he grew up in Virginia, and he would never think of using that word.
Immediately, I noticed bodies shifting in preparation for the discussion. But I reminded the group that our work this day was not to use our analytic capacity but our empathic capacity to explore this question.
“Every question contains a whole system of relationships. What are the core elements of this question?” I asked. After a brief discussion, we decided upon three elements, “Black Person”, “White Person” and “The N-Word,” and that they needed to be examined in two time contexts – 19th-century slavery and 21st-century youth.
Three volunteers representing “Black Person”, “White Person” and “N-Word” were placed facing each other in the center of the room. I told them that they were in the 19th-century slavery setting. After a few seconds of silence, I invited them to follow their movement. Very quickly, “Black Person” moved as far away from “White Person” and “N-Word” as possible, while “White Person” moved closer to “N-Word”. “Black Person” reported that if they could, they would leave the room. “White Person” and “N-Word” were shoulder to shoulder, looking silently at “Black Person”.
In the next round, I asked for three new volunteers. They represented the same elements, but this time in the 21st-century youth setting. The representatives started as before, standing in the the center of the room facing each other, but this time “Black Person” pulled “N-Word” close and placed their right arm around “N-Word”, while holding up their left hand as if to stop or block “White Person”. “White Person” said okay, and moved a slight step back. “Black Person” reported that they felt like “N-Word” belonged to them, and “N-Word” nodded in agreement.
We closed the exercise here. After thanking the volunteers, I asked the teacher who brought the question if he had any questions or reflections. He shook his head no. “I understand,” he said.
At the end of the exercise, as is often the case, a silence settled in, followed by the percolating of questions and comments. After the group came to a close, a teacher walked up to me, looking very thoughtful. “This is revolutionary,” he exclaimed. “When we started, I couldn’t imagine how we could find out anything about this question without discussing it, but what happened was so revealing. This changes everything.”
A note for those following the Four Keys: In my last post, I introduced the Three Fields Model. The model is a guide to help people map the system in which their questions are embedded.
The Three Fields are:
what is known,
what is the history, and
what are the limits, resources and drivers fueling or blocking the system.
In practice, we are not necessarily mapping each Field so explicitly. In the example below, what is known emerges directly from the question. The historical context is included by changing the time period of the two versions we set up. And the driver is revealed by how the parts of the system interact.
“The idea is to pay attention to the living world as if it were a spider’s web: when you touch one part, the whole web responds.”- Robin Wall Kimmerer, Interviewed by The Sun Magazine
While many of us understand intellectually that we are, of course, part of an interconnected web, the dominant approach to teaching and learning focuses on objectifying and separating out parts and individuals in the ongoing effort to find what is core or essential.
“Whereas the scientific method (summarised by Popper as the three Rs: reduction, repeatability and refutation) increases our knowledge and understanding by breaking things down into their constituent parts and exploring the properties of these parts, systems thinking explores the properties which exist once the parts have been combined into a whole.” From ReallyLearning.com, Briefing Paper One: Systems thinking
The ReallyLearning.com article is an excellent introduction to systems thinking. As indicated by the quote, systems thinking provides something a purely analytical approach cannot: it allows us to discover the properties that arise from the relationship between the parts of a system.
Ironically, that line also captures the intellectual flaw of the reductive approach: “…the properties which exist once the parts have been combined into a whole” (emphasis added). The great truth is that the parts never exist on their own.
There is no one combining parts into a whole. We may recombine multiple systems in a new way, requiring us to discover the new relationships in the increasingly complex system. However, the ultimate scientific truth is that properties only exist in the context of the whole. We are never not in an interconnected system. We can only truly know something if we know it in relationship to the whole.
What we know of as systems thinking today originated in the 1920s, a response to the reductivist nature of analytical thought. By the 40s and 50s, systems thinkers imagined a future in which analysis and systems thinking would be partnered in all fields of study. In many ways we do live during a flowering of systems thinking, for it is the basis of our digitally networked world. In many other ways, we have failed that vision: nearly all of K-12 education and many institutions of higher education leave out systems thinking and continue to focus almost solely on traditional analytic thought.
I’ve written about systems thinking in this blog before. Read that article, or better yet, read some of my favorite systems thinkers: Russell L. Ackoff, Donella Meadows and Peter Senge. It’s worthwhile to note that systems thinking does not require the kind of empathic intelligence that I teach. Most systems thinkers work almost entirely from an analytic approach, developing complex analytical models of systemic dynamics. However, you can’t access the full capacity of your empathic intelligence if you are not thinking systemically.
Constellating the System
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein
Every problem or question is embedded in a system. To use our empathic intelligence to inquire into a problem, we must be able to constellate the system. This is different from systemic modeling, for we are not looking at feedback loops or analyzing relationships at this point. Constellating a system is a spatial/visual process in which we are identifying points or nodes in a system.
The Three Fields Model I am offering here is a set of interconnected fields or lenses that allows us to see different layers of the system. There are times when constellating only the first field provides enough meaningful insight just through the visualization of the problem as you know it. However, as the Einstein quote suggests, more often, mapping only what is “known” helps us see the problem but not the solution. It is when we add fields 2 and 3 that we start to shift our perception and reach levels where creative solutions emerge.
I wrote an earlier post that describes the origins and applications of this model in detail. You can find it here.