In systemic constellations and the work of their creator, Bert Hellinger, there is a perspective that is perhaps less popular but certainly worth reflecting upon.
As I shared in the article regarding Personal Conscience, one of the three basic needs that maintain human relationships in a healthy state is the balance between giving and taking. This seems simple at first glance, but it can be quite complex, as giving and taking take many forms, and we cannot always see how balanced the exchange between partners truly is. Since the most common difficulties occur within intimate partnerships or marriages, the following refers specifically to that form of cohabitation.
According to Hellinger, a fundamental aspect of this balance is that it must encompass not only the good but also the bad that happens between partners. In other words—if we receive something good, we should return it reciprocally; if we receive something bad, we should also return it reciprocally. This is quite different from the popular attitude of not meeting evil with evil. In Christianity, it is even said that if someone strikes you on one cheek, you should turn the other. Here, however, the claim is the opposite, but with essential clarifications:
-
When we receive something good: We should return the good by giving back a little more. This increases the possibility of deepening the richness of the exchange of shared positive things within the couple.
-
When we receive something bad: We should return something bad, but a little less than what we received. This allows the couple to restore balance and move forward. If the offender is not given the opportunity for atonement or penance, it prevents the relationship from having a future.
Since the second claim seems more controversial, I will provide an example from “Love’s Hidden Symmetry.” It tells of a husband and wife divorcing because the woman fell in love with another man. Later, she realized she loved her husband more and wanted to return. Instead of answering her immediately, the husband went to a family counselor seeking an “aha-experience” (an insight into their relationship).
Despite the wife’s readiness to give her best to return, the husband’s feelings remained cold and reserved. Something shifted only when the therapist said: “You were probably deeply hurt by what happened when your wife left you the first time.” Tears appeared in the man’s eyes, and the therapist continued: “A person like you, to whom something painful has happened, often feels superior, and this gives him the right to reject the other… Against such innocence, a guilty person has no chance!” At that moment, a wide smile spread across the man’s face—this was the “aha-experience” he had come for.
From this story, it becomes clear that the primary reason to include the “bad” in the balance of giving and taking is precisely to address the sense of innocence in the person who feels like a victim. This innocence brings a sense of moral superiority, which hinders equality in the future relationship. This is why Hellinger insists on giving the offender a chance for atonement, and for the “innocent” one to leave their privileged position of innocence.
Furthermore, partners must be ready to pass through periods of imbalance to give the relationship a chance to evolve and stay alive. Over-adhering to the status quo can be harmful to the positive dynamics of the relationship.
I will stop here with the examples from this wonderful book. My goal is modest—to share the systemic constellations’ viewpoint on what helps relationships succeed: a balance of giving and taking, in both the good and the bad, but in different proportions.
Kameliya Hadzhiyska
Note: The quotations are translated from Bulgarian and are not presented as verbatim citations.
