Family Constellation and the Critique of Hellinger — What Is Justified

You have heard of Familienaufstellung (family constellation), and at the same time you have heard what speaks against it. Authoritarian gestures. Rituals of submission. A man who told his clients where to stand and what to feel. Perhaps you have experienced a constellation yourself, one that moved you, and since then you have wondered whether what reached you there can survive this criticism. Or you stand before the decision to engage with it, and the contradictions hold you back.

This tension is legitimate. The critique of Bert Hellinger has real grounds. The question of whether the phenomenon itself — what reveals itself in the space of a constellation — can be separated from its critic is a question worth asking.

#Which Criticism of Family Constellation Is Justified?

Bert Hellinger (1925–2019) did not invent systemic constellation work, but he shaped it decisively into the form it is known by today (cf. Hellinger, 1994). The justified criticism is aimed at concrete practices. It was voiced by individual psychologists and also by two German professional associations for systemic therapy, the German Society for Systemic Therapy and Family Therapy (DGSF) and the Systemische Gesellschaft (cf. DGSF, 2003; cf. Systemische Gesellschaft, 2004).

As early as 2000, the psychologist Colin Goldner included “family constellation according to Hellinger” in the chapter on the “esoteric psycho market” of Die Psycho-Szene, his critical survey of the field (cf. Goldner, 2000, p. 271 ff.). In 2003 he edited the collection Der Wille zum Schicksal (“The Will to Fate”), whose contributors criticize Hellinger’s work with clinical and legal arguments, from a feminist perspective and in comparison with systemic psychotherapy, among other angles (cf. Goldner (ed.), 2003). In 2003 the psychologist Klaus Weber published a critique of the constellations Hellinger held with descendants of perpetrators and victims of National Socialism (cf. Weber, K., 2003a), and accused Hellinger of trivializing German fascism (cf. Weber, K., 2003b).

In 2003 the board of the DGSF charged Hellinger with staging “high-profile family constellations at large public events” and with presenting his concepts, interpretations and interventions “again and again with an absoluteness that severely restricts clients’ autonomy” (DGSF, 2003). In 2004 the Systemische Gesellschaft stated that Hellinger had “moved further and further away from genuinely systemic work”, and it counted “the use of unrestrictedly generalized formulations and dogmatic interpretations” among the things incompatible with systemic therapy, alongside “the use of potentially humiliating interventions and rituals of submission” (Systemische Gesellschaft, 2004). In this critique, the constellation turns from a space of perception into a stage for the facilitator: not the client’s inner movement determines the course of events, but the judgement of the one leading.

This is not a side issue. It touches the very core of what this work is about.

Hellinger’s statements on certain political and historical subjects and his trivializations (cf. Weber, K., 2003a; cf. Weber, K., 2003b) deserve no defence either, and neither do his paternalistic interventions. They deserve exactly what constellation work itself teaches: a clear-eyed look at what is. Not embellishment, not looking away, not loyalty for loyalty’s sake.

#Can a family constellation facilitator influence the outcome?

Yes, a family constellation facilitator can influence a family constellation: they can distort it by commanding instead of looking — as the critique of Hellinger’s later work describes, in which the judgement of the one leading determined the course. What shows itself when I do look, on the other hand, I have never once foreseen in my own constellations. This is not theory; it is what I find in my own work, constellation after constellation. When I attune myself to a new client and their concern before a family constellation, an expectation forms in me every single time. On Laurens Dillmann’s podcast Durch den Nebel (“Through the Fog”), released in 2026, I, Gwendolin Kirchhoff, described what becomes of that expectation: “every time, I have an idea of what will come out of the constellation.” A moment later: “And I am wrong in 100% of cases.” (Kirchhoff, G., 2026, Durch den Nebel, 43:50–43:59). In the Manova conversation Gescheiterte Dystopien (“Failed Dystopias”) with Elisa Gratias, published in June 2026, I had said the same: “I am always wrong.” (Kirchhoff, G., 2026, Gescheiterte Dystopien, 46:23). The same observation already appears in my introduction to systemic family constellations (cf. Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 46:33).

My own share in a constellation is therefore not zero, but it lies somewhere other than you might expect. In the conversation with Laurens Dillmann I named it: I can “formulate a question and a basic feeling” (Kirchhoff, G., 2026, Durch den Nebel, 44:18); the clarity only comes from what arrives from outside, in the looking. I do not set the course; I accompany what shows itself without anticipating it. The movement I follow lies in the room: there is something there that always wants to happen (cf. Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 45:57). That is something fundamentally different from a performance in which the judgement of the one leading decides what happens. Where this distinction collapses, constellation work collapses with it.

What reveals itself instead often lies outside what the client knows about themselves. People arrive with a diffuse feeling, and then “they are looking, for example, at an ancestor from whom a particular emotional state was taken on through resonance, without their noticing it.” (Kirchhoff, G., 2026, Durch den Nebel, 13:56). Which ancestor, and which emotional state, I do not know beforehand. It shows itself only in the room.

Revelation here means that clarity does not come from my assumption; it arrives only in the looking, from what communicates itself from outside (cf. Kirchhoff, G., 2026, Durch den Nebel, 44:13). So the answer to the question has two sides. A family constellation facilitator decides the stance in which a constellation takes place — whether they look or command. Whoever commands can indeed determine the course, and that is exactly what the critique of Bert Hellinger’s family constellations rightly names. When I look, something shows itself that I did not know beforehand — in my own constellations, so far without exception.

#What Remains When You Remove the Name

The question that arises is not: Was Hellinger faultless? Of course not. The question is: Is what he observed real?

Here something begins that can be separated from Hellinger the person. The phenomena of constellation work — the fact that representatives perceive feelings that are not their own, that spatial arrangements reveal an emotional truth inaccessible to the rational mind — these phenomena were not created by Hellinger. He named them, sometimes accurately, sometimes not. But the phenomenon itself is older than he was and independent of him.

The Jewish religious philosopher Martin Buber (1878–1965) described in I and Thou something that directly touches constellation work: “the human being becomes an I through a Thou” (Buber, 1923). What Buber opens up here is an insight fundamental to constellation work: human emotionality is not intrapsychic but relational and spatial. Every feeling is, at its core, a relationship between two beings in space. This insight dates from 1923 — three decades before Hellinger began his work.

Confucius (551–479 BCE) described natural orders within human relationships: between elders and younger ones, between parents and children, between leaders and those they lead (cf. Confucius, Analects, 12.11). Not as moral commandments but as regularities, comparable to what Hellinger called the order of rank (cf. Hellinger, 1994). In my introduction to systemic family constellations I described rank order as something everyone feels, “a basic element of all cultures”, observed with particular care in Asian cultures (Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 23:21).

What happens in a constellation rests on insights that Hellinger neither invented nor owned (cf. Buber, 1923). Whoever abandons constellation work because Hellinger was questionable confuses the messenger with the message.

#What a Philosophical Stance Changes

The legitimate critique of Hellinger is directed at one thing at its core: the power of the facilitator. The position of the one who claims to know what the system needs and forces that answer upon the client.

This is not a critique of constellation work. It is a critique of a particular stance within constellation work — a stance one might call the guru model. This critique is correct. The method itself has since been studied empirically. In a randomized controlled trial at Heidelberg by Jan Weinhold and co-authors, 208 adults from the general population were randomly assigned either to a three-day family constellation seminar or to a wait-list control group. Two weeks and four months later, the seminar group showed significantly improved psychological functioning compared with the wait-list group, and no adverse events were reported (cf. Weinhold et al., 2013a; cf. Weinhold et al., 2013b). The sample was nonclinical, not a patient group. The legitimate critique, then, is aimed at a stance — and it points toward the remedy.

The alternative is not to abandon the constellation. The alternative is a different stance on the part of the one who accompanies. Not as one who knows, but as one who perceives. Not as an authority over the field, but as someone who reads the field — with what I call thinking empathy: a thinking that feels, and a feeling that thinks.

In practice, this means: I cannot predict what a constellation will show. This is not a weakness. It is the condition that allows the constellation to show anything at all. The moment the facilitator already knows what should appear, they no longer see what actually appears. Humility before the field is not decoration — it is a prerequisite.

The actual movement of resolution happens in the room: “Here there is something that always wants to happen, now, in the room, in every relationship” (Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 45:57). It cannot be grasped with the intellect: “It entirely eludes our rational faculty.” (Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 46:50). And yet it is present, touching, and real (cf. Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 46:53). Whoever takes this seriously cannot posture before the field. The stance that constellation work demands is the opposite of guruship. It demands the willingness not to know, and still to look.

#The Order That Reveals Itself Needs No Guru

The misunderstanding that produces many poor constellations lies in confusing order with ordering. Systemic order work does not establish an order. It makes visible an order that is already there (cf. Kirchhoff, G., 2024). It forces no one into a place. What it does: it gives back their place to what has been overlooked.

Recognition is the currency of the soul. Not command. Not submission. Not the restoration of a hierarchy in which elders rule and younger ones obey. That would be a misunderstanding of rank order — one that Hellinger’s later work at times fostered itself.

What rank order means in constellation work: the parents may give to their children wholeheartedly, fully and completely, and the children may receive fully and completely (cf. Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 23:47; cf. Hellinger, 1994). This is not a repressive hierarchy but a regularity of the family system. If a child wants to take nothing from its parents, or wants to give to them in turn, that is presumption: it violates the order of rank and can run into serious difficulties in its life (cf. Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 24:01; cf. Weber, G. (ed.), 1993). To restore this order does not mean obedience — it means the permission to be small again, to receive again, to love again without paying a price.

Children take on the fate of their parents out of love, without being able to resolve it (cf. Weber, G. (ed.), 1993). This taking on of burdens is a central motif of systemic entanglement (cf. Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 31:26). The resolution sentence for it is also the most humble sentence that constellation work knows: “I honour your fate, and I leave it with you” (Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 32:46). This is the opposite of power. This is a bow.

#What Constellation Work Teaches — Even About Its Critics

Constellation work has taught me something that paradoxically confirms the critique: I cannot guess the systemic state of a human being in advance (cf. Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 46:25). Every expectation I have formed so far has turned out to be wrong. “I always have to see the constellation to be able to know at all what it is about.” (Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 46:41). Precisely for this reason, I consider every form of constellation work that rests on the authority of the facilitator a distortion of the principle.

Constellation work teaches a fundamental equality before life: everything that lives “has its own rightful place, has its right, and also its right to recognition” (Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 45:29). It teaches us to bow before the fate of others without taking everything on ourselves (cf. Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 45:36). It teaches that perpetrator-victim relationships want to dissolve in love — especially posthumously (cf. Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Systemisches Familienstellen, 44:47). It teaches that the dead are equal to the living in their effect: for the emotional effect a person has, it makes no difference whether they are alive or dead (cf. Kirchhoff, G., 2024, Nachdenken über den Tod, 34:28). And it teaches that the actual movement of resolution happens in space, in every relationship, in this moment.

These insights do not depend on whether one venerates Hellinger. They depend on whether one is willing to look. If you want to go deeper into how a family constellation unfolds, you will find there an account of what actually happens in the room — beyond the projections the critique rightly names.

#Is Family Constellation Dangerous?

The question is legitimate, and it deserves a precise answer. Yes, a family constellation can do harm — under certain conditions. When the person leading it places their own worldview above what shows itself in the room. When emotional processes are set in motion and no one accompanies them. When the constellation becomes a stage on which a supposed knower performs their interpretations. That is exactly what happened in Hellinger’s later work, and exactly what provoked the justified criticism.

What is dangerous is not the constellation itself but the stance in which it is conducted. A constellation in which the facilitator sets themselves up as an authority over the field violates a basic principle of the work: what shows itself is decided not by the facilitator, but by the field.

In my work, three conditions keep the risk of a harmful experience low. First: one-to-one work, not a group setting — you are alone in the room with me, with no audience and no group dynamics. Second: no claim to interpretation — I accompany what shows itself without anticipating it. Third: a philosophical foundation grounded in thinking empathy, not in charisma or authority. The room in which a family constellation takes place needs humility, not power.

Whoever asks whether family constellation is dangerous is, at heart, asking about trust: can I open myself to this without handing myself over? The answer does not depend on the format but on the person who holds it. If you want to explore whether a constellation makes sense for your own situation, you will find an honest orientation there — without promises.

#The Critique as an Invitation

If you take the critique of Familienaufstellung seriously — and it deserves to be taken seriously — it does not lead you away from constellation work but toward a more mature form of it. A form that stands on philosophical ground, not on authority. That honours the space rather than dominating it. That accompanies the client rather than instructing them.

The order that reveals itself in a family constellation needs no mediator who stands above it. It needs someone who is willing to bow before it — with the full clarity of thought and the full openness of feeling.

If you sense that this topic concerns you — whether as critique, as question, or as a quiet recognition — then that is already the beginning of a movement toward it. Not toward a guru, but toward what wants to reveal itself when you let it.

#Sources

• Buber, M. (1923). Ich und Du. Leipzig: Insel.
• Confucius (ca. 500 BCE). Lunyu (Analects). Cited after 12.11.
• DGSF (2003). Stellungnahme der DGSF zum Thema Familienaufstellungen [statement by the board of the German Society for Systemic Therapy and Family Therapy]. Cologne, February 2003. https://dgsf.org/service/was-heisst-systemisch/hellinger.htm.
• Goldner, C. (2000). Die Psycho-Szene. Aschaffenburg: Alibri.
• Goldner, C. (ed.) (2003). Der Wille zum Schicksal. Die Heilslehre des Bert Hellinger. Vienna: Ueberreuter.
• Hellinger, B. (1994). Ordnungen der Liebe: Ein Kurs-Buch. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer.
• Kirchhoff, G. (2024). Systemisches Familienstellen (nach Bert Hellinger), eine Einführung [Video]. SYMPOSIUM, YouTube. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kwd1x1RzNoE.
• Kirchhoff, G. (2024). Nachdenken über den Tod (1) [Video]. SYMPOSIUM, YouTube. https://youtube.com/watch?v=KSltRJB88jg.
• Kirchhoff, G. (2026). Folge der Schönheit — conversation with Laurens Dillmann [Video]. Durch den Nebel, YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNxKGk3bXeA.
• Kirchhoff, G. & Gratias, E. (2026). Gescheiterte Dystopien [Video]. Manova, YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48tQgnOdoa0.
• Systemische Gesellschaft (2004). Potsdamer Erklärung zur Systemischen Aufstellungsarbeit [Potsdam Declaration on Systemic Constellation Work]. General meeting of the Systemische Gesellschaft e. V., Berlin, July 2004. https://systemische-gesellschaft.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/potsdamer_erklaerg_aufstellarbeit.pdf.
• Weber, G. (Hrsg.) (1993). Zweierlei Glück: Die systemische Psychotherapie Bert Hellingers. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer.
• Weber, K. (2003a). “Bert Hellingers Familienaufstellungen – eine Kritik”. Psychoanalytische Familientherapie, 4(1), 73–102.
• Weber, K. (2003b). “Die Schuld der Eltern geht die Kinder nichts an!”. Psychologie Heute, 30(3), 28–33.
• Weinhold, J., Hunger, C., Bornhäuser, A., Link, L., Rochon, J., Wild, B. & Schweitzer, J. (2013a). “Family constellation seminars improve psychological functioning in a general population sample: Results of a randomized controlled trial”. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 601–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033539.
• Weinhold, J., Hunger, C., Bornhäuser, A. & Schweitzer, J. (2013b). “Wirksamkeit von Systemaufstellungen: Explorative Ergebnisse der Heidelberger RCT-Studie”. Familiendynamik, 38(1), 42–51.