Constellations in Transformation

This paper argues for “constellation research” and its core concept “constellations” as a paradigm in response to a series of potential hermeneutic, perspectival, and cognitive fallacies in the prevalent discourses on transformation and the making of future worlds at large. We claim that constellation research provides a particular heuristic to detect salient aspects of ground-breaking actual transformations. The paper’s intent is to spell out the heuristic model in its generality, thus purposefully abstracted from the historic research context in which it arose. As a consequence, the approach appears here as a quasi de-historicized model and detached from any specific case study that may have informed its inception.  Initially constellation research was not conceived as a theoretical framework sui generis but instead emerged enmeshed in a specific study of the philosophical exploration of the “supernova” of German speculative idealism (1787–1806), the revolution of a “thinking style” (Revolution der Denkart): It opened up new ways of conceiving of radically transformative processes in a period roughly between 1787 and 1806, their particular conditions and dynamics and culminated in a series of seminal high-resolution investigations of both historical granularity and authoritative philosophical in-depth analysis second to none.[1] A fundamentally new appreciation of constellational thinking in historico-critical contexts emerged, acknowledged as ground-breaking in character.[2] Only later and in the context of creativity research at large did constellation research assume novel relevance for transformative and creative processes. It provided an analytic device to scrutinize under-researched conditions and dimensions of fundamental change in the past, present, and future.[3] 

The instrumental scope of constellation research reaches from applications as an analytic and diagnostic tool for hindsight analysis of past worlds to a generic device for the making of future worlds. In typological terms, a perspectival triad suggests itself: a first constellational heuristics is applied ex post, in hindsight, to (re-)capture and understand past “events.” A second heuristic ex eventu can be brought to bear on unfolding processes, i.e. gain diagnostic relevance within an emerging medium. This can potentially occur to the extent that the constellational diagnostic scaffold, once established successfully, may exert an explicit influence on events that would otherwise be perceived as merely “unravelling”—an interventionist variant of the heuristic ex eventu. Constellational thinking may also be generative ex ante in order to conceive of “future worlds” envisaged and anticipated through constellational lenses. Within this context, the heuristic may be used specifically in order to foster in deliberate ways constellational conditions as the grounding for the making of new worlds.

At the core of the constellational model sits a particular type of dynamics pertaining to a complex eco-system of constituents which supervenes the agency of singular individuals inscribed into the historic process. From the outset, the term “constellation” has to be understood as a two-dimensional notion: it refers firstly to so-called manifest constellations, i.e. particular groupings of individuals defined by a specific type of interaction. This first-dimension rests upon on a second dimension, specific configurations of shared or overlapping problems and concerns: so-called virtual or conceptual or intentional constellations.

The core conception of constellation research is rooted in the notion of a plurality and interaction of agents as modes in which a constellation manifests itself. The term “agent” is used in a transcategorial way and can refer to e.g. tropes, ideas, notions, conceptual schemes etc., but also to personifications and manifestations through moves, individuals, entire movements etc. as possible modes of this actualization. For that matter, notions and intentional stances can assume constellational agency just as much as individual people. The intrinsically two-dimensional character of constellations—manifest and virtual constellations—entails that the model of interaction applies to individuals and concepts alike.

In order to instrumentalize the constellational model, to foster conditions of transformation ex eventu and ex ante, and to seek impact in ongoing and future processes, we need to capture actual transformative interaction and a collective constellational dynamics that sets itself apart from the prevalent neighboring methodologies around group and network theory and contemporary aggregate design thinking; approaches which largely work humanist claims through modernist lenses in order to formulate a problematic account of transformative processes as essentially culturalist and non-naturalist constructs.[4]

Viewed through constellational lenses, throughout history peak transformations have been based not on reductive notions of “collaboration,” but rather on the particular interactive dynamics of “constellations.” The heroic model of transformational agency on the other side perpetuates the misguided assumption of the solitary achiever. Such a romantic notion of the work of agents of change in isolation also derives from the ways in which allegedly erratic figures stylize themselves.[5]

When moving away from the notion of isolated agency and detached individuality toward a specific interactive model that is operative within a cluster of agents, such a move is not intended to advocate generic “collectivism” and diversification as such, the cliché that propagates a distributed base for agency included. Rather, the specific claim made by constellation research is that radical transformation is not properly understood if based on contact, interaction and the relationships of agents alone. The interaction of individuals with other individuals and contact of concepts with other concepts does not suffice, as is evident from a plethora of historic and contemporary scenarios that are either a-constellational or anti-constellational and hence arguably non-transformational despite the fact that they carry the signs of “change” all over them. Unlike other approaches to transformation that adopt sociological or psychological modes of analysis, the constellational approach is philosophical in character and looks to ground the structure and dynamics of the genuinely creative and transformative process in the very structure of conceptuality and intentionality as such. For that reason, not every ecosystem qualifies as a constellation merely by virtue of generic interaction between its constituents. Instead, a specific type of relationship between the constellational agents is necessary, i.e. an intrinsically dialectical configuration based on a conceptual dialectic. Constellations are thus rooted in a particular antinomic virtual structure.[6]

In a manifest constellation historic individuals may constellate with each other if they occupy antagonistic “poles.” However, these poles are not negating opposites, but rather, mutually necessitating stances, “agon” and “ant-agon” as forces which open up a complex force-field. In such a force-field, agents occupy “positions” and take stances. Given this basic set-up, the constellational paradigm sits within a broader discourse of approaches which emphasize conflictual elements that lie at the heart of successful transformative aggregates.[7] What sets constellations apart from aggregates of “curated conflict” or deliberately “orchestrated dissonance” is the intrinsically dialectic nature of the underlying intentional antagonism which in turn is understood as constitutive of the structure of manifest constellations proper.[8]

As a consequence, constellation research has to investigate the relationship between the analytic devices used to capture the abstract potentialities that make up the subliminal dimension, i.e., pertaining to the virtual ground level, and the diagnostic methods brought to bear on the constellational actualizations at surface level. The question is how a select set of grounding potentialities finds a historic expression at the surface.[9] The particular nature of the process of such “expression” and the dynamism that translates implicit possibilities into explicit manifestations is of central importance to the constellational paradigm. How does the noetic nature of the sub-structure actually translate into e.g. a contingent historic surface structure? Its instantiation at the level of the actual manifest constellation which features individual members is at the same time not a trivial mere transfiguration of “concepts” into “people,” of the abstract into the concrete. The thesis of the transposition and expression “conditions”  into “actualizations” entails that constellation research has to reanimate a modern Hegelian account of the mutual dependence of the concrete and the abstract.[10] Constellation research must be able to give a viable theory of manifestation as such, i.e. a theory of how manifest contingent constellations are related to the noetic structures that underpin them.[11] Otherwise the abstract realm of possibilities and the specific ways of their historic, present or future actualization both remain opaque.

An adequate constellational explanation of manifestation firstly necessitates a thorough account of the nature of the set of interrelated and interdependent noetic agents at the grounding level. The goal is to render perspicuous the way in which the noetic base determines a priori possible positions and stances. These may then find their expression through the figures of the actual historic constellation.[12] To scrutinize actual historic figures and to analyze a manifest constellation, for instance of people or individuals, is a methodically necessary yet subsequent step. In order to capture the dynamic nature pertaining to the spectrum of potentialities that constitute the underlying base level, constellation research uses the notion of a so-called “force field”: within such a field, the relationship between the forces is not merely (ant)agonistic but one of mutual dependency upon each other, which yields the particular constellational noetic ground.[13] The transformational force-field can be understood as a heuristic medium. Viewed from a methodological and strategic perspective, it appears as a heuristic device and at the same time as a transformative trigger.[14] Both for the medial and the instrumental interpretation some form of half-blind reaching is characteristic. While this form of reaching has a certain tacit directionality, it is not directed toward an actual space, but rather: toward a virtual space of possibilities. The force-field is semi-opaque given that neither the source of its directedness nor the space that is opened up are fully explicit at the outset: only through the dynamics of its unfolding—as the virtual space of possibilities starts to be grasped and explicated progressively—does the source of its directedness become apparent; the process alone gradually vindicates the initial half-blind reaching.[15]

The constellational ground, understood as this dynamic force-field, opens up the possibility for the emergence of radically new forms of thinking as well as new forms of life in novel “worlds” not by virtue of mere opposition against a stance or by disruption of an alleged status quo, i.e. not by mere dissolution of a “position,” but rather by elevating the primordial dialectic as a whole and thus transposing the primary antagonism. For that matter, the elevation at stake is conservative, not eliminative. The constellational process must not be misconceived as the trivial progression towards alleged synthesis from thesis to anti-thesis, wrongly stipulating that the initial “contradiction” fades away and gets superseded by some process of fusion of the original poles—arguably a non-Hegelian travesty.[16]

On top of such conceptual misconstruals, a series of perspectival distortions can arise in the heuristic triad as outlined. Firstly, the reconstruction of historic transformative processes is notoriously prejudiced by the (his)story-teller’s perception of the outcome of the historic process which leads to the teleological fallacy of re-constructing a development with the alleged endpoint firmly in mind. This fixation generates finalist explanations as retrospective reconstructions starting from explicit historic results. Such reconstruction is influenced by prejudices of directionality and by tacit assumptions of linearity of process. The commanding knowledge of the perceived result or goal casts a spell on the reconstructive effort. A historical result gets hermeneutically reverse-engineered.  By contrast, the constellational paradigm seeks historic reconstruction without a tacit teleological bias. To that end, constellational analysis deliberately veils the purported outcome of the historic process and purposefully suspends any clichés of directionality.

The hiatus between the abstract intentional and the contingent level of actualizations poses a second perspectival problem, that of the individuals’ limited grasp of the range possibilities within the “force field” wherein they operate. The problem does not arise primarily from conscious exclusion of particular options. It rather represents a “perspectival limitation,” given that the agents immersed in the constellation only rarely occupy an Olympic point of view. Given this limitation, the manifest constellational agents may actualize a particular option of the noetic base only at the expense of grasping in full the dialectic implications of the singular position which they actualize. Viewed however from the standpoint of constellation research, this perspectival predicament can be partially dissolved, and relative perspicuity can be achieved. Conceptual and strategic orientation are rendered possible over time despite the opacity of the structure as a whole in a procedural manner: situating oneself occurs exclusively by reference to the actual position of other individuals within the constellation. Framed in hermeneutical terms, “constellational understanding” is a way of grasping and evaluating one’s own position and movements relative to the position and movements of other constellational agents. An awareness of the radical inter-dependence of mutually constitutive roles advances only gradually through an iterative process of mutual referencing. Such a process of gradual “constellational positioning” is particularly complex in the case of manifest unfolding constellations into which agents are deeply immersed. At first sight, immersion seems to preclude comprehensive reflection.

Near the close of the preface of his Philosophy of Right, Hegel famously claimed that the owl of Minerva flies at dusk, that is only after the event has occurred. This trope has been widely misinterpreted to claim the primacy of the reflection in hindsight, to privilege the point of view back on the battle after it has been fought. Allegedly, this privileged perspective allows one to capture, reveal and understand what could not possibly (or at least not properly) be observed during the heat of the unfolding event: as one is fully immersed in the complexities and intricacies of e.g. the historic process, in particular as one is experiencing ex eventu seemingly rapid, escalating and rapturous processes, the preoccupation can only be to live through them.  Distance and disengagement after the fact on the other side seem to provide a vantage point of perspicuity. Not so in Hegel’s own critical take. As the daylight seizes, the colors and nuances of light give way to a monochromatic palette so that things start to appear similar and even indistinguishable, things that otherwise would stand apart. Critical nuances that might matter, and deeply so, may become indiscernible.

Wittgenstein’s deep sensitivity toward perspectival fallacies regarding cultural advancements tout court is of particular relevance to the question how constellational research articulates critically into alleged instances of revolutionary transformation. The model is potentially generative as a historiographical tool for capture and analysis, i.e. as a hermeneutic scaffold that helps to detect the tacit and subliminal, yet generative dynamics of processes that sit behind a misconstrued and distorted surface history.[17] Its underlying conditions may have remained unnoticed in received reconstructions due to historiographical biases. However, once these conditions have been detected, they may open up the possibility of “another revolution” beneath the surface.

Further to its role for historic reconstruction, the constellational approach may also lead to the dis-covery of  structures that influence the unfolding of transformational processes of significance: these structures are potentially represented in distorted ways or misinterpreted due to fashionable pre-filtering lenses; more often however they get hastily over-painted and, rather than being misrepresented, end up entirely undiagnosed by the transformational “agents”: the reason is not necessarily their use of e.g. an ideological brush, but rather the degree of their intense immersion into the process, a process in which they are profoundly enmeshed.

As outlined above, a first methodological countermove against the particular fallacy of the finalist perspectival distortion in genealogical accounts consists in the deliberate veiling of the final “result.” This strategy can be naturally extended to the veiling of entire phases, in particular late phases or advanced stages of a transformative process. The procedural trope of half-blind reaching discussed above that pertains to the heuristic ex eventu thus has a strategic pendant in the veiling technique of constellational hindsight-analysis. Regardless, an alternative strategy may be pursued close to the starting point of the process: it consists in focusing deliberately, at times exclusively, on the very early phases, on the “inception stages” of a process. At conceptual level, the reason for strategy is that the hiatus between the virtual and the manifest dimensions of a constellation is less prevalent or dramatic in the early stages, i.e. when the constellation is just emerging. Early on, “paths” and “specific directions” which the constellation is developing noetically have not yet found particular actualizations at the manifest level. In its early embryonic stages of emergence, the constellation is, as it were, in suspense mode, concretized only partially and in vague, transitional or experimental terms. In such scenarios of inception, the close vicinity of the virtual space of possibilities and the actual space of only tentatively emerging actualities is palpable.[18]

As a methodological premise, constellation research is particularly interested in scrutinizing the dynamism of constellations in their formative phase. The quest for the initial impulse that triggers a complex development is prominent in related accounts also outside of constellational paradigm which focus on “origins,” “starting points,” “roots” and “sources.”[19] In constellational terms, such sources may be described as implicit potentialities and the unfolding of constellational processes would be cast in the implicit vs explicit paradigm as rendering implicit possibilities explicit.

If the constellational model outlined above sits at the core of any transformative dynamics, the paradigm has important implications for the heuristic triad ex post/ex eventu/ex ante: As a heuristic ex post, the model suggests uncovering historic constellational conditions sui generis. If we understand these conditions as a complex force-field, the further aim is to excavate agents, moves and tropes in this field that are per default distorted through perspectival fallacies, including the failure to grasp the field’s ever emergent dialectic nature. Constellation research thus articulates directly into the non-schematic depth-dimension of a historic process.[20] As a consequence, the constellational heuristic triad set out here arguably has direct relevance to the question of worldbuilding, to substantive change in social, political, and aesthetic regards, including the shift within the ideological frameworks that underpin our form(s) of life.[21]

In the context of a discussion of transformation analysis, constellational thinking is confronted also with the reflexive question of the fate of constellations. The question entails general reflection on the possibility of constellational failure and triggers a particular interrogation of the diagnostics regarding potential pseudo-constellations.[22] An analysis of possible pseudo-constellations can shed important light on the conditions of constellations proper. One main feature of pseudo-constellations can be highlighted in terms of the conceptual substructure, the virtual ground, of proper constellations. As stipulated above with regard to genuine constellations, the noetic core is consistently ant-agonistic: to be productive and qualify as transformative, constellations however depend on the intrinsic dialectical setup of their intentional resources. Where such a particular agonistic basic feature is missing, we are very likely confronted with a pseudo-constellation, i.e. a mere figuration of fundamentally conflicting elements.[23]

The significance of constellation research as a heuristic ex ante, a device for laying the foundations for transformation at the level of the design of e.g. political environments, is intrinsically linked to the project of understanding the specific conditions which promote the generation of constellations and enhance their development.[24] The search for these conditions is twofold in nature: one has to search for the specific conditions that facilitate the interaction between individuals and one has to explore the conditions under which a basic intentional noetic core exerts sufficient gravitational force to hold a constellation together. Insight into these conditions is a key resource in order to be able to actively create and shape an environment which is sensitive to constellations of the present time.

Viewed thus from a historiological perspective, the model is consequential both for the re-appropriation of our cultural past and for analysis and evaluation of “modernity.”[25] The constellational heuristic provides a model for contemporary figure-centered historiography to unpack hidden constellational patterns concealed either deliberately by historic figures themselves or by a reductionist perception of either the direct environment or interpreters in hindsight.

The constellational paradigm explores the specific nature of constellations in its dependence on the type of intentional frameworks and set of problems which underpin and trigger constellations. Better understanding this interdependence enables us to both identify contemporary settings as allowing for a constellational approach and to formulate philosophical, social, political, aesthetic, and economic problems in terms of the constellational paradigm in the first place. Thus, the constellational model as transformation heuristic is of specific value for an analysis of modernity and for harnessing the innovative forces of modern societies. In these latter respects, the paradigm not only relates to our understanding of the past, but also to the understanding of the present and future possibilities for creative and innovative thinking.

The constellational approach critiques low resolution analysis, schematic historical diagnostics and the lack of unbiased phenomenological accuracy. It furthermore calls out formulaic accounts of generic collaborationism. Problematic operational and strategic conceptions such as the myth of “critical mass” and stereotypes of spectral “breadth of expertise” and over-simplistic accounts of diversity pervade the discussions around the construction of collaborative transformative environments and collaboration at large. It also questions stereotypical tropes of innovationism, including the inflationary talk of “disruption” and “paradigm shift,” and sheds novel light on the question of “agency” within the processes of revolutionary transformation, past, present and future. Constellation research also argues for a revisionist account of what counts as radical transformation, regardless of whether it thereby refers to historic instances on one side or the making of future worlds on the other, and aims to expose the delusion of the importance of absolute genesis in the same way as it debunks the fashionable alleged primacy of human activity, capability and authorship.

Constellation research as a novel heuristic for transformative processes is intrinsically linked to the quest for an account of creativity and transformation that applies to universes of manifestation rather than to the human hybris of normativity. Since Heraclitus supposedly uttered the cryptic words “nature tends to hide,” the quest for creativity has been hauntingly (mis)understood as an epistemological quest to confront the veiled goddess Isis (vulgo: nature) setting forth a civilization of experimental questing and the notion of discovery of the hidden—of tearing the veil from nature.[26] Against this tradition, constellation research does not seek an armature of devices for discovery; rather, it aims to capture our manifestations of resonance and participation with “nature.”[27] Constellation research is thus a participatory account not only of transformation at large, but also of creativity in a manner that addresses the question how to control, contain and manage creativity successfully for human purposes only if they are decidedly enmeshed in “nature” at large. The aim is a constellational phenomenology—understood as a comprehensive progression to the more fully concrete in which each ‘fact’ is enmeshed.

Arguably the model has wide-ranging implications at conceptual level for process theory, teleology, figuration theory and contemporary theory of the “auteur”: The constellation paradigm redirects and enhances new approaches in emergence theory where assumptions of causal linearity are a cognitive liability, and it plays a critical trans-disciplinary role for teleology and finalism research. This has wider trans-cultural relevance, where new situated and concrete models of “constellating cultures” can be seen to emerge in relation to “contact theory” at large. The paradigm renders both a device to reconstruct multiple authorship in hindsight through “constellational referencing” and a tool to manage such new constellational aggregates.

The constellational approach suggests considering new ontological models of a non-traditional kind to awaken us to novel activities of creation.[28] Philosophy of creativity needs to rethink creative constellational interaction and fundamental transformation as it begins to understand that such change rests tacitly upon a non-static ontology. Modernism on the other hand is largely based on the cognitive bias of the creation of futures, as if creativity was the motor—based on a human capacity or “generic skill”—that adds novel realities to fading or hindsight realities. The consequence is a seeming progressivism which can be regarded a culturalist derivate of its ideological pendant called “innovationism.” It prevents human beings from grasping the kind of universe they are in as well as the need for a fundamentally new constellational account of creativity in response to it.