IJSP Number 4, 2022

54 involvement and the complex process of reality construction people are doing in every aspect of their communicational encounters. Such a paradigmatic shift was possible only after system ic family therapies were able to put aside the ‘classic’ therapies of the first systemic theories, where we still had the therapist – who saw himself more or less as a ‘gift’, and the client or clients who were considered as ‘the problem’ to be managed or solved somehow. After the 70s and the 80s and the raise of constructivism, such an approach was not possible anymore, and more complex issues were to be considered in the changed theoretical conditions. One of them was the shift from the accent on the problem, to the emphasis of a solution which was to be implemented in everyday life considering the immense potential and resilience that human beings have once they are properly motivated and encouraged. Another very important emphasize of constructivism was on the relationship in an observant- observing system, which can be, in our vision, appropriated to the ‘companionship’ that Callenbach was telling us about. On a deeper human level, we shall observe that even companionship is something that has to be ‘constructed’ by both parties, something to be put in place, in other words, by the participants. As such, a new emergent reality appears, namely the idea of companionship as a co-constructed, enveloping and containing entity. Both participants can be seen as being involved and contained at the same time in this new entity they both elaborated by infusing it with their friendship, their time, energy, and willingness to walk together, at least for a while, the same road of mutual co-participation. The very deep consequence of the constructivist approach, one that is still to be interiorized and fully understood, is that the classical hierarchical systems of therapist-client, supervisor- psychotherapist, psychiatrist-patient, and others in the same vein, are to be disclosed of by dissolving them in co-constructed emergent entities. At a closer look, the stated a priori relation therapist-client or patient, as well as that between supervisor and psychologist are conceived on a very classical and linear paradigm. It was only with the constructivist leap that the systemic theory and family practice appropriated, implemented, and incorporated a real systemic approach to the relation between the two parties of every therapy. Once they are seen as constructions, relations cannot be considered as mere linear and have to be acknowledged as circular, whereas the observer becomes the observed and vice versa, in perpetual feedback loops. Circularity does not admit any superior or inferior, therapist or client/patient, ‘gift’ or ‘ problem, which all are relics of the linear, deterministic mode of thinking. In the same category should every encounter between therapist and supervisor be considered because they too are companions on a road less travelled, one that can offer surprises on every turn. And that is the truest and the sincerest recognition of what humanness is all about, leaving behind the artificial categories of specialist and layman or laywoman, categories typical for a still-modern paradigm. Companionship meetings are conceived and conceivable as from person to person rather than being between the status symbols of the one-up therapist or supervisor position and the one-down of client or psychologist position. It is not that one has the answers and solutions and the other has the difficulties and the problems and, it is not that one is better or superior and has resolved every problem life has to offer and the other one is inferior and not very good at solving life-problems or issues. Such a perspective is just a modern left-over in a