Anthroposophy and Ecofascism XI
Continuing my commentary on the third paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.
Peter Staudenmaier's question of how Anthroposophy could possibly sustain a reputation of progressive humanism when it is in fact populated by fascist hate-mongers begs another one. If anthroposophy is so rotten to the core, how could it possibly have sustained a reputation to the opposite for so long? Staudenmaier attempts to answer this by proposing that the duplicitous anthroposophists systematically deny believing what he, with his self-professed expertise, has discovered they actually believe. This puts him in an interesting position. Either he claims that all anthroposophists who disagree with his opinion are intentionally deceptive, or he claims to know better than the person himself or herself what that person believes.
Next, he goes on to claim that while individuals might have done good things, other members of that group have done and continue to do bad things. What these bad things are is not actually mentioned. There are no actual examples. The implication is, "Disregard the individual. If you see the label 'Anthroposophists' or 'Anthroposophy' you know you are dealing with bad people". This kind of thinking is actually much closer to prejudice and racism than anything found in Steiner. Indeed it is the root of most all bigotry.
As I have stated before: If a few people can be shown to harbor fascist sympathies, it does not follow that everyone with a similar background must therefore also harbor the same fascist sympathies. Anthroposophy is not a monolithic movement where every individual subscribes to a fixed and simple credo. It is a worldwide movement of individuals with a wide variety of thoughts and opinions, united primary in a common interest in the work of Rudolf Steiner. The role this interest plays in a person's life may vary considerably, as do their other interests.
Peter Staudenmaier's question of how Anthroposophy could possibly sustain a reputation of progressive humanism when it is in fact populated by fascist hate-mongers begs another one. If anthroposophy is so rotten to the core, how could it possibly have sustained a reputation to the opposite for so long? Staudenmaier attempts to answer this by proposing that the duplicitous anthroposophists systematically deny believing what he, with his self-professed expertise, has discovered they actually believe. This puts him in an interesting position. Either he claims that all anthroposophists who disagree with his opinion are intentionally deceptive, or he claims to know better than the person himself or herself what that person believes.
Next, he goes on to claim that while individuals might have done good things, other members of that group have done and continue to do bad things. What these bad things are is not actually mentioned. There are no actual examples. The implication is, "Disregard the individual. If you see the label 'Anthroposophists' or 'Anthroposophy' you know you are dealing with bad people". This kind of thinking is actually much closer to prejudice and racism than anything found in Steiner. Indeed it is the root of most all bigotry.
As I have stated before: If a few people can be shown to harbor fascist sympathies, it does not follow that everyone with a similar background must therefore also harbor the same fascist sympathies. Anthroposophy is not a monolithic movement where every individual subscribes to a fixed and simple credo. It is a worldwide movement of individuals with a wide variety of thoughts and opinions, united primary in a common interest in the work of Rudolf Steiner. The role this interest plays in a person's life may vary considerably, as do their other interests.
posted by Daniel | 8:35 AM
<< Home