Anthroposophy and Ecofascism XII
Next up is the
fourth paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.
This paragraph attempts to establish that anthroposophy is a movement that is, by implication, centralized, organized, and everywhere. "Organized groups... [have a] far-flung network of public institutions." Next the Waldorf School movement is mentioned. One would gather from this that a network of Waldorf Schools is an organized public institution of some unmentioned anthroposophist group. Actually, most Waldorf schools are independent and self-governing (many of the European Waldorf schools even have the word "Free" in their name to indicate this). A Waldorf School, like most anthroposophical initiatives, is a grassroots organization, usually founded by a group of parents, and in every legal and moral way independent of any outside hierarchical control. In fact, every component of the "far-flung network of public institutions" mentioned above is legally independent of all the others. This is true all over the world, and not just in the US. Just about every Waldorf School is a legally independent nonprofit institution. Exceptions include the few US charter schools based on Waldorf methods.
Many of these alleged dangerous anthroposophical initiatives do exactly the same thing that Peter Staudenmaier also spends his time at: they are organized grass-roots social initiatives. But rather than having Karl Marx as their ideological inspirer, they have Rudolf Steiner, which seems to bother our author considerably.
By naming all these initiatives Staudenmaier inadvertently confers quite a bit of praise on the accomplishments of various anthroposophists, though doubtless it was not his intention. It is also an attempt to link all these initiatives. Are the very real accomplishments of the German Green Party now somehow worthless if one of its founders happens to be an anthroposophist and a few other misguided anthroposophists happen to have been Nazis?
fourth paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.
Peter Staudenmaier's writes in Paragraph 4:
Organized anthroposophist groups are often best known through their far-flung network of public institutions. The most popular of these is probably the Waldorf school movement, with several hundred branches worldwide, followed by the biodynamic agriculture movement, which is especially active in Germany and the United States. Other well-known anthroposophist projects include Weleda cosmetics and pharmaceuticals and the Demeter brand of health food products. The new age Findhorn community in Scotland also has a strong anthroposophist component. Anthroposophists played an important role in the formation of the German Greens, and Germany's current Interior Minister, Otto Schily, one of the most prominent founders of the Greens, is an anthroposophist.
This paragraph attempts to establish that anthroposophy is a movement that is, by implication, centralized, organized, and everywhere. "Organized groups... [have a] far-flung network of public institutions." Next the Waldorf School movement is mentioned. One would gather from this that a network of Waldorf Schools is an organized public institution of some unmentioned anthroposophist group. Actually, most Waldorf schools are independent and self-governing (many of the European Waldorf schools even have the word "Free" in their name to indicate this). A Waldorf School, like most anthroposophical initiatives, is a grassroots organization, usually founded by a group of parents, and in every legal and moral way independent of any outside hierarchical control. In fact, every component of the "far-flung network of public institutions" mentioned above is legally independent of all the others. This is true all over the world, and not just in the US. Just about every Waldorf School is a legally independent nonprofit institution. Exceptions include the few US charter schools based on Waldorf methods.
Many of these alleged dangerous anthroposophical initiatives do exactly the same thing that Peter Staudenmaier also spends his time at: they are organized grass-roots social initiatives. But rather than having Karl Marx as their ideological inspirer, they have Rudolf Steiner, which seems to bother our author considerably.
By naming all these initiatives Staudenmaier inadvertently confers quite a bit of praise on the accomplishments of various anthroposophists, though doubtless it was not his intention. It is also an attempt to link all these initiatives. Are the very real accomplishments of the German Green Party now somehow worthless if one of its founders happens to be an anthroposophist and a few other misguided anthroposophists happen to have been Nazis?
posted by Daniel | 1:14 PM
<< Home