Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 70

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 24 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

The Social Vision of Anthroposophy

Steiner's political perspective was shaped by a variety of influences. Foremost among these was Romanticism, a literary and political movement that had a lasting impact on German culture in the nineteenth century. Like all broad cultural phenomena, Romanticism was politically complex, inspiring both left and right. But the leading political Romantics were explicit reactionaries and vehement nationalists who excluded Jews, even baptized ones, from their forums; they were bitter opponents of political reform and favored a strictly hierarchical, semi-feudal social order. The Romantic revulsion for nascent "modernity," hostility toward rationality and enlightenment, and mystical relation to nature all left their mark on Steiner's thought.

To sum up the paragraph, Steiner was hostile to rationality and enlightenment, favored a mystical relation to nature and was revulsed by "modernity," and was therefore influenced by the Romantics. Since he was influenced by the Romantics, he must also share their opposition to political reform and favor a strictly hierarchical, semi-feudal social order, and was likely an explicit reactionary and vehement nationalist who excluded Jews. That is the claim. Besides vastly oversimplifying the Romantic Movement, is such a claim substantiated? Quite simply, no. I would suggest that a serious scholar should examine Steiner’s actual life and work (rather than hostile summaries thereof) and then determine, after such an investigation, which of the conventional labels fit.

Romanticism as a movement was indeed complex, as Peter Staudenmaier states. Should we even begin to agree on who the leading political romantics might have been, Steiner was studiously apolitical his entire life; therefore indicting him based on the political goals of some members of an earlier group that shared aspects of his philosophical attitude is quite a stretch. Yet it is only by such long shot guilt-by-association arguments that Steiner can be made into an anti-Semite reactionary. Nothing in his writing would support such a claim. The absurdity of this charge becomes especially evident in examining the claim that Steiner was a social reactionary. In actual fact Steiner's one foray into politics occurred when he proposed a fundamental social reform in his Threefold Social Order, maligned below. While advocating the Threefold Social Order, Steiner spent over a year agitating and attempted to build support from the grassroots. (Steiner's initial attempts to interest leading politicians yielded no results, so he turned to the grassroots.)

Peter Staudenmaier has made some bold assertions about the sources of influence on Steiner's intellectual development. He is simply wrong, both on the actual content of Steiner's thought and its influences. Further, he has not offered any examples to establish his claims. Quite simply he is woefully unqualified to formulate such sweeping judgments.