Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 100

Continuing my commentary on the 29th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

I share Peter Staudenmaier's concern that "the threefold commonwealth" is not a good translation of "Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus." The most strictly accurate translation would be "The Tripartite Division of the Social Organism," but since that is a rather unwieldy translation the one currently used is "Threefold Social Order." "Commonwealth" was a choice of the British translators of the 1920's and is no longer used, either in the current translations or in conversation or writing among current-day anthroposophists. Only a very few old books even refer to the "Threefold Commonwealth", so by claiming that this phrase is common currency among anthroposophists Peter Staudenmaier shows just how unfamiliar he is with the entire field of discourse on the subject.

Calling human society an organism is hardly biologistic (defined as: using biological principles in explaining human especially social behavior). Biologism refers to individual behavior; the social organism refers to the behavior of a group or groups. Peter Staudenmaier is throwing the word in for its association to "deterministic," trying to subtly imply that Steiner's idea for social organization is a form of biological determinism. Such use of word-associations is a classic propagandist maneuver. However, Steiner is claiming that certain forms are naturally better suited to group interactions than others, based on his insights into group dynamics, and not on individual biological traits.