Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 113
Peter Staudenmaier's fumbling to formulate statements concerning things about which he knows very little becomes evident in phrases like "classical Anthroposophy". There is no "neo-Anthroposophy" or anything similar to stand in contradistinction to "classical" Anthroposophy. Peter Staudenmaier has coined the phrase to appear knowledgeable, but it is meaningless, as is most of his argument here. While he is directly claiming that 'root races' and 'national souls' are taught secretly in the Waldorf school, the claim is utter nonsense, firstly because nobody in Anthroposophy talks about 'root races,'* second because 'national souls' do not exist,** third because Anthroposophy as such is explicitly withheld from the curriculum on Steiner's insistence, and fourth because few Waldorf schools have even a majority of teachers who are actual anthroposophists. Anthroposophy does serve as a source of inspiration to many Waldorf teachers.*** This fact is, of course, quite explicit in the brochures of almost every Waldorf School on five continents, so Peter Staudenmaier can hardly claim credit for "discovering" this startling fact. But his claims go way beyond this: Peter Staudenmaier claims that Anthroposophy itself is a hidden subject in the curriculum. For support of this claim he cites two works, one by a German ex-Waldorf teacher openly hostile to the schools she formerly worked in, and another by a German left-wing radical journalist with a stated goal of destroying the European Waldorf school movement; neither are known for their scholarly depth. What Peter Staudenmaier has not done is read any actual primary source material on Waldorf education, pedagogy, or curriculum, or interviewed anyone actively involved in the field. The result is about as accurate as a description of Judaism written by a polemical 19th Century anti-Semite.
* What in Blavatsky's Theosophy were known as 'root races' are known in Anthroposophy as 'epochs'. Steiner felt that the term 'root race' was incorrect to emphasize racial aspect of the progression of time and civilizations, and that cultural development was of primary significance. So he explicitly rejected the term, and replaced it with "epoch" (the related term 'sub-race' he renamed "cultural epoch"). This happened in 1906, in the fourth year of 25 years of lecturing on esoteric subjects. The old term 'root race' appears only in a few of Steiner's very early Theosophical writings, and is simply not used at all among anthroposophists. Indeed, it has never been used among anthroposophists, as anthroposophists only broke from Theosophy in 1913, seven years after Steiner stopped using the term. I have written an article on the subject, online at http://www.defendingSteiner.com/misconceptions/r-race.php
** The term in German is "Volksseele" or "Folk Soul", and not "National Soul". A Folk Soul is a designation to represent the essence of the culture of a people. In one form, the concept goes back to the German romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803), though Herder wrote of a "Volksgeist", or Folk Spirit, and differed from Steiner in a number of important ways. Peter Staudenmaier might consider consulting the excellent description of Herder's conception of a Volksgeist in George Mosse's book Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism, which he cited earlier. Herder and the idea of the Volksgeist are discussed on pages 34-36. Peter Staudenmaier's constant confusion of culture and nation allows him to emphasize a nationalism in Steiner and Anthroposophy that simply does not exist.
*** In any group of Waldorf teachers you will find a large range of opinions and attitudes towards Steiner and Anthroposophy. Some merely find it interesting, other embrace it completely in the spirit intended, and a few others perhaps too dogmatically. There are even those who find the whole thing stupid, yet like the way the schools are run, and for that reason choose to work there.
<< Home