Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 87

Continuing my commentary on the 26th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Haeckel's influence on National Socialism is well documented, and Peter Staudenmaier is mostly correct in his summary of it. What is not so logical is to maintain that anyone who read Haeckel must share his views. Neither must everyone who praises Haeckel's scientific work share Haeckel's racism. But with the simple formula: Steiner admired Haeckel, Haeckel was a racist, Peter Staudenmaier would have us believe that it must follow: Steiner was a racist. Of course, it does not follow, and Peter Staudenmaier cannot muster a better argument, for he would not be able to find any evidence to support it. Guilt by association is the only method of implicating Steiner.

Gasman’s book (cited by Staudenmaier in this paragraph) does not mention Steiner at all beyond, in a footnote, linking Steiner and Haeckel via Johannes Hemleben’s book of that title.

I find it interesting that Peter Staudenmaier cites Mosse but appears to have missed the fact that Mosse, a respectable and fair scholar, did not regard Steiner as contributing to Nazism:

"Theosophy itself was not racist… but eventually racism allied itself with Theosophy. Theosophy could, in fact, also support a new humanism. Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophical Society, founded in Berlin in 1913, linked spiritualism to freedom and universalism." Mosse, George. Toward the Final Solution: A History of European racism. New York: Howard Fertig, 1978. Page 96.

I'll discuss Hemleben's book at length tomorrow, and show how Staudenmaier's description of it can only come from someone who has not actually read the volume.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 86

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 26:

Haeckel's elitist worldview extended beyond the realm of biology. He was also "a prophet of the national and racial regeneration of Germany" and exponent of an "intensely mystical and romantic nationalism," as well as "a direct ancestor" of Nazi eugenics.[Footnote: First two quotes from Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, New York 1971, pp. 16-17; third quote from George Mosse, Toward the Final Solution, Madison 1985, p. 87. Haeckel's virulent racism is also extensively documented in Richard Lerner, Final Solutions: Biology, Prejudice, and Genocide, Philadelphia 1992.] Monism, which Steiner for a time vigorously defended, rejected "Western rationalism, humanism, and cosmopolitanism," and was "opposed to any fundamental social change. What was needed for Germany, it argued categorically, was a far-reaching cultural and not a social revolution."[Footnote: Gasman, p. 31 and 23. See also the classic account from an anthroposophist perspective: Johannes Hemleben, Rudolf Steiner und Ernst Haeckel, Stuttgart 1965.] This attitude was to become a hallmark of Anthroposophy.

Haeckel’s life and the influence of his worldview have been extensively written on. While there is little to disagree with in Peter Staudenmaier’s presentation of Haeckel, it has been demonstrated that Steiner broke with Haeckel on numerous points, and particularly on those that Peter Staudenmaier deplores. As a result it is not possible to tar Steiner with Haeckel’s excesses.

 

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 85

Continuing my commentary on the 25th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Steiner dedicated a book to Haeckel because he appreciated Haeckel's efforts and found some very useful aspects in them. He was not then, nor was he ever, in complete agreement with everything Haeckel said. That this fact continues to be ignored by so many critics of Anthroposophy speaks either to their ignorance of Steiner and his work or to a deliberate distortion thereof.

Turning back to Peter Staudenmaier, we read, "...from [Haeckel] Anthroposophy inherited its environmentalist predilections, its hierarchical model of human development...". Peter Staudenmaier apparently feels Steiner incapable of original thought, his role limited to propagating the worst excesses of whomever the anti-fascists have been able to link to National Socialism.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 84

Continuing my commentary on the 25th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

All of the quotes so far have been from Steiner's anthroposophical period. Did Steiner always think of Haeckel this way, or was he once completely under the sway of Haeckel's philosophy as has been alleged by some critics attempting to paint Steiner as inconsistent?

Why did Steiner dedicate a book to Haeckel?

Just two years before stepping forward as an initiate, Rudolf Steiner completed a systematic survey of philosophical thought in the nineteenth century and dedicated it to, of all people, Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel himself a just finished his book and considered himself a philosopher as well as a scientist. Later as he published books such as Theosophy, Rudolf Steiner found himself in the position of having to defend this dedication, as it was considered inconsistent with Anthroposophy as Steiner was attempting to unfold it. In the preface to his book An Outline Of Esoteric Science Rudolf Steiner noted:

A reader of the author's earlier writings — for example his work on nineteenth century philosophies or his short essay on Haeckel and his Opponents — might well be saying: ‘How can one and the same man be the author of these works and of the book Theosophy (published in 1904) or of the present volume? How can he take up the cudgels for Haeckel and then offend so grossly against the straightforward monism, the philosophic outcome of Haeckel's researches? One could well understand the writer of this Occult Science attacking all that Haeckel stood for; that he defended him and even dedicated to him one of his main works appears preposterously inconsistent. Haeckel would have declined the dedication in no uncertain terms, had he known that the same author would one day produce the unwieldy dualism of the present work.’
Yet in the author's view one can appreciate Haeckel without having to stigmatize as nonsense whatever is not the direct outcome of his range of thought and his assumptions. We do justice to Haeckel by entering into the spirit of his scientific work, not by attacking him — as has been done — with every weapon that comes to hand. Least of all does the author hold any brief for those of Haeckel's adversaries against whom he defended the great naturalist in his essay on Haeckel and his Opponents. If then he goes beyond Haeckel's assumptions and placed the spiritual view side by side with Haeckel's purely naturalistic view of the Universe, this surely does not rank him with Haeckel's opponents. Anyone who takes sufficient trouble will perceive that there is no insuperable contradiction between the author's present work and his former writings. (GA233a Lecture: 13th January, 1924)

And so Steiner himself states the essence of the argument: it is possible to appreciate Haeckel without agreeing with him, and it is possible to disagree with Haeckel without agreeing with all the others who disagree with him. 100 years later the exact same objections are still being raised to Steiner's work in relationship to Ernst Haeckel.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 83

Continuing my commentary on the 25th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Rudolf Steiner even recommended studying Haeckel as an exercise and prerequisite for seeking spiritual vision:

If you are touched by the Rosicrucian principle as here intended, study the system of Haeckel, with all its materialism; study it, and at the same time permeate yourselves with the methods of cognition indicated in Knowledge of Higher Worlds and its Attainment . Take what you learn in Haeckel's Anthropogenesis: on the Ancestors of Man . In that form it may very likely repel you. Learn it nevertheless; learn all that can be learned about it by outer Natural Science, and carry it towards the Gods; then you will get what is related about evolution in my Occult Science .(Preface to his book Theosophy )

So Steiner valued Haeckel's work in a number of contexts, and Haeckel's efforts in general, but by no means subscribed to all of Haeckel's views.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 82

Continuing my commentary on the 25th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Rudolf Steiner also valued Haeckel's specifically scientific work, including Haeckel's General Morphology. Two quotes from among many will illustrate this. In a 1916 lecture Steiner said:

Here I should like to state emphatically that I cherish the same high respect today for Haeckel's magnificent scientific achievements within the cosmic scheme, proper to natural science, as I did years ago. I still believe and always have believed that a correct appreciation of Haeckel's achievements is the best means of transcending a certain one-sidedness in his views. It is entirely intelligible that he could not attain to this insight himself. (Steiner, Rudolf. Human Life in the Light of Spiritual Science. Liestal, October 16, 1916.GA 35 )

This reiterates a continual theme in Steiner's work. In 1908 he said essentially the same thing in another lecture:

Haeckel does not err when explaining by the laws of materialistic morphology phenomena of which he has exceptional knowledge; if he had confined himself to a certain category of phenomena he could have performed an enormous service to humanity. (Steiner, Rudolf. Macrocosm and Microcosm. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1968. Pages 150-165. Lecture 9, of March 29th, 1910. )

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 81

Continuing my commentary on the 25th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

What Rudolf Steiner appreciated about Haeckel was that he dared to use creative thought, and even if the results of this thought ended up being philosophical dilettantism or worse. It was the effort that counted. And Steiner was quite clear on how he disagreed with Haeckel:

I believe [Haeckel] never knew what the philosophers wished from him. This was my impression from a conversation I had with him in Leipzig after the appearance of his Riddle of the Universe, ... He then said: “People say I deny the spirit. I wish they could see how materials shape themselves through their forces; then they would perceive ‘spirit’ in everything that happens in a retort. Everywhere there is spirit.” Haeckel, in fact, knew nothing whatever of the real Spirit. The very forces of nature were for him the 'spirit,' and he could rest content with this. (Rudolf Steiner. The Course of My Life. Chapter 30. )

Haeckel himself thought his philosophical work was an Idealistic Monism and not a Materialistic Monism, but this, felt Steiner, was a misunderstanding on Haeckel's part concerning the true nature of philosophical Idealism.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 80

The quote in my last post shows that Steiner praised Haeckel for being a modern thinker – for the processes of his thought and for his general direction, and not for any specific results. Steiner also speaks of the feeling that Haeckel's contemporaries (and Steiner includes himself) have about Haeckel's work. And Steiner states that Haeckel's general direction is correct, even as he registers his metaphorical reservations to some of Haeckel's specific conclusions.

Besides the Law of Recapitulation, Steiner valued Haeckel's actual courage to think beyond the narrow confines of his specialty and grapple with the deeper questions of existence. Whether Haeckel's results were correct or not was immaterial to Steiner; the effort was rare and deserved praise.

Then for the first time I saw in Haeckel the person who placed himself courageously at the thinker's point of view in natural science, while all other researchers excluded thought and admitted only the results of sense-observation. The fact that Haeckel placed value upon creative thought in laying the foundation for reality drew me again and again to him. (Rudolf Steiner. The Course of My Life. Chapter 30 )

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 79

The paragraphs from my last post are essential for understanding Steiner's view of Haeckel. Haeckel's phylogenetic concept is extraordinarily valuable, but Haeckel himself is the worst advocate for this concept. This position Steiner reiterated in a letter to Marie von Sivers:

"Haeckel contains things which must be thrown away as a cultural afterbirth. His positive side is like an embryo which is wrapped in the materialistic womb of the 19th century. But I see Haeckel's positive aspects as something which can develop. There are two forms of thinking in our time; on the one hand the developing, embryonic one: Haeckel in zoology; Schiller-Goethe must fertilize this form. …"

Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner. Correspondence and Documents: 1901-1925. New York: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1988. Page 60.

Further, the quote "culture is not served by exposing Haeckel's weaknesses to his contemporaries" is essential in understanding Steiner's failure to criticize the more ridiculous aspects of Haeckel's Monist philosophy. This failure to criticize has led more than one thinker to conclude that Steiner was in full agreement with these more ridiculous aspects. However, a more careful reading of Steiner's actual "praise" will show how narrowly directed it actually is.

I cannot speak of Lyell or Darwin without thinking of Haeckel. All three belong together. What Lyell and Darwin began, Haeckel took further. He expanded it in full consciousness, to serve not only the scientific needs but also the religious consciousness of mankind. He is the most modern spirit, because his Weltanschauung (view of the world) does not cling to any of the old prejudices, such as was still the case, for example, with Darwin. He is the most modern thinker, because he sees the natural as the only realm for thinking, and he is the most modern in sensibility, because he wants to know life as organized in accordance with the natural. … When Haeckel talks with us about the processes of Nature, every word has a secondary meaning for us that is related with our feeling. He sits at the rudder, and steers powerfully. Even when many of the places towards which he steers us are ones we would rather not go past; still, he has the direction in which we want to go. From Lyell and Darwin's hands he took the handle of the rudder, and they could have given it to no one better. He will pass it on to others that will travel in his direction. And our community sails rapidly forwards, leaving behind the helpless ferrymen of the old Weltanschauungs.

Rudolf Steiner. Methodsche Grundlagen der Anthroposophie. Dornach: Verlag der Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, 1961. Page 364. (GA 30 – Translation by Daniel Hindes)

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 78

Steiner's view of Haeckel was more or less consistent throughout his lifetime. In public Steiner expressed himself carefully about certain aspects of Haeckel's thought while maintaining a silence concerning other portions with which he disagreed. Privately, he was considerably more direct about his opinions. The following quote is probably the most concise summary of Steiner's views. It was written by Steiner for Eduard Schuré, a writer and publicist for esotericism and author of the book The Great Initiates. Schuré was at that point an admirer of Steiner's, and had asked for information about Steiner's intellectual and spiritual background. The answer was several pages, written by Steiner in Barre, Alsace (France), in 1907 when Steiner was 46, and today referred to as "The Barre Document".

And not long afterwards Haeckel's 60th birthday took place, celebrated with great festivity in Jena. Haeckel's friends invited me. I saw Haeckel for the first time on that occasion. His personality is enchanting, and stands in complete contrast to the tone of his writings. If, at any time, he had studied even just a small amount of philosophy, in which he is not merely a dilettante but a child, he would quite surely have drawn the highest spiritual conclusions from his epoch-making phylogenetic studies.

Now, in spite of all German philosophy, in spite of all the rest of German culture, Haeckel's phylogenetic idea is the most significant event in German intellectual life in the latter half of the nineteenth century. And there is no better scientific foundation to esotericism than Haeckel's teaching. Haeckel's teaching is exemplary, but Haeckel is the worst commentator on it. Culture is not served by exposing Haeckel's weaknesses to his contemporaries, but by explaining to them the greatness of his phylogenetic concept. This I now did in my two volumes: 'Thinking in the 19th Century' which is dedicated to Haeckel, and the little publication, 'Haeckel and his Opponents'.

At present, German spiritual life really exists only in Haeckel's phylogeny; philosophy is in a state of hopeless unproductiveness, theology is a web of hypocrisy which is not aware in the slightest of its dishonesty, and the sciences have fallen into the most barren philosophical ignorance in spite of great empirical progress.

Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner. Correspondence and Documents: 1901-1925. New York: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1988. Page 13.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 77

Steiner's relationship to Haeckel

Rudolf Steiner’s curious relationship to Ernst Haeckel has been much remarked upon. Indeed, it has been the subject of several books.* Just what did Steiner, of all people, see in the “Pope of Monism”? Rudolf Steiner himself gave an answer, and no one who has gone into any depth on the subject has yet found it necessary to object to Steiner’s description. In Haeckel Steiner saw the seeds of a few important ideas, and these he championed. The rest, including Monism, he cared little for but did not speak of this publicly, at least not initially. In examining this question we are really delving into the cultural battles of a bygone era, but this is important in order to understand Haeckel, Steiner, and their cultural milieu.

* Among others, Johannes Hemleben, Rudolf Steiner und Ernst Haeckel, Stuttgart 1965 and Karl Ballmer, Rudolf Steiner und Ernst Haeckel , Hamburg 1929, as well as just about every biographer who has dealt with Steiner in any depth. Peter Staudenmaier has cited some of these without apparently having seen their contents.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 76

Steiner's relationship to Max Stirner

Steiner appears to have been introduced to the philosophy of Max Stirner by John Henry Mackay, whom Steiner met while in Weimar and with whom he became close friends after moving to Berlin.* Mackay was a self-professed 'individualistic anarchist' and had edited Stirner's writing for a new edition. Steiner was attracted to the individualist thrust of Stirner’s work, comparing it to his own philosophical individualism as expressed in Philosophy of Freedom, Steiner’s 1894 book. 

*Hemleben, Johannes. Rudolf Steiner, An Illustrated Biography. London: Sophia, 2000. Page 81.