Anthroposophy

2009-09-03T07:26:00.001-07:00

I was talking to my friend Stephen Usher today about the website we designed for the Austin Branch of the Anthroposophical Society. We are still trying to decide if we like the color of the background. It is nice to have a soft watercolor – it gives a bit of an ethereal feel – but it could be distracting. I brought this up after talking to Caron of Sontec Instruments, who is looking to put a website together for the Colorado Anthroposophical Society. We'll see if the site they design uses a flat color background or if they used a painting.

2008-03-04T13:21:00.000-08:00

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 133

Continuing my commentary on paragraphs 41-43 of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Like Waldorf Education, Biodynamic farming is inseparable from its anthroposophical context. It is that context that I feel Peter Staudenmaier has not understood, and it is his misunderstanding that is at the root of so much of his misinformation and the outright fabrications of this article.

As is typical, Peter Staudenmaier cannot resist imputing ill will to anthroposophists, citing author Stewart Easton to demonstrate the supposed disdain that the cult-like adherents of Steiner's biodynamics hold towards mere organic farmers. This is a rather transparent ploy. The purported condescension in Easton’s simple statement has been added by Mr. Peter Staudenmaier.

"Unlike most farmers who farm in what they speak of as an "organic" manner, the biodynamic farmer recognizes fully that the earth has indeed lost much of its fertility and is losing more every day, and that it is simply not enough in the present age merely to refuse to use herbicides, insecticides and chemical fertilizer, and to manufacture compost from waste farm products in the traditional manner. These things in themselves are good as far as they go, but much more I needed to restore its lost fertility to the earth. The 'organic' farmer may well farm 'biologically' but he does not have the knowledge of how to work with dynamic forces—a knowledge that was given for the first time by Rudolf Steiner."

Easton 's statement is probably shared by many practicing biodynamic farmers, and represents what many would consider a simple fact. This does not mean that biodynamic farmers do not frequently make common cause with other organic farmers and supporters of sustainable agriculture. The movement is not nearly as insular as Mr. Peter Staudenmaier makes it out to be.

2008-03-01T16:35:00.000-08:00

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 132

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraphs 41 to 43 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Biodynamic farming is based on Steiner's revelation of invisible cosmic forces and their effects on soil and flora. Anthroposophy teaches that the earth is an organism that breathes twice a day, that ethereal beings act upon the land, and that celestial bodies and their movements directly influence the growth of plants. Hence biodynamic farmers time their sowing to coincide with the proper planetary constellations, all a part of what they consider "the spiritual natural processes of the earth." [Footnote: Lindenberg, p. 134.]* Sometimes this "spiritual" approach takes unusual forms, as in the case of "preparation 500."

To make preparation 500, an integral component of anthroposophist agriculture, biodynamic farmers pack cow manure into a steer's horn and bury it in the ground. After leaving it there for one whole winter, they dig up the horn and mix the manure with water (it must be stirred for a full hour in a specific rhythm) to make a spray which is applied to the topsoil. All of this serves to channel "radiations which tend to etherealize and astralize" and thus "gather up and attract from the surrounding earth all that is ethereal and life-giving." [Footnote: Steiner, Lecture Four from the 1924 Course on Agriculture.]**

Non-anthroposophist organic growers are often inclined to dismiss such fanciful aspects of biodynamics as harmless, albeit pointless, appurtenances to an otherwise congenial cultivation technique. While this attitude has some merit, it is not reciprocated by biodynamic adherents, who emphasize that "The 'organic' farmer may well farm 'biologically' but he does not have the knowledge of how to work with dynamic forces—a knowledge that was given for the first time by Rudolf Steiner."[Footnote: Easton, p. 444]*** For better or worse, biodynamic farming is inseparable from its anthroposophic context.

This, I feel, is an accurate description of biodynamic farming. It is obvious that Peter Staudenmaier is highly suspicious of the non-sense-perceptible aspect, but he has not factually misrepresented it. That aspect makes more sense when explained by someone sympathetic to the aims of biodynamic farming should be obvious. With farming in particular a theoretical method can be judged by its effectiveness. Farmers are known for being practical and for being suspicious of highfalutin theories. The broad dissemination of biodynamic agriculture is therefore evidence of its practical success. If biodynamic farming is indeed inseparable from its anthroposophical context then this is powerful evidence that Steiner's understanding of invisible cosmic forces has real efficacy in practical reality.

* Once again Lindenberg yields a quote that is accurate. Peter Staudenmaier does his best to spin the respect for the earth and its spiritual aspects which are is inherent in Biodynamic farming into something both silly and dangerous, but the fact itself remains undisputed.

** I must note that Peter Staudenmaier has not cited a publisher or page-number for these short-phrase "quotations". The two phrases he quotes: "radiations which tend to etherealize and astralize" and "gather up and attract from the surrounding earth all that is ethereal and life-giving" are taken out of context, as Steiner never described the purpose of the preparation in those words. The first is taken from a sentence found on page 99 of the present German edition, "Dadurch, daß das Kuhhorn äußerlich von der Erde umgeben ist, strahlen alle Strahlen in seine innere Höhlung hinein, die im sinne der Ätherisierung und Astralisierung gehen." The 1958 translation by George Adams (page 74) from which Peter Staudenmaier probably took this reads, "Through the fact that it is outwardly surrounded by the earth, all radiations that tend to etherealize and astralise are poured into the inner hollow of the horn." Thus, it is not the spray that is made by mixing the contents of the horn that possesses the qualities, but the contents of the horn while it is in the earth. This is perhaps a minor point, but also very telling of the exactitude of Peter Staudenmaier's scholarship.

The second quote comes from the next sentence in the text, "And the manure inside the horn is inwardly quickened with these forces, which thus gather up and attract from the surrounding earth all that is ethereal and life-giving." The gathering up and attracting is done inside the buried cows horn, and not by the Preparation 500 once it has been spread.

In treating such a complex subject as the making of Preparation 500 and its use in such an offhand manner, Peter Staudenmaier has failed to adequately explain Steiner's carefully grounded indications. But then, his goal is merely to show how silly it all is, rather than to actually understand it.

See, Steiner, Rudolf. Agriculture. London: Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Association, 1972. Page 74.

***

"Unlike most farmers who farm in what they speak of as an "organic" manner, the biodynamic farmer recognizes fully that the earth has indeed lost much of its fertility and is losing more every day, and that it is simply not enough in the present age merely to refuse to use herbicides, insecticides and chemical fertilizer, and to manufacture compost from waste farm products in the traditional manner. These things in themselves are good as far as they go, but much more I needed to restore its lost fertility to the earth. The 'organic' farmer may well farm 'biologically' but he does not have the knowledge of how to work with dynamic forces—a knowledge that was given for the first time by Rudolf Steiner."

2008-02-27T16:11:00.000-08:00

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 131

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 40:

Although not a farmer himself, Steiner introduced the fundamental outlines of biodynamics near the end of his life and produced a substantial body of literature on the topic, which anthroposophists and biodynamic growers follow more or less faithfully. Biodynamics in practice often converges with the broader principles of organic farming. Its focus on maintaining soil fertility rather than on crop yield, its rejection of artificial chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and its view of the whole farm or plot as an ecosystem all mark the biodynamic approach as an eminently sensible and ecologically sound method of cultivation. But there is more to the story than that.

What is missing from this largely accurate summary is the fact that Steiner's indications in the Agriculture Course are just that: indications, and not prescriptions. Beyond the rather obvious concerns such as viewing the farm as an ecological unit to be run on a sustainable basis, Steiner gave indications concerning other forces that influence the practices of farming. For example, he called attention to the role of the planets in the growth of plants. While this may at first appear rather nebulous, it can be quite easily tested in practice, and this is what Steiner encouraged. If Steiner says that the position of Mars in relation to the earth has an influence on the growth of rye, then this can be quite easily tested: plant some rye in a supposedly auspicious moment, then plant some more in a separate plot a week or two later and compare the growth of the two. You will very quickly determine whether Steiner's indications work in practice or not. And I would suggest that the experience of thousands of biodynamic farmers indicates that Steiner's indications do work in practice. If Mr. Peter Staudenmaier is troubled as to how Mars could possibly influence the growth of rye, then that is a problem for him to work out. Disparaging the obvious success of Biodynamic farming from a theoretical position that it ought to be impossible is simply not scientific.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 130

2008-02-26T13:50:00.000-08:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 39:

Next to Waldorf schools, the most widespread and apparently progressive version of applied Anthroposophy is biodynamic agriculture. In Germany and North America, at least, biodynamics is an established part of the alternative agriculture scene. Many small growers use biodynamic methods on their farms or gardens; there are biodynamic vineyards and the Demeter line of biodynamic food products, as well as a profusion of pamphlets, periodicals and conferences on the theory and practice of biodynamic farming.

Finally, a factually accurate paragraph! It appears that Mr. Peter Staudenmaier is more familiar with biodynamic agriculture than with Waldorf education. He has neglected to mention the success of biodynamic agriculture in South America, the Philippines, and Australia, and Egypt, but that is probably an oversight. And biodynamic agriculture is not limited only to small growers; there are quite a few larger farms that employ the techniques, though Peter Staudenmaier would be correct to point out that biodynamic techniques are not very easily applicable to large-scale factory farming.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 129

2008-02-25T20:26:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 37th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

The “occasional outbreaks of racist gibberish” is probably a reference to one incident in Holland in 1995, which resulted in a teacher being fired. Investigation by the authorities and the press (it was front page material for several weeks) established that the incident was not a typical of Waldorf schools, yet it has remained a prime example used by Waldorf critics of the alleged racist bent they are so sure is inherent in Waldorf pedagogy.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 128

2008-02-20T18:00:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 37th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Mr. Peter Staudenmaier appears to be profoundly ignorant of even the most basic aspects of Waldorf education (the kind of things you learn if you tour a school even once) so his statement that Waldorf education contains a pervasive anti-technological and anti-scientific bias, a suspicion toward rational thought, and occasional outbreaks of racist gibberish must be treated with great suspicion. In fact I have a hard time even imagining what a pedagogy would have to look like in order to systematically teach students a suspicion toward rational thought. The important place of math and science, starting particularly with the Waldorf middle school curriculum, certainly makes it hard to call the pedagogy “anti-scientific.”

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 127

2008-01-27T19:51:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 37th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Students in Waldorf schools hear fairy tales only in the first (and sometimes the second) grade. During that time, they do not read them; they hear them (and fairy tales are certainly not the only thing in the curriculum for those grades). After that the curriculum moves on to more challenging things. So Mr. Peter Staudenmaier's claim that fairy tales are a staple of the Waldorf curriculum is only true for Kindergarten and first grade. Usually by second grade the curriculum has the teacher telling stories of great men and women of history and their achievements, told in a manner appropriate for the age group.

Some product reviews I wrote over the past year

2008-01-19T12:20:00.000-08:00

2007 was a good year, and I wrote a number of interesting product reviews.

A recent article I wrote was a list of lens bargains for the Sony Alpha (formerly Minolta Maxxum) lens mount. The article was titled Sony Alpha (Minolta Maxxum mount) lens bargains.

I also wrote a review of my main wide-angle lens, the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. And predictably review was titled Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Review.

A couple years ago I wrote an article called How Ebay profits from software piracy, based on my experiences with one transaction. Those are the most recent articles on my photography blog.

Several years ago I wrote a review of the CompactDrive PSD PD7X. This is a portable hard drive casing that ran off of AAA batteries and allowed you to dump the contents of CompactFlash drive cards on to your portable hard drive in the field. In the days of 16 gig CF cards, it is not terribly useful anymore. It back when he spent $200 for a one gig card, it made a lot more sense.

I also written a review of Genuine Fractals 3.5, were I compared it to Photoshop CS bicubic interpolation, and found Photoshop to upsize better than genuine fractals. The article is titled Genuine Fractals 3.5 Review.

Before that I wrote a review of the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D. I am still very pleased with the camera, and think that the 7D still takes better pictures than my Sony Alpha 100. Read my review at Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Review.

My latest article is titled Flatbed scanner comparison: The Canon CanoScan 4400F vs the CanoScan 8600F. in this article I attempt to answer the question, "What is the difference between the Canon CanoScan 4400F and the CanoScan 8600F?

Daniel

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 126

2008-01-19T09:51:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 37th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

I would certainly like to discover the source of Peter Staudenmaier's hilarious understanding that jazz and popular music are considered to harbor demonic forces; as usual, he has no footnotes for that claim.This is a distressing trend for this article.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 125

2008-01-02T06:45:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 37th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

I'm not sure I understand the accusation that there is “no jazz or popular music“ in Waldorf schools. Does Peter Staudenmaier mean that these subjects do not occur in the curriculum? Or does he mean to imply that there is some sort of blanket ban on such things anywhere on school grounds? As far as the curriculum goes, the music does generally lean towards folk and classical music, but that is the discretion of the individual class teachers and music subject teachers.* The music program varies depending on the size of the school and the talents of the teachers. Singing is required from Kindergarten onwards, in ever increasing complexity, and in larger Waldorf schools choral singing is introduced by the sixth grade. Every student participates. European Waldorf students are as interested in popular music as students anywhere in the world.

*As an aside, how many US public schools have jazz or popular music in the curriculum? How many US public schools have any music in the curriculum? I personally have included a section on the development of popular music in the 20th Century – with numerous recorded examples – in a 12th grade course on the history of the 20th Century that I teach at a Waldorf School. This fact alone disproves Peter Staudenmaier’s claim in its absolute formulation.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 124

2007-12-12T13:59:00.000-08:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 38:

Anthroposophy's peculiar predilections also shape the Waldorf curriculum. There are no sports at European Waldorf schools and no jazz or popular music; these phenomena are considered to harbor demonic forces. Instead students read fairy tales, a staple of Waldorf education. Taken together with the pervasive anti-technological and anti-scientific bias, the suspicion toward rational thought, and the occasional outbreaks of racist gibberish, these factors indicate that Waldorf schooling is as questionable as the other aspects of the anthroposophist enterprise.

Continuing his tirade and litany of absurd and distorted claims against Waldorf schools, Mr. Peter Staudenmaier here presents a string of inane claims that even the simplest investigation easily disproves. For example, the statement “there are no sports at European Waldorf schools” is particularly absurd. I have walked the grounds of the first Waldorf School in Stuttgart, and there is a track, basketball courts, and a gym with equipment for volleyball and gymnastics. The students use all all these facilities, as can be observed on any school day. Numerous other Waldorf schools I have visited on three continents are similarly equipped.* While I cannot say with certainty that every last one of the hundreds of Waldorf Schools in Europe have a sports program, there is no reason to believe they do not. Further, there is nothing in the Waldorf pedagogy that could be construed to be against sports.** But there are more problems with this paragraph that I will address tomorrow.

*What is interesting from an American perspective is that there are no intermural competitive sports in the German Waldorf schools. This becomes understandable when you discover that there are no intermural competitive sports in the German public schools either. Such sports are the domain of local associations independent of the schools –like the US Little Leagues – and Waldorf students can, and do, participate just like their peers in German public schools.

**When asked about sports in the Waldorf School, Steiner responded thus (to an audience in England):

"[Question:] How should instruction in gymnastics be carried out, and should sports be taught in an English school, hockey and cricket, for example, and if so in what way?

[Steiner:] It is emphatically not the aim of the Waldorf school method to suppress these things. They have their place simply because they play a great part in English life, and the children should grow up into life. Only please do not fall prey to the illusion that there is any other meaning in it than this, namely, that we ought not to make children strangers to their world. It is an error to believe that sports are of tremendous value in development. They are not of great value in development. Their only value is as a fashion dear to the English people, but we must not make the children strangers to the world by exclusion from all popular activities. You like sport in England, so the children should be introduced to sports. One should not meet with philistine opposition what may possibly be philistine itself.

Regarding "how it should really be taught", there is very little indeed to be said. For in these things it is really more or less so that the child imitates what someone does first. And to devise special artificial methods here would be something scarcely appropriate to the subject."

Rudolf Steiner, The Kingdom of Childhood. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1995. Pages 134-135.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 123

2007-12-08T09:36:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 37th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Mr. Peter Staudenmaier's further conjecture, that his ten-second investigation "suggests" that everything tens of thousands of parents over eight decades know about the school that they have chosen to send their children to is completely wrong, is the height of incompetent scholarship. Waldorf's reputation has not been won on a multi-million dollar advertising campaign. Rather, Waldorf's reputation is the result of decades of results. And the Waldorf movement is not the fastest growing pedagogical movement in the world because it abuses and mis-educates children. Almost every Waldorf school in the world (over seven hundred and counting) started as a parent initiative, and grew from the enthusiasm of parents who are deeply concerned with their children's education. If Mr. Peter Staudenmaier's allegations here were even remotely accurate there would simply be no Waldorf movement and Steiner's pedagogical indications would be a footnote in history.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 122

2007-12-07T15:01:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 37th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Mr. Peter Staudenmaier's further conjecture, that his ten-second investigation "suggests" that everything tens of thousands of parents over eight decades know about the school that they have chosen to send their children to is completely wrong, is the height of incompetent scholarship. Waldorf's reputation has not been won on a multi-million dollar advertising campaign. Rather, Waldorf's reputation is the result of decades of results. And the Waldorf movement is not the fastest growing pedagogical movement in the world because it abuses and mis-educates children. Almost every Waldorf school in the world (over seven hundred and counting) started as a parent initiative, and grew from the enthusiasm of parents who are deeply concerned with their children's education. If Mr. Peter Staudenmaier's allegations here were even remotely accurate there would simply be no Waldorf movement and Steiner's pedagogical indications would be a footnote in history.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 121

2007-12-05T19:57:00.000-08:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 37:

Along with privileging ostensibly "spiritual" considerations over cognitive and psycho-social ones, the static uniformity of this scheme is pedagogically suspect. It also suggests that Waldorf schools' reputation for fostering a spontaneous, child-centered and individually oriented educational atmosphere is undeserved. In fact Steiner's model of instruction is downright authoritarian: he emphasized repetition and rote learning, and insisted that the teacher should be the center of the classroom and that students' role was not to judge or even discuss the teacher's pronouncements. In practice many Waldorf schools implement strict discipline, with public punishment for perceived transgressions.

In suddenly declaring Waldorf "pedagogically suspect" without ever having bothered to study it, I have to wonder where Mr. Peter Staudenmaier gained such expertise in the field of in education. I also have to wonder what comprehensive background in pedagogy informs his expert opinion on the subject. We have already seen just how little Mr. Peter Staudenmaier knows about Waldorf in his failure to use the proper term in discussing even the most basic aspects of the pedagogy. The fact that he finds Waldorf to value un-named "spiritual" considerations, supposedly over other, un-named "psycho-social"* ones is quite curious; curious in that he has evidently not undertaken even a basic study of these "spiritual" considerations. I have to wonder how he is so sure that they are wrong if he doesn't even know what they are. Nebulous references to superior "psycho-social" considerations without any elaboration or citations strikes me as the work of a writer who is putting ink to paper in the effort to make a point without actually thinking first.

* Ironic indeed is the fact that the odd construction "psycho-social" essentially says the same thing as "spiritual". "Psycho" is derived from the Greek "soul" so Peter Staudenmaier is decrying Waldorf 's ostensibly "spiritual" bent over a more mainstream "soul-social" one.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 120

2007-12-04T16:37:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 36th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In this second third of the grade school years, between the nine-year change and the eleven-year change, the child lives in the immediacy of outer impressions, but is not yet ready to comprehend cause and effect. If this is presented, it can be repeated back, but not yet really grasped, not really understood. This is possible only after the eleven-year change. It is then that mechanistic sciences such as physics can be introduced.* These, too, should be introduced in the context of ordinary life. Minerals are found in the earth, not just in boxes and photographs. They are found in specific geographic regions, and for specific reasons. Levers are used in ordinary life, and can be introduced with concrete examples.

Thus is the Waldorf pedagogy shaped by the characteristics of the changing consciousness of the child in its development through the school years. The exact ages may differ in individual children, but the pattern remains universal. I could go on and write an entire book on the subject, and indeed, several such books have been written. It is a pity that Mr. Peter Staudenmaier could not avail himself to such a book before considering himself expertly informed on the subject of Waldorf education.

* Rudolf Steiner, The Kingdom of Childhood. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1995. Pages 37-39.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 119

2007-12-02T14:37:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 36th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In the pedagogy of the Waldorf School, this nine-year change has a number of important implications. Because the outer world is now separate, it can be observed and investigated, taken back into the inner world via the senses. This should be done in a way that maintains the integrity, the wholeness, and unity of the outer world. For example, plants should be studied in the context of soil ecology and their native ecosystem, and not as a piece of green matter of a given shape, brought in to the classroom for inspection.* This is just one of many examples of how Steiner's theoretical stages of child development are tied to practical pedagogical indications and shape the curriculum of Waldorf Schools.

* Rudolf Steiner, The Kingdom of Childhood. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1995. Page 48, and Rudolf Steiner, The Child's Changing Consciousness. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1988 – the entire book.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 118

2007-12-01T17:00:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 36th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In addition, Rudolf Steiner has identified two further milestones in the development of children between the ages of 7 and 14, that is, between the 1 st and 8 th grade.* The first occurs around age 9 years four months, and the second around age 11 years eight months. Now it should be noted that these divisions, especially in such precision, are archetypal, that is they will almost never correspond exactly with any one particular child. In the particular child the markers of the starting and ending of the whole period in question is the age between first dentition and puberty, the actual age being of secondary importance. The first milestone comes at the end of the first third of this period, and is referred to in Waldorf circles as “the nine year change.” Prior to the nine-year change, the child lives in a consciousness that encompasses the entire immediate environment, and does not distinguish between inner and outer, between self and other. After the nine-year change, the child experiences strongly the separation of self from world. The transition is not immediate or quick, it starts even years earlier, with occasional moments of awakening, which often remain as significant memories in the child's later life, and these moments then become more frequent. After the nine year change (whether it occurs at nine years four months or much earlier or later) the process is complete, so that the separateness is now the normal state of consciousness, and the united consciousness is experienced as lost.

* See among others, Rudolf Steiner, The Roots of Education. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1997. Page 69

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 117

2007-11-27T16:58:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 36th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In Steiner's pedagogy there are two major events, or milestones, in childhood development. Both indicate processes that culminate at that point, and both are referred to in Peter Staudenmaier's paragraph, though inaccurately. The first is the first dentition, or loss of the baby teeth, and the second is puberty. These two major milestones are roughly seven years apart, so that childhood and adolescence can be divided into roughly three seven-year periods. Now what these seven-year periods signify to Waldorf pedagogy is indeed important, and there is much talk of these seven-year periods in Waldorf education.
The first seven-year period, from birth to the beginning of the first dentition, is a period in which the physical body in particular is developing.* Now contrary to Peter Staudenmaier's belief, the physical body is not the only thing developing, for the etheric and astral bodies are also developing, and a fourth element, called the ego, is also present and active. However, of all the developments, Steiner considers the development of the physical body to be the most significant. Likewise, the second seven-year period is one in which the etheric body's development has especial significance. This is not to indicate, as Peter Staudenmaier does, that the physical body stops development, or that the astral body is inactive. Both continue to develop, but the etheric body's development is most important. The onset of puberty (which today is closer to age 12 than 14) signifies the start of a period of special development of the astral body. The etheric body and physical bodies continue to develop, as does the ego. In one poetic description, Steiner talked about a second, third and fourth "birth"; that at first dentition the etheric body was "born", at puberty the astral body was "born" and at roughly 21 the ego is "born". This is to be understood allegorically, since in Steiner’s view they are all present even before the child’s physical birth.

* The theme of seven-year periods in human development is quite common in Steiner's work, and he develops it in literally hundreds of lectures in dozens of books. A good overview can be obtained by reading Rudolf Steiner, The Child's Changing Consciousness. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1988.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 116

2007-11-26T19:38:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 36th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Steiner called for an education based on a comprehensive understanding of the changes in development of the human being through childhood. This concept of "developmentally appropriate" education is hardly unique to Steiner. Steiner had additional perspectives on the development of the human being, and this allowed him to designate developmental stages and the appropriate pedagogical responses decades before mainstream educational theorists came to similar conclusions. Indeed, not all of the subtle developmental stages have yet shown up in non-Waldorf research (since Waldorf is so far ahead of developments in what is called "progressive" education, people in Waldorf circles often wonder when some researcher will "discover" yet another thing that has been done in Waldorf for the last 80 years). This is not to imply a contradiction between Waldorf and non-Waldorf child development theories. I will discuss Steiner's theory of child development tomorrow.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 115

2007-11-25T14:09:00.000-08:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 36:

The curriculum at Waldorf schools is structured around the stages of spiritual maturation posited by Anthroposophy: from one to seven years a child develops her or his physical body, from seven to fourteen years the ethereal body, and from fourteen to twenty-one the astral body. These stages are supposed to be marked by physical changes; thus kindergartners at Waldorf schools can't enter first grade until they've lost all their baby teeth.

The above paragraph displays all the subtlety and understanding of Conquistador describing the religious beliefs of the Inca. That is, a few of the details are recognizably related to some of the forms, but the whole is grossly mistaken and displays a serious lack of effort at understanding. Take for example the term "ethereal body". Peter Staudenmaier obviously means "etheric body" but is apparently not familiar enough with even the most basic terminology to use the correct word. One can hardly expect subtly of understanding from someone who has not even read closely enough to note the terms. I'll talk more about this tomorrow.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 114

2007-11-16T13:03:00.000-08:00

Staudenmaier lackes an understanding of the anthroposophical understanding of karma and all its nuance. For example, it would indeed strain credulity to believe that every individual child in each class in every Waldorf School chooses every other student in the class and the teacher before birth. If nothing else, such a conception provides precious little space for the agency of free will. So it will probably surprise no one besides Peter Staudenmaier that this is not an article of faith for every teacher in every Waldorf School. Inasmuch as Waldorf teachers are students of Anthroposophy (and while many are, quite a few are not) they may take into consideration that karma might play some role in the interaction they have with their students. But this consideration applies equally to all other social interactions. And precious few Waldorf teachers pretend to a degree of karmic insight sufficient to know the pre-earthly intentions of all, or any, of their students. Instead the concept of karma helps the teacher respect the individuality of each student. Given the nature of the concept of karma – that in the course of repeated earth lives we learn in order to grow – it is hardly surprising that this relates to the very principle of education. Thus it is not incorrect that to one who believes in the concept, "karma is the basis of all true education". However it is mistaken to contend as Peter Staudenmaier and others do that this basic principle somehow translates into a rigid belief in the iron hand of fate determining classroom configurations.

A proper understanding of the anthroposophical conception of Karma is critical for forming a basis for understanding how this does and does not effect Waldorf education. The essential point that so many critics seem to miss is the fact that karma does not equal pre-destiny. In the anthroposophical conception, karma is like a checklist of to-do items for a lifetime – a list that may be completed along with many additional adventures, or that may not have even one item completed. Because of the existence of free will and the forward-looking as well as backward-looking nature of karma, many unplanned things may happen in any life (with consequences for the future) and no one can tell what is karmic, and what is the result of free will. Thus no true anthroposophist (or Waldorf teacher) will go around claiming that this or that event or tendency is "karma". Absent clairvoyance, which very few claim for themselves, no one can tell one way or the other.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 113

2007-11-14T16:12:00.000-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 35th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

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.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 112

2007-11-13T12:50:00.001-08:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 35 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Classical Anthroposophy, with its root races and its national souls, is the "covert curriculum" of Waldorf schools. [Footnote: See Charlotte Rudolph, Waldorf-Erziehung: Wege zur VerSteinerung, Darmstadt 1987. No systematic surveys of Waldorf schooling are available. In this section I have relied chiefly on the work of former Waldorf teachers like Rudolph as well as the excellent critical study by Bierl.]* Anthroposophists themselves avow in internal forums that the idea of karma and reincarnation is the "basis of all true education." [From an international Waldorf teachers conference in 1996, cited in Bierl, p. 204.]** They believe that each class of students chooses one another and their teacher before birth. Steiner himself demanded that Waldorf schools be staffed by "teachers with a knowledge of man originating in a spiritual world.[Rudolf Steiner, The Spiritual Ground of Education, London 1947, p. 40.]*** Later anthroposophists express the Waldorf vision thus:

"This education is essentially grounded on the recognition of the child as a spiritual being, with a varying number of incarnations behind him, who is returning at birth into the physical world, into a body that will be slowly moulded into a usable instrument by the soul-spiritual forces he brings with him. He has chosen his parents for himself because of what they can provide for him that he needs in order to fulfill his karma, and, conversely, they too need their relationship with him in order to fulfill their own karma."[Footnote: Easton, p. 388]****

First some notes to the text. In the following days I will comment further on the text.

* I find it amazing that Mr. Peter Staudenmaier was unable to find any trace of "systematic surveys" of Waldorf schooling. Perhaps it is a question of definition, for there is not single book or series that combines every aspect of Waldorf education in one volume. However, there are two excellent surveys of the entire curriculum in English (Rawson, Martyn and Richter, Tobias, eds. The Educational Tasks and Content of the Steiner Waldorf Curriculum. Forest Row, UK: Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship, 2000 and, Cradock, Stephen and Stockmeyer, Karl, eds. Rudolf Steiner's Curriculum for Waldorf Schools. 4th Revised edition. Forest Row, UK: Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship, 2001.), as well as books on every aspect of Waldorf education and Waldorf Schools, from each specialized subject in the curriculum to school administration. Including books in German, the total exceeds a thousand volumes, and then there are numerous periodicals in many languages. Rather that attempt to cite them all, I will simply refer to one publisher: www.steinerbooks.com. The excuse for relying on two blatantly biased and highly inaccurate German sources is simply not credible.

** Bierl's text cites Stephan Leber as saying this in a Dornach conference of Waldorf Teachers in 1996. Bierl's cited source is a book edited by Heinz Zimmermann, titled Reincarnation und Karma in der Erziehung (Reincarnation and karma in education) published in Dornach, 1998. The fact that Anthroposophy is the basis of Waldorf education is hardly a secret; it is announced in all the schools, and every book on the subject.

*** Steiner hardly “demanded“ that Waldorf schools be staffed only by anthroposophists. Such an attitude would be fundamentally out of character for him. He simply explained that he could not have founded the first Waldorf school without the help of a group of dedicated anthroposophists. In lecture quoted by Peter Staudenmaier, given at Manchester College in Oxford, England on August 20th, 1923 at the invitation of professor (of Education) Millicent Mackenzie, Rudolf Steiner said:

"Thus I may say: when my little booklet The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy appeared [in 1909], I was speaking on education there as one who disagrees with much in modern education, who would like to see this or the other treated more fundamentally, and so on. But at the time this little book was written I should not have been able to undertake such a thing as directing the Waldorf School. For it was essential for such a task to have a college of teachers with a knowledge of man originating in the spiritual world. This knowledge of man is exceedingly hard to come by to-day; in comparison it is easy for us to study natural science. It is comparatively easy to come and see what the final member of organic evolution is. … Now in order to educate we need a human science, - and a practical human science at that – a human science that applies to every individual child. And for this we need a general human science." (Reproduced in: Rudolf Steiner. The Spiritual Ground of Education. Blauvelt, NY: Garber Communications, 1989. Page 40.)

Steiner is clearly not “demanding” that all Waldorf Schools only ever be staffed by anthroposophists. He did explicitly found Waldorf pedagogy on the Anthroposophical conception of the human being, and said as much in numerous places. Peter Staudenmaier’s liberties in paraphrasing serve to distort both the tone and the content of the passages he is citing.

**** This description by Easton is essentially correct, as strange as it may seem absent the supporting background given in earlier pages that details how karma operates in the anthroposophical understanding. I would recommend Easton's chapter on Waldorf Education, on pages 382-407 as an excellent overview of the aims of the movement. I find it odd the Peter Staudenmaier cites this paragraph without giving any indication of having read the rest chapter from which it is taken. Stranger still is the earlier claim that no comprehensive overview of Waldorf education exists when he is citing one here.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 111

2007-11-12T21:08:00.001-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 34th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

It is true that Waldorf pedagogy has proven itself to be on the forefront of progressive trends over the last century. But this is not, as Peter Staudenmaier supposes, because Steiner picked and selected from among the best trends of his day. Rather, Steiner founded a pedagogy based entirely on what he felt was best for the education of children – often with quite detailed explanations – and these same general trends subsequently and quite independently entered into the general “progressive" stream of education in bits and pieces. It is not uncommon for ideas to enter the world simultaneously and independently (for example, the gasoline engine) and this appears to be the case with many of the techniques of Waldorf that are now common among "progressive" schools. So the causality Peter Staudenmaier offers is false: trends in progressive education did not "create" Waldorf in Steiner's mind. Indeed, in most cases where there is a demonstrable link the direction is the reverse: progressive education borrows from Waldorf.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 110

2007-11-11T08:03:00.001-08:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 34 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Anthroposophy in Practice: Waldorf Schools and Biodynamic Farming
The school in Stuttgart turned out to the anthroposophists' biggest success, along with the nearby pharmaceutical factory that they named after the mythical Norse oracle Weleda. Waldorf schools are now represented in many countries and generally project a solidly progressive image. There are undoubtedly progressive aspects to Waldorf education, many of them absorbed from the intense ferment of alternative pedagogical theories prevalent in the first decades of the twentieth century. But there is more to Waldorf schooling than holistic learning, musical expression, and eurhythmics.

Peter Staudenmaier offers an interesting thesis, here not defended, that Waldorf schools are an amalgam of techniques "absorbed" from the general pedagogical milieu of the first decades of the twentieth centuries. It is an attempt to minimize Steiner's substantial contributions to the field of education, a polite way of claiming he stole all of Waldorf's good ideas from his contemporaries.

Now I am not sure by what means Peter Staudenmaier feels himself such an expert in the history of pedagogy as to make such a sweeping generalization. But then, to speak in authoritative, dismissive generalizations without any background knowledge or any sort of substantiation seems a typical gesture of Peter Staudenmaier’s towards Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner. Once again Peter Staudenmaier gets the essential points wrong, as I will show in the next several days.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 109

2007-11-07T08:08:00.001-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 33rd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Peter Staudenmaier writes, “Soon after the revolutionary upsurge of workers across Germany was crushed, Steiner was invited by the director of the Waldorf-Astoria tobacco factory to establish a company school in Stuttgart.” Staudenmaier has the basic chronology correct, but the reasons implicit in his formulation are wrong. Emil Molt had been working fervently to implement the Threefold Social Order in the entire state of Württemberg. The same forces that crushed the revolutionary upsurge of workers across Germany also prevented Molt from realizing his goal, so he turned to a more modest endeavor, founding a school for his worker's children. If he couldn't improve society through political means, then he aimed to do so through education. So Molt invited Steiner to be the director of the school he wished to establish. The primary focus of the school was from the start to realize and model a particular pedagogy (since named Waldorf Education) and not to be a company school. As such, starting in the second year the school separated itself administratively from the Molt's company, and financial subsidies ended in the seventh year of the school when the company went under, a victim of the German economy, then in hyperinflation. The school continued until it was shut down by the Nazi's in 1938 for - I'm not making this up - educating students to be too independent! The school reopend after WWII and spawned an entire movement: Waldorf Education. Today there are over 1000 schools operating with Waldorf methods.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 108

2007-11-05T20:09:00.001-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 33rd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

That the Munich communists denounced Steiner is hardly surprising; communism has an extraordinarily fractious history and denouncing each other and the world at large is something of an art form in those circles. Steiner was certainly no communist, and openly hostile to the Bolsheviks, so the fact that he earned their distain is to be expected.

For Staudenmaier, it is pity that the basic facts ruin the otherwise smooth flow of polemic. It is a nice picture to imagine a cabal of industrialists huddling around Steiner while the proletariat spit on the group of them. Steiner's idea of the Threefold Social Order was taken very seriously in the broader society for a short time. Working-class audiences by the thousands turned out to hear him speak, and his book was reviewed in a generally favorable light as far away as the Times of London and the New York Times. But that popularity faded under the attack of right-wing groups, and Steiner died five years later, in 1925. His Threefold Social Order became a historical curiosity.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 107

2007-11-04T16:38:00.001-08:00

Continuing my commentary on the 33rd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

"Industrialists, on the other hand, showed a keen interest in Steiner's notions."

"Industrialists" is perhaps technically not incorrect; there were, after all, two of them involved. Both had been connected with Steiner and Anthroposophy for over a decade. One was Emil Molt, the other Carl Unger. Both were longtime personal students of Steiner's, and both enthusiastically embraced the Threefold Social Order. They were both industrialists in that they owned small-scale factories that employed workers numbering in the low hundreds, Molt making cigarettes, and Unger making machinists tool dies. It is misleading to imply that Steiner's Threefold Social Order attracted widespread interest among the malefactors of great wealth.Those most interested were those already familiar with Steiner's work. This, more than any other factor explains why the Threefold Social Order did not succeed on a large scale.Trying to paint Steiner as popular among the oppressors of the German working class is just silly.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 106

2007-11-03T19:11:00.001-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 33 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Though Steiner tried to make inroads within working class institutions, his outlook was understandably not very popular among workers. The revolutionaries of the 1919 Munich council republic derided him as "the witch doctor of decaying capitalism." [Footnote: Cited in Peter Bierl, Wurzelrassen, Erzengel und Volksgeister: Die Anthroposophie Rudolf Steiners und die Waldorfpädagogik, Hamburg 1999, p. 107] Industrialists, on the other hand, showed a keen interest in Steiner's notions. Soon after the revolutionary upsurge of workers across Germany was crushed, Steiner was invited by the director of the Waldorf-Astoria tobacco factory to establish a company school in Stuttgart. Thus were Waldorf schools born.

It appears that Peter Staudenmaier cannot even cite works favorable to his own position properly. The sentence from which Peter Staudenmaier has drawn his statement "The revolutionaries of the 1919 Munich council republic derided him as 'the witch doctor of decaying capitalism'" runs as follows:

Ziemlich treffend ist die Warnung, die im selben Monat [August, 1919] in der von Kurt Eisner gegründeten Münchner Neuen Zeitung erschienen. Unter dem Titel Der Seelendoktor des verelendenden Kapitalismus wurde die Dreigliederung zerpflückt und Steiner-Anhänger als Personen beyeichnete, die nach 'alkoholfreier Umnebelung schmachteten'. (107)

In English:

Quite appropriate is the warning that appeared the same month [August, 1919] in the Munich-based newspaper "Neuen Zeitung", founded by Kurt Eisner. Under the headline "The soul-doctor of misery-causing capitalism", threefolding was torn apart and Steiner's followers described as people who 'yearn for an alcohol-free haze.'

Getting "witch-doctor" out of Seelendoktor ( soul-doctor) requires taking considerable creative license with the original, and the word verelendenden does not translate to 'decaying' ('misery-causing' is probably the closest approximation – the word is a creative adjective construction based on the root elend – meaning misery). Nor is it clear how this article is supposed to represent all or any of the revolutionaries of the 1919 Munich council. The author or authors of the article are not listed in Bierl's text, only the founder of the paper, Kurt Eisner, who was assassinated in February 1919, six months before the article was published. So either Peter Staudenmaier has additional sources he has failed to cite on the particulars of the article whose title he has mistranslated, or he has simply made an unsupported logical leap and simply assumed that because of the paper in which it was published, it must therefore be an official position of the entire Munich council.

There are further problems with this paragraph, which I will detail tomorrow.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 105

2007-10-31T19:16:00.001-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraphs 31 and 32 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

In the aftermath of the bloody world war, at the very moment of the greatest upheavals in history against the violence, misery, and exploitation of capitalism, Steiner emerged as an ardent defender of private profit, the concentration of property and wealth, and the unfettered market. Arguing vehemently against any effort to replace anti-social institutions with humane ones, Steiner proposed adapting his "threefold commonwealth" to the existing system of class domination. He could scarcely deny that the coarse economic despotism of his day was enormously damaging to human lives, but insisted that "private capitalism as such is not the cause of the damage":

"The fact that individual people or groups of people administer huge masses of capital is not what makes life anti-social, but rather the fact that these people or groups exploit the products of their administrative labor in an anti-social manner. [ . . . ] If management by capable individuals were replaced with management by the whole community, the productivity of management would be undermined. Free initiative, individual capabilities and willingness to work can not be fully realized within such a community. [ . . .] The attempt to structure economic life in a social manner destroys productivity." [Footnote: From an untitled lecture manuscript in Steiner's archive, reproduced in Walter Kugler, Rudolf Steiner und die Anthroposophie, Cologne 1978, pp. 199-200.]

It is interesting to note that in any lengthier quote, no matter how chopped up, Steiner appears far more reasonable than in three-word mini-quotes carefully manipulated for maximum impact. In the above paragraph we hear an indignant Marxist decry Steiner's understanding that economics works best on the basis of capitalism. Yet Peter Staudenmaier fundamentally mischaracterizes Steiner's vision of capitalism. For Steiner it was most important that capitalism be humanized; he was explicitly against the unfettered market. Nowhere did Steiner propose adapting his Threefold Social Order to the then-current class system. He proposed a humanized society whose economy was to be run on the basis of capitalism, but restrained by an independent political system. Nor was his proposal specific to any one country; it had enthusiastic supporters in Great Britain, Holland and Scandinavia. This is not to imply that these countries would then suddenly merge into one. The idea of the Threefold Social Order is adaptable to any society large enough to be a country.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 104

2007-10-30T18:59:00.001-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 30th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Steiner conceived of the Threefold Social Order out of the questions that were put to him, and from a sense for what could serve as a fair and free basis for human society. Flatly counter to Peter Staudenmaier’s claim, Steiner did not predict the failure of democracy. Had he done this it would place him in the company of any number of political reactionaries – among them the early Nazis. This is clearly Peter Staudenmaier’s intention. But Steiner clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly called for individual equality to be the basis of any political system. Steiner also called for political - that is democratic - control of the economy as a whole. That is, Steiner considered the details of working conditions, contracts between workers and employers, hours worked, and so forth to be political decisions, decisions to be reached in the political sphere on the basis of equality and then dictated to businesses. Firms would have to accept political decisions about working conditions in the same way that today US businesses have to accept minimum wage and overtime laws. Steiner’s analogy was that politically-imposed working conditions in his Threefold Social Order would have to be taken as a given in the same way that the length of the growing season or the availability of raw materials in a region is factored as a given. At the same time Steiner predicted that if all business decisions were subject to a majority vote of all workers, such a business would fail. Steiner felt that meritocracy was the most efficient way to run a business, while emphasizing the need for fair working conditions and equitable compensation. By moving the word order around, Peter Staudenmaier has misrepresented Steiner and painted him a heartless radical libertarian and anti-socialist, positions distant from Steiner’s own views.

Peter Staudenmaier’s point in this paragraph is actually quite illogical. Steiner is claiming that with greater concern for individual well-being, capitalism can be improved. This is the same fundamental assumption that underlies all current western capitalist societies. It is the philosophical basis for any and all regulation of business by government. Yet in articulating this belief Steiner is supposedly demonstrating political naiveté. This simply does not follow.

Steiner’s astute views on politics, economics, and culture are nothing like those attributed to him by Peter Staudenmaier.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 103

2007-10-24T20:45:00.001-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 30 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Anthroposophists consider this threefold structure to be "naturally ordained." [Footnote; Abendroth, p. 120.]* Its central axiom is that the modern integration of politics, economy and culture into an ostensibly democratic framework must falter because, according to Steiner, neither the economy nor cultural life can or should be structured democratically. The cultural sphere, which Steiner defined very broadly, is a realm of individual achievement where the most talented and capable should predominate. And the economy must never be subject to democratic public control because it would then collapse. Steiner's economic and political naiveté are encapsulated in his claim that capitalism "will become a legitimate capitalism if it is spiritualized."[Footnote: Steiner quoted in Thomas Divis, "Rudolf Steiner und die Anthroposophie" in ökoLinx #13 ( February 1994), p. 27.]**

* Peter Staudenmaier claims that Abendroth wrote of Steiner’s Threefold Social Order that it is "naturally ordained". Aside from the fact that the translation is by Peter Staudenmaier, the context has once again been obscured. Peter Staudenmaier would like to demonstrate a rigidity and harshness of worldview to anthroposophists that is simply not there. Steiner’s proposal itself is remarkably open and adaptable. It is couched on certain a priori premises, such as the fundamental right to individual freedom in the political sphere. If you “hold these truths to be self-evident” (borrowing from Jefferson) then it is proper to call Steiner’s view “naturally ordained”. It is “naturally ordained” that individuals should be free. If, on the other hand, you claim that economic exploitation is a requirement of Steiner’s political vision then you have simply not studied Steiner.

** This eight-word quote is not nearly as disturbing as Peter Staudenmaier would make it. If you consider it for even a moment it makes perfect sense. The basis of western liberal capitalism is that government regulation is necessary to preserve human values (spiritual beliefs and fundamental human rights) from unfettered capitalism, the very point Steiner was making that Staudenmaier calls naive. In fact, whenever Peter Staudenmaier quotes Steiner for more than a few words Steiner comes off as remarkably cogent.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 102

2007-10-21T10:13:00.001-07:00

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

Regarding Steiner's relationship to fascism two points should be mentioned. The first is the attack by Adolf Hitler on Steiner and Steiner's Threefold Social Order in 1921. Steiner's proposed social reforms were decried as "one of the many completely Jewish methods of destroying the peoples’ normal state of mind"*. Hitler had a number of reasons for disliking Steiner. Steiner's Threefold Social Order was a real alternative at the time, and as such was a threat to Hitler's "national" socialism. Indeed every aspect of Steiner' philosophy is antithetical to Nazi fascism. This is evident in the second point:

"Which social forms can be the only acceptable ones if all social development is tending towards individualization? The answer cannot be too difficult. Any state or society that regards itself as an end in itself has to aim for control over the individual, regardless of the way in which such control is exercised, whether it be an absolutist, constitutional or republican manner. As long as the state no longer regards itself as an end in itself, but as a means towards an end, the principle of state control will no longer be emphasized. All arrangements will be made in such a way that the individual receives the greatest scope. The greatest ideal of the state will not be the control of anything. It will be a community that wants nothing for itself, everything for the individual."

This is Steiner writing in 1898, 35 years before Hitler took power in Germany. Contrast this with the basic description of fascism from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"… fascism extolled the supreme sovereignty of the nation as an absolute. It demanded the revival of the spirit of the ancient polis (city-state), above all of Sparta with its discipline and total devotion to duty, and of the complete coordination of all intellectual and political thought and activities against modern individualism and scientific skepticism."***

Steiner flatly rejected the very premise of fascism. Little wonder the Anthroposophical Society in Germany was banned shortly after the Nazi's seized power.

* Hitler, Adolf. Völkische Beobachter. 15 Mar 1921.

** Steiner, Rudolf. Social and Political Science. Ed. Stephen Usher. Forest Row, UK: Sophia Books, 2003. Pages 32-33.

*** Kohn, Hans. "Fascism". Encyclopedia Britannica. 2002 ed. CD-ROM. New York: Britannica, 2002.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 101

2007-10-18T20:11:00.001-07:00

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

In Staudenmaier's essay, a superficial comparison to Mussolini furthers the association of Steiner with fascism. However, Steiner's presentation predates Mussolini by 20 years and bears only superficial resemblances. But to Peter Staudenmaier a superficial similarity is always a major point if it serves to put Steiner in a negative light. In the sentence-and-a-half that actually describes Steiner's proposed social order it becomes clear that the idea itself is hardly earth shattering. As I have shown in previous posts, Steiner was fundamentally opposed to fascism, and target as an enemy by early fascists such as Adolph Hitler.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 100

2007-09-20T05:40:00.001-07:00

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.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 99

2007-09-15T20:29:00.001-07:00

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

Continuing to look at the origin of the concept behind Rudolf Steiner's Threefold Social Order, I should note that Steiner's thoughts had been directed to the questions of how to best form a social order by von Lerchenfeld's question and the discussions with von Lerchenfeld, and he took up the theme in his lectures. By the end of 1918 he was speaking of the need for social renewal quite frequently. With the collapse of the social order in Germany in late 1918 he increased the intensity of his lecturing. In April 1919 his book Die Kernpunket der sozialen Frage (The Crux of the Social Question) was published.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 98

2007-09-14T09:57:00.001-07:00

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

Let us look first at the origin of the concept behind the Threefold Social Order:

Europe is in flames. The First World War has entered its final phase. It is May 1917. Otto von Lerchenfeld, a German diplomat in Berlin, was searching for ideas that might offer a basis for genuine peace once the war finally ended. He decided to turn to the once person whom he believed might have insights that could penetrate to the sources of the social sickness that underlay the war. The person to whom he turned was Rudolf Steiner, whose work he knew. Von Lerchenfeld made an appointment and poured out the despair in his heart, speaking of his realization that Germany and Middle Europe had allowed themselves to be driven into a dead end. Steiner listened intently, asked a few questions, and invited him to return the next day. The result was that these two men worked together daily for more than three weeks to hammer out two memoranda in which Rudolf Steiner presented the ideas that he believed could serve as a foundation for peace.

Von Lerchenfeld circulated the memoranda in the highest echelons of the German government. Somewhat later, through the interest of a mutual friend whose brother was then the cabinet chief of the old Austrian Emperor, the memoranda reached a few officials in the government of Austria-Hungary.*

This memorandum suggested that Central Europe offer peace on the basis of a social order based on the freedom of the individual, and that all social forms be freed from state control, establishing a free cultural life, truly a revolutionary idea for the time and place (though not unknown in the United States).** How Peter Staudenmaier turns a proposal for peace based a federalist system of autonomous social and cultural units and individual freedom into a dangerous theory to be imposed upon a conquered territory is simply incomprehensible.

* Barnes, Henry. A Life for the Spirit: Rudolf Steiner in the Crosscurrents of Our Time. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1997. Page 9.

** See Christoph Lindenberg. Rudolf Steiner: Eine Chronik. Stuttgart : 1988. Pages 614-620 for the full account.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 97

2007-09-12T09:48:00.001-07:00

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

To correct a few very mistaken statements in the 29th paragraph. First, the Threefold Social Order was intended to be implemented in Austro-Hungary and/or Germany. It was not dreamed up as something to be imposed on the "conquered territories in Eastern Europe." I personally find this particular distortion to be a disgusting perversion of historical facts, especially for the implications.* Second, it arose from questions that were brought to him, and not from his own initiative. It was first offered at a time when Germany was clearly already losing, and most of Steiner's popular efforts to see it implemented were after the wars end, so the phrase "unfortunately for Steiner's plans, Germany and Austria-Hungary lost the war" is entirely mistaken; the perverse conclusion of an egregious distortion. As to Steiner's motives, I find it hard to trust the judgment of a "historian" who can't even understand the basic idea in the first place. Peter Staudenmaier would have us believe that it was conceived to avoid the partition of the Hapsburg Empire and to prevent a Bolshevik revolution. Even if that were correct, it hardly seems an ignoble goal. The Bolshevik revolution cost some 60 million lives in Eastern Europe, and one can only imagine the toll had central Europe also undergone a similar process of forced collectivization. As an alternative, one can also imagine a democratic Austro-Hungarian state thriving in central Europe, first as a counter-pole to Prussian-influenced Germany, and possibly even averting the many deaths that resulted from the transition to Communism throughout the region about 30 years later. Steiner's primary goal, stated frequently, was to reform the social sphere, and not save the old order.

* Steiner wished to reform social, economic and political life within Austria and Germany, and after failing to interest sufficient government officials, attempted to do so from the ground up through popular consensus. Steiner did not attempt to foist some reactionary scheme on enslaved people. How Peter Staudenmaier manages to come to this conception is simply incomprehensible to me. Steiner's efforts are well documented in over a dozen volumes of primary source material, and there are dozens of additional books and commentary that have been written on the subject over the past 80 years.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 96

2007-09-11T16:18:00.001-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 29 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

In the midst of the war's senseless savagery, Steiner used his military and industrial connections to try to persuade German and Austrian elites of a new social theory of his, which he hoped to see imposed on conquered territories in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately for Steiner's plans, Germany and Austria-Hungary lost the war, and his dream went unrealized. But the new doctrine he had begun preaching serves to this day as the social vision of Anthroposophy. Conceived as an alternative to both Woodrow Wilson's self-determination program and the bolshevik revolution, Steiner gave this theory the unwieldy name "the tripartite structuring of the social organism" (Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus, often referred to in English-language anthroposophist literature as "the threefold commonwealth", a phrase which obscures Steiner's biologistic view of the social realm as an actual organism). Steiner wrote that "the social organism is structured like the natural organism" in his nationalist pamphlet from 1919, "Aufruf an das deutsche Volk und an die Kulturwelt." The pamphlet is quoted extensively in Walter Abendroth, Rudolf Steiner und die heutige Welt, Munich 1969, pp.122-123.] The three branches of this scheme, which resembles Mussolini's corporatist model, are the state (political, military, and police functions), the economy, and the cultural sphere. This last sphere encompasses "all judicial, educational, intellectual and spiritual matters," which are to be administered by "corporations," with individuals free to choose their school, church, court, etc.Quotes from Steiner as cited in Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner, Hamburg 1992, pp. 111-112.]

So now we turn to Steiner's proposal for a Threefold Social Order. As is distressingly typical in this article, both the idea itself and the history surrounding it are factually incorrect. At this point this is not at all surprising, seeing as to how all four "Steiner" quotes are individual words taken from secondary sources. Peter Staudenmaier, it seems, has never attempted to understand Steiner's Threefold Social Order as Steiner explained it. Instead he has formed his opinion from four openly hostile secondary sources. It should thus surprise no one that his grasp of it is faulty.

As to Staudenmaier's footnotes in Paragraph 29, by citing secondary sources Peter Staudenmaier is again admitting to not having read the original. Quotes of quotes are the extent of his scholarship on Steiner. Little wonder, then, that he is so often in error. Lindenberg is a widely acknowledged expert on Steiner, and his two-volume biography published in 1998 is considered the most comprehensive yet. This earlier, and much shorter biography is also excellent. It yields to Peter Staudenmaier a sentence that is factually accurate, for once. In this paragraph, inasmuch as Peter Staudenmaier has quoted Steiner (from a secondary source) he has not distorted the original. That is, he has grasped the barest essentials of the concept of a three-part division of social life. The facile comparison to Mussolini is particularly superficial. Steiner's entire position is fundamentally antithetical to fascism, as fascists ideologues themselves have determined.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 95

2007-09-08T10:10:00.001-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 28th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Finally Peter Staudenmaier says, again without citations, that unnamed anthroposophists in the 1990's insist that Germany bears no responsibility for World War One, and it is implied, though not directly claimed, that they do this because Steiner said so. As is distressingly common in this piece, the footnotes for this section do not substantiate any of the claims (for example, none of them talk about the views of anthroposophists in the 1990's).

Most of paragraph 28 is unsubstantiated misrepresentation woven into a largely fictional narrative. The first quote is blatantly mistranslated (as I explained in part 91).

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 94

2007-09-07T16:13:00.001-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 28th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

For Peter Staudenmaier to make the historical judgment that Steiner railed against France with "rhetoric which matched that of Mein Kampf" would imply that he had read a sufficient amount of Steiner and Mein Kampf as to be able to compare the two. Had Peter Staudenmaier done this, he would perhaps notice that Steiner did not, in actual fact, rail against the French as is here claimed. The absence of any footnote indicating the source for this absurd statement is a fairly decent indication that Peter Staudenmaier has read very little of Steiner's own work. Indeed, we are not even told the secondary source from which Peter Staudenmaier might have borrowed this comparison. This fascist anti-French bigot is the same Rudolf Steiner who in 1919 chose French and English as the foreign languages to be taught in the first Waldorf School, and when asked why in 1924 explained:

"We have introduced French and English into the Waldorf School, because with French there is much to be learned from the inner quality of the language not found elsewhere, namely, a certain feeling for rhetoric, which it is very good to acquire; and English is taught because it is a universal world language, and will become so more and more."

Rudolf Steiner. The Kingdom of Childhood. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1995. Page139. It is in answer to the last question in the question and answer section of the lecture of August 20th, 1924.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 93

2007-09-06T09:45:00.001-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 28th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

For Steiner's alleged high praise for "German militarism," which we are told by the quotes in the text are Steiner's own words, I was not ably to find any evidence among the 90,000 pages of Steiner’s complete works, or among any other primary sources. Where Peter Staudenmaier might have picked this up remains unknown, since he did not cite his sources. In actual fact Steiner spoke out against militarism throughout the entire war, to audiences of all nationalities.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 92

2007-09-05T13:25:00.001-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 28th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Steiner's views on the origins of the First World War are complex, but flatly contrary to Peter Staudenmaier's claims included an acknowledgement of the imperialistic rivalry among the European powers, the unhealthy influence of fanatical nationalism – something Steiner opposed throughout his life – and unbounded militarism. Steiner also mentioned British Freemasons, but the influence Steiner attributes to them, while not insignificant, is also not decisive. I refer the interested reader to chapter 35 of Christoph Lindenberg's biography,* or Steiner's own statements on the subject, given among other places in a series of lectures titled "The Karma of Untruthfulness", a title that concisely summarizes Steiner's view of the ultimate cause of the conflagration.** Steiner lived through the war and spoke and wrote extensively on the subject.

* Lindenberg, Christoph. Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistes Leben, 1997 pages 572-587.

** To Steiner, nationalism and militarism were symptoms of an underlying materialistic trend that he felt was largely responsible for the course of the war. Steiner's relationship with the von Moltkes is well documented, and I refer the interested reader to the excellent book Light For The New Millennium; Rudolf Steiner's Association With Helmuth And Eliza von Moltke edited by T. H. Meyer, as well as Annika Mombauer's Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War (Cambridge University Press, 2001 pages 52, 53, 263, 264 and 274).

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 91

2007-09-04T22:58:00.001-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 28 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Steiner was by his own account "enthusiastically active" in pan-German nationalist movements in Vienna at the end of the nineteenth century.[Footnote: Rudolf Steiner, Mein Lebensgang, Dornach 1983, p. 144.]* He saw world war one as part of an international "conspiracy against German spiritual life."[Footnote: Steiner quoted in Volkmar Wölk, "Neue Trends im ökofaschistischen Netzwerk" in Raimund Hethey and Peter Kratz, In Bester Gesellschaft, Göttingen 1991, p. 132.]** In Steiner's preferred explanation, it wasn't imperialist rivalry among colonial powers or fanatical nationalism or unbounded militarism or the competition for markets which caused the war, but British freemasons and their striving for world domination. Steiner was a personal acquaintance of General Helmuth von Moltke, chief of staff of the German high command; after Moltke's death in 1916 Steiner claimed to be in contact with his spirit and channeled the general's views on the war from the nether world. After the war Steiner had high praise for "German militarism" (his own term), and continued to rail against France, French culture, and the French language in rhetoric which matched that of Mein Kampf. In the 1990's anthroposophists were still defending Steiner's jingoist nonsense, insisting that Germany bore no responsibility for world war one and was a victim of the "West."

The above paragraph, should it prove true, would indeed paint a terrible picture of this Rudolf Steiner. But is it factually accurate? First, the quote "enthusiastically active" is based on a faulty translation. In the original, a paragraph in Steiner's autobiography, Steiner states, “At that time I took a lively interest in the battles that the Germans in Austria were fighting concerning their national existence.”*** As I described in the footnote, Peter Staudenmaier has mistranslated "lively interest" as "enthusiastically active". This is no minor point, and indicative of the type of writing that Peter Staudenmaier is engaged in: character assassination, not scholarship.

* Peter Staudenmaier has blatantly mistranslated this quote, even while citing the original German. See *** below.

** Yet again Peter Staudenmaier is lifting a short-phrase quote from a secondary source and constructed a damning portrait of Steiner’s complex position on a complex subject. Steiner addressed the origins of the war at length in numerous contexts. The scholarship on the issues is considerable, yet Peter Staudenmaier’s grasp of it is feeble. While Steiner did mention conspiracies and "secret societies" (but not Freemasons) as factors, he did not consider these the sole, or even principle, causes of the war. Freemasons show up because the Nazi's frequently blamed them, and this is supposed to make Steiner appear more Nazi. However, the Nazi's also blamed Steiner for the loss of the war, a point which Staudenmaier neglects.

*** The German reads: "Nun nahm ich damals an den nationalen Kämpfen lebhaften Anteil, welche die Deutschen in Österreich um ihre nationale Existenz führten.” (Steiner, Mein Lebensgang, Dornach 1925, p. 132) The phrase "Anteil... nehmen... an" - the phrase used in the sentence - is translated as "take an interest in;" or, if indicating sympathy, "sympathize with" (Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch, Berlin 1996, p. 807). Further, "lebhaft" as an adjective is translated "lively" when indicating interest or imagination (same dictionary, p. 1136) and I should note that by no definition given does it mean "deeply" or "enthusiastically," though both these would seem reasonable to a translator trying to improve the flow. So "enthusiastically active in" is widely off the mark, "deeply sympathetic" is also off the mark (individually each word could go that way, but together in the context of the sentence a far better alternative exists) and the straight dictionary translation would be: "At that time I took a lively interest in the battles that the Germans in Austria were fighting concerning their national existence." The verb in the sentence ("führten") refers strictly to the Germans, and Steiner's position was limited to his "lively interest" in the form of a prepositional phrase.

I should note that the phrase has been mistranslated in the 1978 English edition of Steiner's autobiography. Four other editions translate it correctly. Staudenmaier cited the original German, so this can't be an excuse.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 90

2007-09-03T08:49:00.001-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 27th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

To Mr. Peter Staudenmaier, because Steiner rejected Marxism he must have been a right-winger, since being apolitical is impossible (a classical Marxist stance). Thus Peter Staudenmaier invents a political affiliation for Steiner that Steiner would have flatly rejected: right wing reactionary. This rather facile approach to biography is only possible to a writer unfamiliar with the source material. In the political context in which Rudolf Steiner grew up - the declining Austro-Hungarian Empire - political participation was nearly impossible for the average person, and a substantial number of intellectuals, Steiner included, remained staunchly apolitical. The Empire was politically an autocracy like Russia, complete with an active secret police, and the number of offenses that could get you in trouble were many. Simply calling for a Constitution could at times get you locked up. When a parliament was formed, it was given only token power and was generally ineffective. Intelligent people could see through the illusion, and didn't waste their time participating. Instead they focused their energies on the one area where they had freedom: culture. The period saw one of the greatest explosions of cultural productivity in history. Steiner was part of this. Understanding this background, it is then comprehensible why Steiner remained apolitical throughout his life.

To talk of Rudolf Steiner's “mature” political vision presumes some form of gradual ripening. While Peter Staudenmaier weaves a compelling tapestry depicting Steiner’s maturation from racist through reactionary to nationalist bigot, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to Steiner’s actual biography.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 89

2007-09-02T22:37:00.001-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 27 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

In the heady turn-of-the-century atmosphere, Steiner flirted for a while with left politics, and even shared a podium with revolutionary socialist Rosa Luxemburg at a workers' meeting in 1902. But Steiner consistently rejected any materialist or social analysis of capitalist society in favor of "looking into the soul" of fellow humans to divine the roots of the modern malaise. This facile approach to social reality was to reach fruition in his mature political vision, elaborated during the first world war. Steiner's response to the war was determined by the final, decisive component in his intellectual temperament: chauvinist nationalism.

Let us contrast Peter Staudenmaier's description of Steiner's "flirtation" with left politics with a description by Henry Barnes:

During these years Steiner was asked to give courses in history and public speaking at the Berlin Worker's School (Arbeitersbildungschule), founded by Karl Liebknecht in 1891. Steiner's view of history directly contradicted the Marxist view that dominated the Worker's School. To Marx, economic and material forces were the only realities involved in shaping the historical process. Cultural ideals, as expressed through intellectual life, art, and religion were only froth on the surface of historical reality. They were, in his view, unrealistic ideologies – merely bourgeois self-indulgences. Steiner made it clear to the school's executive committee that he had to lecture and teach entirely in accordance with his own views. The committee made no objection to this, and Steiner began an activity that gave him great satisfaction. In many of his pupils – mostly working men and women of mature years – he experienced a yearning for knowledge and an untapped vigor of soul that lived beneath the surface of their social-democratic, Marxist indoctrination.

That his teaching was very welcome is shown by the students' request that, in addition to his history and public speaking courses, he speak to them about the sciences as well. Steiner was eventually speaking to groups within and outside the school every night of the week.*

Steiner did not "flirt" with left-wing politics. Steiner held courses in an institution for the education of the proletariat, having first informed the directors that he opposed the Marxist interpretation of history. They hired him anyway, and he was the single most popular lecturer. He taught there for almost five years before being forced out by more doctrinaire functionaries. It was in this context that Steiner "shared a podium" – in the literal, and not ideological, sense – with Rosa Luxemburg in 1902.** The derisive “looking into the soul” quote is not cited, so the context cannot be examined.

* Barnes, Henry . A Life for the Spirit: Rudolf Steiner in the Crosscurrents of Our Time. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1997. Pages 70-72.

** Lindenberg, Christoph. Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistes Leben, 1997 pages 300-305.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 88

2007-09-01T07:10:00.001-07:00

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

Hemleben, cited by Staudenmaier, carefully shows the extent and limits of Steiner's admiration for Haeckel, and demonstrates conclusively that Steiner never subscribed to the Monist platform. If Peter Staudenmaier is citing Hemleben to show that he has read extensively in the field, he might consider mentioning that Hemleben's work directly contradicts his own thesis. However, it is also possible that this book is mentioned only for its title (like Hans Mändl's Vom Geist des Nordens in his very first footnote) without ever having glanced at its contents. The book is cited in Gasman as documenting the link between Steiner and Haeckel, but there is no evidence here or anywhere else that Peter Staudenmaier has seen it himself. That is dubius scholarship indeed, citing a book for its title when the contents actually contradict your thesis!

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 87

2007-08-31T11:19:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-30T20:23:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-29T08:42:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-28T19:38:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-27T19:12:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-26T12:54:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-25T14:39:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-23T10:03:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-22T09:11:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-21T18:40:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-20T23:38:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-20T01:02:00.001-07:00

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.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 75

2006-07-06T07:40:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I wrote that Rudolf Steiner appreciated aspects of Nietzsche's work. An example, from his book, is when Steiner praised Nietzsche's stance against nationalism:

"The patriotic feelings of his German compatriots are also repugnant to Nietzsche's instincts. He cannot make his feelings and his thinking dependent upon the circles of the people amid whom he was born and reared, nor upon the age in which he lives. "It is so small-townish," he says in his Schopenhauer als Erzieher (Schopenhauer as an Educator) to make oneself duty-bound to opinions which no longer bind one a few hundred miles away. Orient and Occident are strokes of chalk which someone draws before our eyes to make fools of our timidity. I will make the attempt to come to freedom, the young soul says to itself; and then should it be hindered because accidentally two nations hate and fight each other, or because an ocean lies between two parts of the earth, or because there a religion is taught which did not exist a few thousand years previously?" The soul experiences of the Germans during the War of 1870 found so little echo in his soul that "while the thunder of battle passed from Wörth over Europe," he sat in a small corner of the Alps, "brooding and puzzled, consequently most grieved, and at the same time not grieved," and wrote down his thoughts about the Greeks."

Steiner, Rudolf. Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom. Englewood, NJ: Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1960. Page 45.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 74

2006-07-04T07:26:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 23nd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Steiner's book Friedrich Nietzsche, Ein Kämpfer Gegen Sein Zeit is divided into three sections:

a critical analysis of Nietzsche's character,

an exploration of the idea of the Superman, and

an attempt to trace Nietzsche's path of development.

We find not the fawning applause of an acolyte, but instead a profound effort to place Nietzsche in the context of various directions in the philosophy of his times, an effort that to this day ranks as one of the more insightful attempted. Put quite simply, Rudolf Steiner was never a Nietzsche disciple, never a follower. He was deeply familiar with Nietzsche's work (and was even offered the position of editor of a planned edition of Nietzsche's complete works, a job he turned down when it became evident that he would not have editorial freedom and full access to the archives*) and appreciated elements of them.

* For the details, see Chapter 17 of Christoph Lindenberg's Rudolf Steiner, Eine Biographie. Stuttgart: Freies Geistesleben, 1997. Pages 240-260.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 73

2006-07-03T18:34:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 23nd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

His interest in, but distance from Nietzsche Steiner repeated frequently when referring to Nietzsche. In a memorial address given September 13th, 1900, Steiner speaks of himself in the following way:

It is strange that with the infatuation for Nietzsche in our day, someone must appear whose feelings, no less than many others, are drawn to the particular personality, and yet who, in spite of this, must constantly keep before him the deep contradictions which exist between this type of spirit, and the ideas and feelings of those who represent themselves as adherents of his world conception.(Steiner, Rudolf. Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom. Englewood, NJ: Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1960. Pages 201.)

Or in an article in the Wiener Klinischer Rundschau (14th year, No. 30, 1900):

For Nietzsche does not work upon his contemporaries through the logical power of his arguments. On the contrary, the wide dissemination of his concepts is to be traced to the same reasons which make it possible for zealots and fanatics to play their role in the world at all times.( Steiner, Rudolf. Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom. Englewood, NJ: Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1960. Pages 153-154. )

These are hardly the words of a man "under the sway of" Nietzsche. We find Steiner repeatedly distancing himself from the "zealots and fanatics" or even ordinary "adherents" of Nietzsche's world conception.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 73

2006-06-24T08:57:00.000-07:00

His interest in, but distance from Nietzsche Steiner repeated frequently when referring to Nietzsche. In a memorial address given September 13th, 1900, Steiner speaks of himself in the following way:

It is strange that with the infatuation for Nietzsche in our day, someone must appear whose feelings, no less than many others, are drawn to the particular personality, and yet who, in spite of this, must constantly keep before him the deep contradictions which exist between this type of spirit, and the ideas and feelings of those who represent themselves as adherents of his world conception.(Steiner, Rudolf. Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom. Englewood, NJ: Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1960. Pages 201.)

Or in an article in the Wiener Klinischer Rundschau (14th year, No. 30, 1900):

For Nietzsche does not work upon his contemporaries through the logical power of his arguments. On the contrary, the wide dissemination of his concepts is to be traced to the same reasons which make it possible for zealots and fanatics to play their role in the world at all times.( Steiner, Rudolf. Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom. Englewood, NJ: Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1960. Pages 153-154. )

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 72

2006-06-23T05:10:00.000-07:00

Steiner's relationship to Nietzsche

Probably the best source for understanding Nietzsche's influence on Steiner is Rudolf Steiner's book Friedrich Nietzsche, Ein Kämpfer Gegen Sein Zeit (a title I would translate as: Friedrich Nietzsche: a fighter doing battle against his times) published 1895. Lest his readers mistake him for a disciple of Nietzsche, Rudolf Steiner says on the very first page:

In the words in which he expressed his relationship to Schopenhauer, I would like to describe my relationship to Nietzsche: "I belong to those readers of Nietzsche who, after they have read the first page, know with certainty that they will read all pages, and listen to every word he has said. My confidence in him was there immediately... I understood him as if he had written just for me, in order to express all that I would say intelligibly but immediately and foolishly." One can speak thus and yet be far from acknowledging oneself as a "believer" in Nietzsche's world conception. But Nietzsche himself could not have been further from wishing to have such "believers." Did he not put into Zarathustra's mouth these words:

You say you believe in Zarathustra, but of what account is Zarathustra? You are my believer, but of what account are all believers?

You have not searched for yourself as yet; there you found me. Thus do all believers, but, for that reason, there is so little in all believing.

Now I advise you to forsake me, and find yourselves; and only when you have denied me will I return to you.

Nietzsche is no Messianic founder of a religion; therefore he can wish for friends who support his opinion, but he can not wish for confessors to his teaching, who give up their own selves to find his.

Steiner, Rudolf. Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom. Englewood, NJ: Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1960. Pages 42-43.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 71

2006-06-22T09:36:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 25 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

During his Vienna period Steiner also fell under the sway of Nietzsche, the outstanding anti-democratic thinker of the era, whose elitism made a powerful impression. The radical individualism of Max Stirner further contributed to the young Steiner's political outlook, yielding a potent philosophical melange that was waiting to be catalyzed by some dynamic reactionary force. The latter appeared to Steiner soon enough in the form of Ernst Haeckel and his Social Darwinist creed of Monism. Haeckel (1834-1919) was the founder of modern ecology and the major popularizer of evolutionary theory in Germany. Steiner became a partisan of Haeckel's views, and from him Anthroposophy inherited its environmentalist predilections, its hierarchical model of human development, and its tendency to interpret social phenomena in biological terms.

This next paragraph is a beautiful work of polemic, once again devoid of even the slightest hint of substantiation. It also has the chronology wrong, for Steiner encountered the works of Haeckel long before reading Nietzsche, and Stirner was the last of the three whose works Steiner read. Most would agree that Nietzsche was an outstanding anti-democratic thinker of his era, but did Steiner fall under his sway in the manner implied? And what was Stirner's influence on Steiner? Did it really yield "a potent philosophical mélange that was waiting to be catalyzed by some dynamic reactionary force"? (And why must it be a reactionary force that catalyzes this potent philosophical mélange? Could it not have just as easily been progressive force? Ah yes, the thesis is that Steiner was a proto-Nazi, so he must be socially reactionary.) Finally, what was Steiner's relationship to Haeckel? It seems that Steiner is quite a passive sponge under all this influencing. Was he the only person to have read Nietzsche, Stirner and Haeckel? Must anyone of that period who read all three also become an anti-democratic radical individualist and Social Darwinist? Let us look at the allegations one at a time, in my next entries.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 70

2006-06-21T15:32:00.000-07:00

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.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 69

2006-06-19T05:45:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 23 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Incidents such as these are distressingly common in the world of Anthroposophy. The racial mindset that Steiner bestowed on his faithful followers has yet to be repudiated. And it may well never be repudiated, since Anthroposophy lacks the sort of critical social consciousness that could counteract its flagrantly regressive core beliefs. Indeed Anthroposophy's political outlook has been decidedly reactionary from the beginning.

This polemical paragraph shows the lengths to which Peter Staudenmaier will let his rhetorical flourishes go. Unfortunately, it has no factual basis. Anthroposophy has never repudiated its racist past because no such racist past exists. Peter Staudenmaier's rhetoric cannot resist going further, accusing Anthroposophy of being without any critical social consciousness, when Peter Staudenmaier himself presented evidence contrary earlier in this same article! (In paragraph 4). Based on two individual incidents involving two individual people (but presented as being common to all thousand-some Waldorf schools and tens of thousands of anthroposophists) it is stated without further evidence that this type of thing is "distressingly common in the world of Anthroposophy.” This is a group that numbers somewhere between 100,000 and 2 million people worldwide, depending on the criteria for inclusion. I would suggest that were this the case, Anthroposophy would not exist as it does in the world today. Waldorf Schools exist in South African townships, in Taiwan and Peru, in Brazil, Columbia and the Philippines – all run by locals as grassroots initiatives. It is hard to call such a movement "lacking in critical social consciousness" and couched in "flagrantly regressive core beliefs."

The sweeping statement that Anthroposophy is politically reactionary is also not supported by any evidence presented in this article. The question will be dealt with at some length in future posts.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 68

2006-06-18T07:06:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 22nd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Now I am not familiar with the case of Rainer Schnurre (nor, apparently, is Peter Staudenmaier, who's cited sources are limited to the reference on one page of Oliver Gedden's Rechte Ökologie). But even if everything claimed there is true (and does not represent any selective presentation or out-of-context quotation of Mr. Schnurre's views) we have one individual with racist views. By no standard of scholarship does this prove that an entire group of tens of thousands of people who have read the same author must therefore also be racists, nor does it tell us anything about Steiner’s own views. Indeed, given the overt agenda the Geden is pursuing I would submit that further validation is warranted. It would indeed be puzzling to find Schnurre speaking publicly about overcoming racism while simultaneously espousing overtly racist positions. While not impossible, it does beg critical examination rather than wholesale acceptance. That Geden claims Schnurre is a racist has been uncritically accepted by Peter Staudenmaier. [Note: I have since heard that Rainer Schnurre was informed of the charges, and has retained a lawyer in this case. He got depositions from several people who were present and who swore that he said no such thing.]

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 67

2006-06-17T06:05:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 22nd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

The Anthroposophical Society of the Netherlands also formed a commission with the express purpose of examining all 90,000 pages of Rudolf Steiner's collected works (something Peter Staudenmaier/Peter_Peter Staudenmaier.php">Peter Peter Staudenmaier with his predilection for secondary sources has certainly not done). The commission was tasked with answering three questions:

Does Anthroposophy contain a racist or race-based doctrine?

Do the works of Rudolf Steiner contain statements by Rudolf Steiner that can be understood to be racially discriminating?

Do the works of Dutch authors on Waldorf education contain elements of racial discrimination?

To the first question the commission found no racial bias in Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy. To the second question the commission found that out of 90,000 pages, “...sixteen statements, if they were in public by a person on his or her own authority, could be a violation of the prohibition of racial discrimination under the Criminal Code of the Netherlands.” That is, 16 statements by Steiner, if made by someone today, would legally be considered racially discriminatory in the Netherlands. Or simply stated, that 16 statements of Steiner’s are offensive. The commission also sought to answer the questions of historical context, as well as the role that these statements played in Steiner’s overall thought. (For an English version of the press release announcing the release of the final version of the commission’s report see: http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/Holland/Dutch-FinalPressSummary.htm). These are the real questions for historians to grapple with. Making selective use of these quotations for polemical purposes is made easier by the commission’s having collected them all in one place. Facile polemics should not be confused with actual scholarship, however, and Peter Staudenmaier has not shown any evidence of familiarity with the broader scope of Steiner’s thought, including the literally hundreds of statements about the equality of all people and the need for respect and tolerance.

On Willy Lochmann and Bondarev

2006-06-04T07:40:00.000-07:00

Below is something I wrote to the Anthroposophy email list over at Yahoo Groups. It is in response to a lengthy german message from Willy Lochmann to Robert Mason, that Robert posted there. The original post was in German, so I won't reproduce it here. I'll try to make my comments comprehensible without reference to the original, since all but a few German speakers won't know what it was about anyway.

So Willy Lochmann, Bondraev's publisher, assumes responsibility for expurgating the Holocaust-denial statements from the German edition of Bondarev's book. He admits why it was necessary: the general unpopularity of the position, combined with possible legal liability. Now I don't know what is more interesting, the fact that he kept them out of print, or that he would privately state that he agrees with them. This whole, "we're not getting the whole story about the Holocaust" combined with "I resent Jews making such a big deal about it" is downright antisemitic. Citing English-speaking Holocaust deniers and "The New World Order" does nothing to mitigate the antisemitism. Such antisemitism is rampant in Russia today, so I can excuse it as cultural heritage in Bondarev's case, but Willy Lochmann has no such excuse.

Citing 20% of Steiner's output (volumes 160-220 of the complete works) as supporting the position is feeble. Steiner did indeed talk of "historical symptomology" and looking beyond the surface of events. And he attempted to do this frequently in said volumes. But please don't claim that anyone who has read 60 Steiner books is suddenly qualified to judge whether or not the Holocaust occurred. A far better method would be to check out some of the several archives (the Nazi's kept detailed records) or any of the relevant books on the subject. You can't just wrap yourself in the cloak of mysticism and spout of nonsense and expect the world to bow down to your superior insight. Stupid statements like "no one who has not read the above Steiner books is qualified to form a judgment of Bondarev's book" and "those who have read the above books and still disagree with us haven't understood them" show a real open-mindedness on the subject.

Lochmann shows quite a persecution complex. He considers the death of Irina Gordienko shortly after the completion of her anti-Prokofieff book as a possible contract killing (ordered by Prokofieff, or merely a supporter?). Welcome to the high-stakes world of anthroposophical debate. The delayed, but generally negative reception of Bondraev's book is interpreted as an orchestrated campaign to silence him, rather than an honest reaction to a misguided text.

As to Bondraev, the one who knows more and better than everyone else, is it any wonder that he is not popular in Dornach. Besides denying the Holocaust, he has called everyone there a sellout, and accused them of failing to maintain Steiner's legacy (presumably because they dont do things the way he would). These types of statements illustrate the most important point in considering Bondarev's work: the tone. Here is an idealist profoundly upset with the modern world. His work is in every sense of the word reactionary. And as such, he shares not just opinions, but also attitudes, with a whole host of other reactionary fundamentalists. The whole world has gone wrong. Traditional values are not being upheld. God will punish us for this. Etc. You can read the section on homosexuals that Robert Mason so kindly put up on the internet (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1105/GoodEvil.htm). For a self-professed "Christian Initiate"there is very little of Christ's love or compassion. In fact the whole thing is rather Old Testament.

And that is just one of the many things that don't add up. Another example: I have a hard time understanding how skydiving is part of a satanic initiation (supposedly free-fall separates the physical from the etheric bodies; however, if that is the goal, there are plenty of illegal drugs that will accomplish this much more effectively, and they are far more widely used).

In the end I find Bondarev's work interesting, but I don't agree with a lot of his conclusions. And I find the tone quite off-putting. Apparently I'm not alone; most anthroposophists who have reviewed the book come to similar conclusions. To Willy Lochman, that means I am part of an anthro-conspiracy to keep the wisdom of Bondarev from other anthroposophists (by speaking negatively about it). Indeed, I am part of an anthro-Gestapo which is now hounding the saint, now that the actual KGB has stopped (his words below). What can I say? I'm sorry you see it that way, but I'll make up my own mind, thank you. I don't "follow" Steiner, and I certainly won't "follow" Bondarev just because he thinks he knows more than I do.

PLANS loses lawsuit agains Waldorf-methods Charter Schools

2005-09-16T10:50:00.000-07:00

I wrote an article for the Waldorf Critics Observer about PLANS' stinging defeat in US Federal court.

On September 14 th, 2005 PLANS lost its seven-year old lawsuit attempting to have public-methods Waldorf Charter schools in two California school districts declared religious schools and shut down for violating the Constitutional separation of Church and State (known as the Establishment Clause, because it reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".)

The reason for the loss? In seven years, PLANS failed to submit sufficient evidence to substantiate the contention that Anthroposophy is a religion. The trial lasted 31 minutes. The judge, the Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr., awarded the case to the school districts under Rule 52(c), meaning that the plaintiff, PLANS, failed to provide enough evidence to prevail. The result is that PLANS lost their lawsuit.

This is the culmination of PLANS' seven year farcical effort to have Anthroposophy declared a religion.

PLANS has blathered a lot of illogical nonsense over the years. The difference here is that in a court case, the rules of evidence are strict and fair. Under these rules, PLANS was completely unable to offer any evidence that Anthroposophy is a religion. Snell and Dugan may one day realize that the US Court system functions differently from the Internet. On the Internet you can make all sorts of wild allegations, and then insist that the people you slander bear the burden of proof in defending themselves. In court, such wild allegations must be substantiated by the person filing the suit, or they lose the case. PLANS lost.

In the final analysis,

Both the court case and the reaction by PLANS are typical. The court case revealed PLANS to be a fanatical, disorganized group with no clear arguments, and the press release following PLANS' stinging defeat showed an organization partially out of touch with reality. In actual fact, Anthroposophy is not a religion, a position that the court agreed with, based on the evidence presented. The individual members of PLANS (all 10 of them) may feel differently, but they had their day in court, and utterly failed to prove otherwise.

The real losers in this case are the children of the State of California. PLANS' baseless seven year crusade has cost taxpayers over $300,000 in legal fees, taking much-needed money away from programs that benefit students.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 66

2005-09-01T19:27:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 22 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

In 1995 there was a scandal in the Netherlands when it became publicly known that Dutch Waldorf schools were teaching "racial ethnography," where children learn that the "black race" has thick lips and a sense of rhythm and that the "yellow race" hides its emotions behind a permanent smile. In 1994 the Steinerite lecturer Rainer Schnurre, at one of his frequent seminars for the anthroposophist adult school in Berlin, gave a talk with the rather baffling title "Overcoming Racism and Nationalism through Rudolf Steiner." Schnurre emphasized the essential differences between races, noted the "infantile" nature of blacks, and alleged that due to immutable racial disparities "no equal and global system can be created for all people on earth" and that "because of the differences between races, sending aid to the developing world is useless." (Footnote: Schnurre quoted in ibid., p. 144)

So here again we have a misleading statement extrapolated from a basic fact. A scandal in the Netherlands broke when it became publicly known that one teacher in one Dutch Waldorf school was teaching "racial ethnography". She was fired. At the time the press attempted to determine whether this was common to all Waldorf schools, but found out that, in fact, it was not. Further, the claims that Dutch Waldorf schools might be propagating racism were promptly investigated in by the State Education Inspection Service of the Netherlands. The results of this investigation were made public on March 28th, 1995:

"The investigation into Steiner Schools in the Netherlands, carried out by the State Education Inspection Service at the request of Deputy Minister Netelenbos, conclusively proved that there is no evidence of racism in the Steiner Schools. In fact much attention is given in the schools to developing an awareness among the students so that racism is actually countered." (Joint press release of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Science, and Cultural Affairs, and the Association of Rudolf Steiner Schools in the Netherlands. Translation Detlef Hardorp )

The commission investigated all 95 Waldorf schools in the Netherlands. While it found no evidence of racism, it did uncover instances of racial stereotyping in seven of the 95 schools. The Association of Rudolf Steiner Schools in the Netherlands instituted new procedures and a curriculum review in order to ensure that racial stereotyping would not reoccur. (For a detailed description see: http://www.waldorfanswers.org/Netherlands.htm).

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 65

2005-08-30T03:59:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 21of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Anthroposophists today often attempt to excuse or explain away such outrageous utterances by contending that Steiner was merely a product of his times. This apologia is utterly unconvincing. First, Steiner claimed for himself an unprecedented degree of spiritual enlightenment which, by his own account, completely transcended his own time and place; he also claimed, and anthroposophists believe that he had, detailed knowledge of the distant future. Second, this argument ignores the many dedicated members of Steiner's generation who actively opposed racism and ethnocentrism. Third, and most telling, anthroposophists continue to repeat Steiner's racist nonsense to this day.

The apologia may not convince Staudenmaier, it is also virtually non-existant, and unnecessary; Steiner did not hold any view remotely resembling the ones here attributed to him. We can only wonder what counterargument to his blatant misrepresentations Peter Staudenmaier would be willing to entertain. It is little wonder that anthroposophists are unwilling to stand by and see Steiner's record of struggle for equality being maligned and his work towards racial equality turned into its opposite. It appears Peter Staudenmaier is unwilling to consider even the theoretical possibility that an argument counter to his thesis might have any validity; they are all apologias. Going further into the problems with Peter Staudenmaier's objections, Steiner was generally quite modest about his spiritual enlightenment. When he spoke about his abilities, it was usually in the third person, as in “when the initiate has reached the fourth stage of enlightenment, he is able to see...” and did not specify which stage he felt he had reached. Nor did he claim that his knowledge transcended time and space. And Steiner's indications about the future were in the most general terms, and are not detailed at all. The mere fact that Steiner spoke of events the he felt likely to happen in the future seems to bother Peter Staudenmaier. Steiner's statements are for the most part the equivalent of saying today that bioengineering will play a role in the future.

Finally, Peter Staudenmaier will try to build an entire case for the racism of present-day anthroposophists on a few examples below, attempting to characterize a movement of some half a million people by the actions of at most a few dozen black sheep. Yet even here it is necessary for him to mischaracterize events and misrepresent the actual facts.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 64

2005-08-28T12:17:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 20 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:
But the worst insult, from an anthroposophical point of view, is Steiner's dictum that people of color can't develop spiritually on their own; they must either be "educated" by whites or reincarnated in white skin. Europeans, in contrast, are the most highly developed humans. Indeed " Europe has always been the origin of all human development." For Steiner and for Anthroposophy, there is no doubt that "whites are the ones who develop humanity in themselves. [ . . . ] The white race is the race of the future, the spiritually creative race." (Footnote: Steiner quoted in ibid., p. 128.)

Once again we have a collection of short quotes strung together for effect, without any sort of context. Peter Staudenmaier writes confidently of the conclusions that we should draw from his arrangement. While doubtless effective polemic, this is not scholarship by any stretch of the imagination, nor does it in anyway resemble Rudolf Steiner's actual thought. And again, Peter Staudenmaier is doubtless faithful to Geden’s presentation. What he has not done is any critical examination of whether Geden accurately represents Rudolf Steiner.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 62

2005-08-27T11:30:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 19 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Steiner propagated a host of racist myths about "negroes." He taught that black people are sensual, instinct-driven, primitive creatures, ruled by their brainstem. He denounced the immigration of blacks to Europe as "terrible," "brutal," "dreadful," and decried its effects on "blood and race." He warned that white women shouldn't read "negro novels" during pregnancy, otherwise they'd have "mulatto children." In 1922 he declared, "The negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course nothing but a disgrace that this race is now playing such a large role in Europe." (Footnote: All quotes from Steiner as cited in Oliver Geden, Rechte ökologie, Berlin 1996, p. 127, 130, and 132. Steiner's typical remarks on Asian stupidity, French decadence, and Slavic primitiveness are of similar caliber.)

First to the footnote: The statement that blacks do not belong in Europe also has a specific context. It was made in at least two places in the complete works, and always referred to the French colonial troops, conscripted in the French colonies and made to fight on the French side of the First World War. These troops were then used in the occupation of the Ruhr around the time that Steiner made these statements. The German public at large was up in arms about the issue. What Steiner clearly meant was that it was not proper for Africans to be impressed into service in foreign European wars. Steiner did not imply that a black person who that wanted to come to Europe of his or her own free will ought not to.

These single-word quotes that Peter Staudenmaier found in Geden attributed to Steiner are doubtless accurate in the narrowest technical sense. That is, the word doubtless occurs in the place stated. Lost is any meaningful context. Peter Staudenmaier appears confident that he, following Geden, is fair and accurate. I submit that an analysis of Steiner’s original statements does not bear this out. The problems are deeper than the mere fact that Peter Staudenmaier has translated Steiner’s reference to black people as “Negroes” using a deliberately archaic formulation that does not reflect the fact that Steiner was simply using the universally accepted terms of his day.

And Peter Staudenmaier has again cited a secondary source. We have a bunch of disturbing single-word “quotes” - direct quotes attributed to Rudolf Steiner himself. Beyond the problem that Steiner did not speak of “Negroes” (for the simple reason that Steiner spoke German and not English) an objective reader wanting to examine the context is prevented by the fact that they are extracted from a secondary source with no reference to the original sources. Further, there is no indication that Peter Staudenmaier has investigated the context himself. Instead he presents single words plucked almost at random and arranged to suit his thesis. This is simple character assassination, not scholarship.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 61

2005-08-26T08:12:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 18 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

The fourth root race which emerged between the Lemurians and the Aryans were the inhabitants of the lost continent of Atlantis, the existence of which anthroposophists take as literal fact. Direct descendants of the Atlanteans include the Japanese, Mongolians, and Eskimos. Steiner also believed that each people or Volk has its own "ethereal aura" which corresponds to its geographic homeland, as well as its own "Volksgeist" or national spirit, an archangel that provides spiritual leadership to its respective people.

In anthroposophical literature “Atlantis” is the period of time in human development that ended with the end of last great Ice Age about 10000 years ago. Yes, “Atlantis” is primarily a period of time, like “the Romans”. It is also a location. As to descendants, everyone alive today is a descendant of both the Lemurians and the Atlanteans: the Europeans no less than the Japanese, Mongolians and Eskimos.

Steiner did not tie racial characteristics to geographic “homelands”, nor has Mr. Peter Staudenmaier offered any citation as to where he thinks Steiner might have done so. Bold assertions appear sufficient for his purposes.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 60

2005-08-25T16:10:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 17th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Rudolf Steiner's use of the word "Aryan" is amazingly broad, as it includes all who "comprise present-day civilized humanity" a definition that includes at the very least the Chinese, Burmese, Arab, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Indian and Tibetan civilizations. Perhaps that is why Steiner referred to them as "the so-called Aryans." The terms "Aryan" and "root races" Steiner inherited from Blavatsky, but he was well aware that he was using the term very differently than most others of the time. Shortly thereafter he replaced the words for the time periods, referring to root races as Epochs and the Epoch after Atlantis the Post-Atlantean Epoch. Steiner never revised these early articles after their publication. Had he done so, it would have been specifically to change this phrasing, as he had done with other of his early works. They were only published in book form 10 years after his death.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 59

2005-08-24T06:08:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 17th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In his footnote, Peter Staudenmaier cites Rudolf Steiner's writing to support his contention. Here's what Steiner says on page 32 of Aus der Akasha-Chronik. This English translation taken from the online Rudolf Steiner eLib and Archive where the reader can find the whole book.

"The ancestors of the Atlanteans lived in a region which has disappeared, the main part of which lay south of contemporary Asia. In theosophical writings they are called the Lemurians. After they had passed through various stages of development the greatest part of them declined. These became stunted men, whose descendants still inhabit certain parts of the earth today as so-called savage tribes. Only a small part of Lemurian humanity was capable of further development. From this part the Atlanteans were formed.

Later, something similar again took place. The greatest part of the Atlantean population declined, and from a small portion are descended the so-called Aryans who comprise present-day civilized humanity. According to the nomenclature of the science of the spirit, the Lemurians, Atlanteans and Aryans are root races of mankind. If one imagines that two such root races preceded the Lemurians and that two will succeed the Aryans in the future, one obtains a total of seven. One always arises from another in the manner just indicated with respect to the Lemurians, Atlanteans, and Aryans. Each root race has physical and mental characteristics which are quite different from those of the preceding one. While, for example, the Atlanteans especially developed memory and everything connected with it, at the present time it is the task of the Aryans to develop the faculty of thought and all that belongs to it."

The key phrase in German is:

"Er wurde zu verkümmerten Menschen, deren Nachkommen heute noch als sogenannte wilde Völker gewisse Teile der Erde bewohnen."

I would translate this as:

"These languished, and their descendants inhabit certain parts of the earth as the so-called wild peoples to this day."

The word "verkümmerten" is the adjectival form of the intransitive verb "verkümmern." In the dictionary it is defined as: of growth: to become stunted; of muscles: to atrophy; of plants or talents: to wither, wilt; of people: to languish (Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch, Berlin 1996, p. 1396). I feel that the adjective "languish" best fits the meaning of the original, though it is difficult to work into the flow of an the English. In German you can "become languish people" but in English it doesn't work. So as a translator, you either have to drop the "become" ("wurde zu") because it is implicit in the activity of languishing, or you keep the word "become" and go for a more active adjective. The translator, one Karl E. Zimmer, opted for the phrasing "became stunted men," which I disagree with.

Rudolf Steiner and the Great War

2005-08-23T15:50:00.000-07:00

Journalist Robert Fisk was interviewed in The Progressive recently (June 2005) about Iraq . One paragraph in particular caught my attention.

"My father was a soldier in the First World War. When he died at the age of 93 in 1992, I inherited his campaign medal, on the back of which was written "The great war for civilization." In the 17 months that followed the Great War, the victorious powers created the borders of Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, and most of the Middle East. I've spent my professional career watching the people on these borders burn – in Belfast, in Sarajevo, Baghdad, Beirut, across the Middle East."

It is claimed by opponents that Rudolf Steiner objected to the course and outcome of the First World War for petty Geman nationalistic reasons. This is completely mistaken. Steiner did have objections, but he was not German (he was Austrian, and later a naturalized Swiss citizen) and was not a nationalist. Rather, he was extremely far-sighted about the probable long-term results of the peace, and did everything he could to prevent the disaster. In the end he accomplished little in this area, but the motive for his efforts has been egregiously misrepresented. He did not want short-term benefits for Germany. He was, as usual, concerned with the long-term well-being of all humanity. Reading Rudolf Steiner's statements from this period makes this very clear. It is only those who are not familiar with Steiner's own work who could be fooled into thinking that Steiner was a German nationalist.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 58

2005-08-22T05:50:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 17th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

The statement that aboriginal peoples are devolving into apes I find nowhere in Peter Staudenmaier's cited source (which I have printed in its entirety below in my comments on Peter Staudenmaier's footnote 8) and is completely foreign to Steiner's Anthroposophy. Steiner's actual statement is: "These [the declining remnants of the Lemurian civilization] languished, and their descendants inhabit certain parts of the earth as the so-called wild peoples to this day." There is nothing about apes. Even Peter Staudenmaier's use of the word "degenerate" is a mistranslation, as we have seen. "Verfall" means "degeneration" only in biological contexts. When speaking of cultures or civilizations, it means "decline." Steiner did not say that they physically degenerated; he said that their culture declined.

In this paragraph we have here another fabrication and a mistranslation. Of course this is really the only way to make Steiner into a racist, but it is sad to see it being done so deliberately here.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 57

2005-08-21T05:58:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 17th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Steiner, a cosmopolitan humanist renowned for his calls for a universal brotherhood of man and the overcoming of racial and ethnic prejudice, is here depicted on the flimsiest pretenses as a heartless spiritualistic racist. Steiner deplored the treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans, yet a comment he made explaining their genetic susceptibility to diseases – a point today well established – is here offered as evidence of his callous disregard for their suffering and even overt racism. The quote offered here is greatly helped by some context. Steiner wrote:

"The Native American population did not die out because this pleased the Europeans, but because the Native American population had to acquire such forces as lead to their dying out."*

This sentence does not make a lot of sense on its own. It is part of a larger thought that Steiner expressed over several pages on how the geography of the earth influenced the formation of racial characteristics in past epochs. (In the present time, indeed for the last 10,000 years, the task of humanity has been to overcome racial divisions, according to Rudolf Steiner. ) In the west, said Steiner, the forces that lead to the overcoming of the influence of racial characteristics are strongest, and this he tied to the physical weakness behind the death of so many Native Americans. Though not explicitly mentioned in this context, this weakness was immunological, as research from the last 40 years has indicated. Steiner strongly deplored the behavior of the Europeans towards the Native Americans, but the simple fact remains that most of the inhabitants of the Americas in 1491 would not have survived the contact with Europe even if not a single one as murdered directly at the hands of a white man. Steiner intuited this even though the science of his day had no concepts to express why.

* Translation by the author. In the original:

"Nicht etwa deshalb, weil es den Europäern gefallen hat, ist die indianische Bevölkerung ausgestorben, sondern weil die indianische Bevölkerung die Kräfte erwerben mußte, die sie zum aussterben führten."

Steiner, Rudolf. Die Mission Einzelner Volksseelen. Dornach: Verlag der Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, 1962. (GA 121, page 75).

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 56

2005-08-20T07:02:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 17of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Steiner didn't shy away from describing the fate of those left behind by the forward march of racial and spiritual progress. He taught that these unfortunates would "degenerate" and eventually die out. Like his teacher Madame Blavatsky, Steiner rejected the notion that Native Americans, for example, were nearly exterminated by the actions of European settlers. Instead he held that Indians are "dying out of their own nature." Steiner also taught that "lower races" of humans are closer to animals than to "higher races" of humans. Aboriginal peoples, according to Anthroposophy, are descended from the already "degenerate" remnants of the third root race, the Lemurians, and are devolving into apes. Steiner referred to them as "stunted humans whose progeny, the so-called wild peoples, inhabit certain parts of the earth today." (Footnote: Rudolf Steiner, Aus der Akasha-Chronik, Basel 1955, p. 32.)

This straw man, an unrecognizable Steiner, is further abused here, relegated to a pupil of Blavatsky who allegedly promulgated every nasty thing she ever wrote. Steiner's relationship to Blavatsky is a complex subject, but while many notice at a superficial glance that there are indeed similarities, a simple teacher-pupil relationship posited from their chronological succession does not find support in any in-depth investigation.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 55

2005-08-19T07:24:00.000-07:00

Having set up the claim with a number of misrepresentations and some fabricated source material, Peter Staudenmaier then concludes: "The affinities with Nazi discourse are unmistakable." This is hardly surprising, and simply a sad indication of the level of Peter Staudenmaier's scholarship.

It is not in the least surprising that Peter Staudenmaier would rely on Treher as a source. Treher's self-published attempt at retroactively psychologizing both Hitler and Steiner in one volume was not taken seriously in 1966 (hence its failure to find a publisher) and is no more convincing today. The supposition that concentration camps are the logical culmination of Rudolf Steiner's life work is one of the vilest perversions of everything that Steiner stood for that I have yet encountered.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 54

2005-08-18T07:40:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 16 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:
The affinities with Nazi discourse are unmistakable. Wolfgang Treher makes a convincing case that Steiner's racial theories, especially the repeated scheme of a small minority evolving further while a large mass declines, bear striking similarities even in detail to Hitler's own theories. He concludes: "Concentration camps, slave labor and the murder of Jews constitute a praxis whose key is perhaps to be found in the 'theories' of Rudolf Steiner." (Wolfgang Treher, Hitler Steiner Schreber, Emmingden 1966, p. 70)

Wolfgang Treher's “important” work was considered so scholarly that it was unable to find a publisher, so it was self-published by the author. That Peter Staudenmaier finds it so compelling is an indication of the degree of critical thinking he brings to his investigation. Treher's thesis is that both Steiner and Hitler suffered from schizophrenia, that a mania, a physiological disturbance was at the root of both of their worldviews. Like Peter Staudenmaier, Treher admits he is uninterested in understanding Steiner's views; they are sufficiently odd to him to automatically indicate mental illness. According to Treher, the onset of Steiner's psychosis started already when Steiner wrote his Ph.D. thesis in philosophy. Steiner tackled one of the oldest problems in philosophy: epistemology, or how the thinking mind comes to terms with outer reality. Treher takes this as evidence of schizophrenia – a split in Steiner's mind between reality and delusion. This conclusion, by someone who admittedly never read the work in question, is mind-bogglingly moronic. Perhaps this is the reason why no publisher would touch it. Further "evidence" is demonstrated by a statement by a friend of Steiner's that once Steiner started lecturing on Theosophy, he was "changed" and no longer had time for old friends. This supposedly proves that Steiner was a full-blown schizophrenic the moment he started lecturing on esoteric subjects. If Peter Staudenmaier can find Treher "incisive" this can only be because he is either so predisposed to believing anything negative that he finds about Steiner as to completely overlook Treher's considerable problems, or he knows of this book only by reputation among anti-anthroposophist writers, and has not actually read it himself. I suspect the latter, since none of Treher's points are mentioned in the biographical overview of Steiner offered by Peter Staudenmaier.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 53

2005-08-17T06:41:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 15 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism: :

Anthroposophy's promotion of this ridiculous doctrine is disturbing enough. But it is compounded by Steiner's further claim that—in yet another remarkable coincidence—the most advanced group within the Aryan root race is currently the nordic-germanic sub-race. Above all, Anthroposophy's conception of spiritual development is inextricable from its evolutionary narrative of racial decline and racial advance: a select few enlightened members evolve into a new "race" while their spiritually inferior neighbors degenerate. Anthroposophy is structured around a hierarchy of biological and psychological as well as "spiritual" capacities and characteristics, all of them correlated to race.

So first it is claimed that Anthroposophy promotes the discredited idea of an Aryan race. This turns out to be untrue – based on a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the source material combined with a willful ignorance of the historical context. Now it is claimed anthroposophists believe the nordic-germanic sub-race to be the most advanced within the Aryan root race. This cannot even be called a misunderstanding; Steiner has not combined the words “nordic” or “germanic” with “sub-race” anywhere. I repeat, there is no such phrase in as the “nordic-germanic sub-race“ anywhere in Steiner's complete works. There are a few references to nordic-germanic mythology, and a few to nordic-germanic peoples, but nowhere is there such a sub-race.(Steiner had long since discarded the use of the term 'sub-race'; it is nowhere in the book Peter Staudenmaier cites.) Nor does such a sub-race exist anywhere in Blavatsky's work. This then culminates in Peter Staudenmaier's claim that anthroposophists believe in some sort of nordic-germanic superiority. Given that the nordic-germanic sub-race doesn't exist, it is not surprising that this, too, is nowhere present in any of Steiner’s work. And it certainly is not in Steiner's book The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls, where we hear him praise the importance of all races in human development and tell his listeners that they will reincarnate in every race. The description in the above paragraph can only be characterized as a complete fabrication. And this is the only way to make a racist out of Steiner: to fabricate quotes.

Thus the "narrative" of racial decline and advance is actually a description of cultural progression. Mr. Peter Staudenmaier has completely misunderstood his source material, or more likely limited himself to a very narrow range of secondary material that misrepresents the source material, and this, combined with a bit of imagination and a determination to prove his polemical point at all costs has resulted in this unrecognizable presentation of Steiner and Anthroposophy. The claim that all Anthroposophy is structured around a biological hierarchy correlated to so-called spiritual capacities and characteristics, and that this is correlated to race, is simply indefensible. Indeed, it can only be made by making up racist beliefs, beliefs nowhere evident in any of Steiner's work. And of course Peter Staudenmaier makes the claim without any sort of support in the form of citations from primary source material.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 52

2005-08-16T06:17:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 14th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Stating that anthroposophists use the term “Aryan race” to this day is mistaken, and reveals an utter ignorance of all subsequent anthroposophical literature and a complete lack of familiarity with current anthroposophical discourse. Anthroposophy was barely three years old when Steiner dropped the use of the term "Aryan" as misleading, and the number of anthroposophists at that point was small. Since that time it has been universally referred to as the Post-Atlantean Epoch. The smaller epochs are named after the culture (culture, not race) that is considered most prominent during that era. However, it is explicitly clear that these are not the only cultures of importance during that era. As Steiner was quoted as saying above, every culture is an important part of the whole, just as every individual is an important part of the whole of humanity. The present 5 th Post-Atlantean Cultural Epoch is most frequently referred to only as “the 5 th Post-Atlantean Cultural Epoch.”* It has also been called, in numerous places, the Anglo-Germanic, after the dominant cultural trends of our time. I have not found a single reference to it being called the “nordic-germanic sub-race” in Steiner's works or in subsequent literature. In fact Peter Staudenmaier has not listed any reference for this alleged fact; it is stands as a fabrication. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is necessary to fabricate source material to make a case against Anthroposophy, a thoroughly cosmopolitan and progressively humanistic philosophy.

Peter Staudenmaier is clearly well versed in the literature of race and European racism. His explanation of race as a social construct is commonly accepted, and whether race has any scientific meaning has also been debated at quite some length, and the debate itself summarized numerous times. The history of "the Aryan Race" as an idea has been researched quite thoroughly (See among others Mosse, George. Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism. New York: Howard Fertig, 1978, especially pages 39-45.)and Peter Staudenmaier has cited several excellent books on the subject. What he has failed to do is properly understand Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy before painting them racist with broad strokes.

* Among literally thousands of examples:

"We know that since the great Atlantean catastrophe… there have been five great epochs of civilization. We designate these as the ancient Indian, the ancient Persian, the Egypto-Chaldean, the Greco-Latin, and the epoch we presently live in."

Steiner, Rudolf. The Universal Human: The Evolution of Individuality. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1990. Page 7.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 51

2005-08-15T04:42:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 14th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

So although Rudolf Steiner did employ the term 'Root Race' as a technical designation for periods of time well know to Theosophical audiences in a few of his earlier works, Steiner did not share the Theosophical understanding of the meaning of the term, and specifically rejected it in favor of a more appropriate term.

Why did Blavatsky name the current Root Race “Aryan”? The word "Aryan" was originally a linguistic term for all languages in the Indo-European family. (For a concise overview, see: Mosse, George. Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism. New York: Howard Fertig, 1978, especially pages 39-40.) It has nothing to do with racial characteristics. The term was borrowed by racists in the 19th Century, and by the end of the Nazi era had completely lost its original linguistic meaning, such that even linguists no longer use it. By 1906 Steiner had renamed the Theosophical "Aryan" epoch (which is described as lasting 15,120 years and starting about 10,000 years ago) the "Post-Atlantean," as he noticed that the word "Aryan" bore less and less its original meaning. Only in older documents (such as Cosmic Memory, from 1904) will you find that term “Aryan” used, and it is good to keep the historical context and the changing meaning of linguistic terms in mind. I think it is historically ignorant to call all 19th Century linguists who used the term racist; and likewise its use in most early Theosophical literature was not intended racially.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 50

2005-08-14T16:52:00.001-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 14th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Already as early as 1906, just four years after starting his work as an independent teacher in the context of the Theosophical Society, Rudolf Steiner stated publicly the term 'Root Race' was a misnomer.* By the time he had come to this conclusion, Steiner had already written a number of articles and given numerous lectures employing the term, and to this day they are republished with the term 'Root Race' unaltered. Most editions have an introductory note about the possibly confusing issue of inconsistent terminology. Steiner did rework some of his earlier texts and changed the terms, but he did not update all his writing this way. (One prominent example is the book Cosmic Memory, which is a collection of Rudolf Steiner's early writings on Atlantis and Lemuria, initially published in serial form in the periodical "Lucifer". Theosophical terminology, including the term 'Root Race' is present throughout, and Steiner never revised the volume during his lifetime, and it wasn't published as a book until 10 years after his death.) Most scholars of Steiner consider his thought and the development of his concepts to be consistent even as the terminology changed. In fact Steiner deliberately and continually employed varying terms in order to force his listeners to focus on his concepts rather than his terminology.

* Explaining the issue at length in 1909, when he was still the General Secretary of the German section of the Theosophical Society in Germany, Steiner said:

”If we go back beyond the Atlantean catastrophe, we see how human races were prepared. In the ancient Atlantean age, human beings were grouped according to external bodily characteristics even more so than in our time. The races we distinguish today are merely vestiges of these significant differences between human beings in ancient Atlantis. The concept of races is only fully applicable to Atlantis. Because we are dealing with the real evolution of humanity, we [theosophists] have therefore never used this concept of race in its original meaning. Thus, we do not speak of an Indian race, a Persian race, and so on, because it is no longer true or proper to do so. Instead, we speak of an Indian, a Persian, and other periods of civilization. And it would make no sense at all to say that in our time a sixth "race" is being prepared. Though remnants of ancient Atlantean differences, of ancient Atlantean group-soulness, still exist and the division into races is still in effect, what is being prepared for the sixth epoch is precisely the stripping away of race. That is essentially what is happening.

Therefore, in its fundamental nature, the anthroposophical movement, which is to prepare the sixth period, must cast aside the division into races. It must seek to unite people of all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions and differences between various groups of people. The old point of view of race has physical character, but what will prevail in the future will have a more spiritual character.

That is why it is absolutely essential to understand that our anthroposophical movement is a spiritual one. It looks to the spirit and overcomes the effects of physical differences through the force of being a spiritual movement. Of course, any movement has its childhood illnesses, so to speak. Consequently, in the beginning of the theosophical movement the earth was divided into seven periods of time, one for each of the seven root races, and each of these root races was divided into seven sub-races. These seven periods were said to repeat in a cycle so that one could always speak of seven races and seven sub-races. However, we must get beyond the illness of childhood and clearly understand that the concept of race has ceased to have any meaning in our time."

Rudolf Steiner. The Universal Human: The Evolution of Individuality. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1990. Pages 12-13. Lecture of December 4 th, 1909.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 49

2005-08-14T16:52:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 14th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

In addition, Rudolf Steiner's conception of “Root Races” differed in a number of important ways, particularly concerning of the nature of the time period that comprises the present 'Root Race' and its constituent 'Sub-Races'. Whereas Blavatsky really did consider the racial aspects of the time-division to be of importance, Steiner saw the defining characteristics of these time periods of time to be the cultural phenomenon that occurred and the cultural achievements of the people's living in them. Thus to Steiner, calling the time periods and their cultural achievements 'Root Races' and 'Sub-Races' appeared to be mistaken. Steiner said :

“For this reason we speak of ages of culture in contra-distinction to races. All that is connected with the idea of race is still a relic of the epoch preceding our own, namely the Atlantean. We are now living in the period of cultural ages ... Today the idea of culture has superseded the idea of race. Hence we speak of the ancient Indian culture, of which the culture announced to us in the Vedas is only an echo. The ancient and sacred Indian culture was the first dawn of post-Atlantean civilization; it followed immediately upon the Atlantean epoch.”

Steiner, Rudolf. The Apocalypse of St John (GA 104), London 1977, lecture of 20 June 1908.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 48

2005-08-14T16:51:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 14th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

The words “Root Races” (Würzelrassen) in Steiner's very early theosophical work aren't actually about race in the racial sense at all. When Rudolf Steiner was searching for an audience around turn of the century the only group he found that was in anyway interested in hearing in depth about the spirit and about spiritual matters were members of the Theosophical Society.* As a consequence, when speaking to these Theosophists Rudolf Steiner would employ terms familiar to them in order to convey the results of his own spiritual research.** Rudolf Steiner, who was an eminent scholar and thoroughly familiar with many areas of inquiry, had also read Blavatsky and was quite familiar with her work. His was not an uncritical take, and he once wrote privately that Blavatsky's work contained the highest spiritual truths mixed with the greatest nonsense***. Steiner of course admired certain aspects of Blavatsky's character and some of the things she was able to accomplish****, but his was not an uncritical admiration nor was he in complete agreement with all of her thoughts and views. But Steiner did use the terminology that Blavatsky had established in his early esoteric works. As his own work matured Rudolf Steiner moved away from more and more of Blavatsky's terminology, preferring to coin his own terms in German. The very first term that Steiner decided was inappropriate was the term 'Root Race'.*****

* "If I may once again introduce a personal note. I had to find a suitable opportunity on which to build. One could not simply crash in on our civilization with the spiritual world." Rudolf Steiner. The Anthroposophic Movement. Bristol, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1993. Page 22.

" There was now no longer any reason why I should not bring forward this spiritual knowledge in my own way before the theosophical public, which was at first the only audience that entered without restriction into a knowledge of the spirit."

Steiner, Rudolf. The Course of My Life. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1951. Pages 297-298.

** “My first work of lecturing within the circles which grew out of the Theosophical Movement had to he planned according to the temper of mind of the groups. Theosophical literature had been read there, and people were used to certain forms of expression. I had to retain these if I wished to be understood. But with the lapse of time and the progress of the work I was able gradually to pursue my own course, even in the forms of expression used.” Rudolf Steiner. The Story of My Life. London: Anthroposophical Publishing Co., 1928. Page 313.

*** Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner. Correspondence and Documents: 1901-1925 . New York: Rudolf Steiner Press 1988. Pages 17-18. He repeated this characterization publicly 20 years later in a lecture on June 10 th, 1923:

"In short, Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine is a peculiar book: great truths side by side with terrible rubbish." Rudolf Steiner. The Anthroposophic Movement. Bristol, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1993. Page 23.

**** For an example of the high regard that Steiner nonetheless had for Blavatsky, see pages 61 to 63 of Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner. Correspondence and Documents: 1901-1925. New York: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1988.

***** In 1908 Steiner said:

“When people speak of races today they do so in a way that is no longer quite correct; in theosophical literature, too, great mistakes are made on this subject ... Even in regard to present humanity, for example, it no longer makes sense to speak simply of the development of races. In the true sense of the word this development of the races applies only to the Atlantean epoch ... thus everything that exists today in connection with the [different] races are relics of the differentiation that took place in Atlantean times. We can still speak of races, but only in the sense that the real concept of race is losing its validity."

Steiner, Rudolf. Universe, Earth and Man (GA 105), London 1987, lecture of 16 August 1908.

Anthroposophy & Ecofascism 47

2005-08-14T16:49:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 14 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Steiner asserted that root races follow one another in chronological succession over epochs lasting hundreds of thousands of years, and each root race is further divided into sub-races which are also arranged hierarchically. By chance, as it were, the root race which happened to be paramount at the time Steiner made these momentous discoveries was the Aryan race, a term which anthroposophists use to this day. All racial categories are purely social constructs lacking any scientific meaning, but the notion of an Aryan race is an especially preposterous invention. A favorite of reactionaries in the early years of the twentieth century, the Aryan concept was based on a conflation of linguistic and biological terminology backed up by spurious "research." In other words, it was a complete fabrication which served only to provide a pseudo-scholarly veneer to racist fantasies.

Aside from the fact that in the anthroposophical world-conception the periods of time described by the term "root races" are tens of thousands of years, and not hundreds of thousands of years, and that time is linear and not, as Peter Staudenmaier conceives, hierarchical, there are several further and more significant errors in his presentation. There is simply no talk of any Aryan race among anthroposophists today or during Steiner's time, and Steiner did not talk of an Aryan race either. Peter Staudenmaier's derision for the very notion of an Aryan race is clearly evident, but his indignation towards anthroposophists is simply misplaced. It is rather sad to see the vehemence with which he denounces so-called Aryan superiority directed against a philosophy that inherently opposes it.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 46

2005-08-09T11:05:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 13th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

We have already heard Steiner's comments on how little he “built” on any of Theosophy's “postulates.” (“No one was left in uncertainty of the fact that I would bring forward in the Theosophical Society only the results of my own research through perception.” (Rudolf Steiner, The Course of My Life, New York 1951, page 297 ). The claim that Steiner and his disciples tied racial classifications to spiritual advancement is really a two-part claim. I have not studied the works of every last person who claims Steiner as an inspiration, so I cannot say with certainty that no disciple has ever done this. However, I am familiar with Steiner's work, so I will object to that part.

Steiner's “systematic racial classification” is hardly elaborate. Steiner considers there to be 5 races. Or rather, there were five races. Today racial characteristics are, in Steiner's view, unimportant and gradually disappearing. This he considers a natural development in the course of human evolution. Steiner explained that there can be no talk of racial purity; everyone is mixed to one degree or another, and this is natural. This is contained in the book Peter Staudenmaier has cited in the first paragraph: "The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in relation to Teutonic Mythology" so he ought to be familiar with it. How it came about that there are five races, and what their purpose might have been 20,000 years ago may be elaborate, but to Steiner, racial characteristics in the individual today are unimportant.

Once again we have here a paragraph that is factually inaccurate, partisan and without specific citations. Where, if anywhere, Steiner directly tied spiritual advancement to racial classification cannot be determined from the footnote.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 45

2005-08-08T10:42:00.000-07:00

Paragraph 13 of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Anthroposophy's Racialist Ideology

Building on Theosophy's postulate of root races, Steiner and his anthroposophist disciples elaborated a systematic racial classification system for human beings and tied it directly to their paradigm of spiritual advancement. The particulars of this racial theory are so bizarre that it is difficult for non-anthroposophists to take it seriously, but it is important to understand the pernicious and lasting effects the doctrine has had on anthroposophists and those they've influenced. [Steiner's racial teachings, a crucial element of the anthroposophic worldview, are spread throughout his work. The most concentrated and most chilling presentation is to be found in volume 349 of his collected works, published by the International Anthroposophic Society in Dornach, Switzerland. For a concise overview in English see Janet Biehl's section on Steiner in Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier, Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience, San Francisco 1995, pp. 42-43.]

A minor point is that Peter Staudenmaier cites the wrong publisher (which is actually the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung in Dornach) and misnames the General Anthroposophical Society, also located in Dornach (accuracy in details, I find, is the mark of serious scholarship).

This paragraph better describes Alfred Rosenberg than Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy. Here and in the paragraph following Peter Staudenmaier fails to cite any sources. His footnote actually cites Steiner's collected works of 349 volumes (actually, the numbering goes to 354 volumes) of some 90,000 pages. Is this to indicate that Peter Staudenmaier has read all of them? I suspect not, as he has cited the wrong publisher. The International Anthroposophical Society in Dornach does not publish Steiner's complete works; the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassvervaltung is the publisher. Steiner set up a separate foundation to hold his copyrights after his death, and this foundation is a separate legal entity from the General Anthroposophical Society. I know that these are really just little nitpicking details, but getting the nitpicking details correct is the mark of serious scholarship. [For an overview of Steiner's complete works, see the Archives (online at RudolfSteiner.com). The volume numbers go from 1 to 354; however there are a number of gaps, as well as a few numbers that cover multiple volumes (for example volume 300 is actually 3 books: 300a, 300b and 300c). New volumes come out occasionally, so the total number of books is not yet fixed.]

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 44

2005-08-07T08:07:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 12th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Steiner's description of the Akasha Chronicle from the last post was also to take a position against C.W Leadbeater's (a prominent Theosophist) description of the Akasha in a 1903 book titled “Clairvoyance.”

"When the visitor to [the mental] plane is not thinking specifically of them in any way, the records simply form a background to whatever is going on, just as the reflections in a pier-glass at the end of the room might form a background the life of the people in it. It must always be born in mind that under these conditions they are really merely reflections from the ceaseless activity of a great Consciousness upon a far higher plane, and have very much the appearance of an endless succession of cinematographs, or living photographs. They do not a melt into one another like dissolving views, nor do a series of ordinary pictures follow one other; but the action of the reflected figures constantly goes on as though one were watching the actors on a distance stage. But if the trained investigator turns his attention special especially to any one scene, or wishes to call it up before him, an extraordinary change at once takes place, for this is the plane of thought, and to think of anything is to bring it instantly before you. For example, if a man wills to see the record of that event to which we before referred – the landing of Julius Caesar – he finds himself in the moment not looking at any picture, but standing on the shore among the legionnaires, with the whole scene being enacted around him, precisely in every aspect as he would have seen it if he had stood there in the flash on that autumn morning in the year 55 B.C. Since what he sees is but a reflection, the actors are of course entirely unconscious of them, nor can any effort of his change the course of their action in the smallest degree, except only that he can control the rate at which the drama shall pass before him – can have the event of the whole year rehearsed before his eyes in a single hour, or can at any moment stop the movement altogether and hold the particular scene in view as a picture as long as he chooses."

C.W. Leadbeater. "Clairvoyance." Adyar, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1903. 13 th Reprinting, 1978. Pages 141-142.

Neither classical Theosophy nor Steiner's Anthroposophy consider the Akasha Chronicle to be a written record. While throwing around words like "scripture" and "tenets of belief" is a clever way to impute religious character to Steiner's work (and blind faith on the part of his followers), it remains clear that Peter Staudenmaier has no actual understanding of that which he condescendingly denigrates.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 43

2005-08-06T09:14:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 12th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

As to the Akasha Chronicle, Peter Staudenmaier has failed to explain it properly in either the terms of Blavatsky's Theosophy or Steiner's Anthroposophy. Regardless of whether you believe in its existence or whether Steiner could access it, it is not at all that difficult to describe the anthroposophical understanding of its nature. Just read a few primary sources, for example Cosmic Memory (cited several times in this article). The original German title is, after all, Aus der Akasha-Chronik (translated: From the Akasha Record).

I can understand how, from the name alone, a Chronicle could be taken to designate a text, and referring to it as a scripture is quite an ingenious turn of phrase. However, the clever word-smithing here only reveals an utter failure to examine the actual subject matter. Rather than a scripture (scriptures are by definition text based), it is considered by Steiner to be a record, an impression, of the feelings, thoughts and will-impules of everyone who ever lived. As such, it is not a text to be interpreted, it is a residue of things to be experienced, and these experiences can then be described.

“What is the Akasha Chronicle? We can form the truest conception of it by realizing that what comes to pass on our earth makes a lasting impression upon certain delicate essences, an impression which can be discovered by a seer who has attained Initiation. It is not an ordinary but a living Chronicle. Suppose a human being lived in the first century after Christ; what he thought, felt and willed in those days, what passed into deeds — this is not obliterated but preserved in this delicate essence. The seer can behold it-not as if it were recorded in a history book, but as it actually happened. How a man moved, what he did, a journey he took-it can all be seen in these spiritual pictures; the impulses of will, the feelings, the thoughts, can also be seen. But we must not imagine that these pictures are images of the physical personalities. That is not the case. To take a simple example. — When a man moves his hand, his will pervades the moving hand and it is this force of will that can be seen in the Akasha Chronicle. What is spiritually active in us and has flowed into the Physical, is there seen in the Spiritual. Suppose, for example, we look for Caesar. We can follow all his undertakings, but let us be quite clear that it is rather his thoughts that we see in the Akasha Chronicle; when he set out to do something we see the whole sequence of decisions of the will to the point where the deed was actually performed. To observe a specific event in the Akasha Chronicle is not easy. We must help ourselves by linking on to external knowledge. If the seer is trying to observe some action of Caesar and takes an historical date as a point of focus, the result will come more easily. Historical dates are, it is true, often unreliable, but they are sometimes of assistance. When the seer directs his gaze to Caesar, he actually sees the person of Caesar in action, phantom-like, as though he were standing before him, speaking with him. But when a man is looking into the past, various things may happen to him if, in spite of possessing some degree of seership, he has not entirely found his bearings in the higher worlds.“ Rudolf Steiner, Theosophy of the Rosicrucian, London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1981, Page 40, also online.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 42

2005-08-05T03:54:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 12th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Three more quotes show that Steiner did actually call Anthroposophy a science, and was at pains to claim that it could be "verified by reason, logic, and scientific inquiry.

From the Preface to the 16 th to 20 th editions of “An Outline of Occult Science”:

“The fact that I have entitled this book Occult Science has immediately called forth misunderstandings. From many sides was heard, 'What claims to be science must not be secret, occult.' How little thought was exercised in making such an objection! As though someone who reveals a subject matter would want to be secretive about it. The entire book shows that it was not the intention to designate anything 'occult' but to bring everything into a form that renders it as understandable as any science.”

Rudolf Steiner, An Outline of Occult Science, Hudson 1972, p. xiii

From the Preface to the 1 st edition of “An Outline of Occult Science”:

“Although the book deals with the results of research that lie beyond the power of the intellect bound to the sense world, yet nothing is offered that cannot be comprehended by anyone possessing an unprejudiced reason, a healthy sense of truth, and the wish to employ these human faculties. The author says without hesitation that he would like, above all, to have readers who are not willing to accept on blind faith what is offered here, but who endeavor to examine what is offered by means of the knowledge of their own soul and through the experience of living their own lives (here is not only meant the spiritual scientific tests by supersensible methods of research, but primarily the test that is possible by healthy, unprejudiced thought and common sense). The author knows his book would have no value, were it dependent only on blind faith; it is only useful to the degree it can be vindicated before unbiased reason. Blind faith can so easily mistake the foolish and the superstitious for true. Many who are gladly satisfied with a mere belief in a 'supersensible world' will perhaps find that this book makes too great a demand on the powers of thought.”

Rudolf Steiner, An Outline of Occult Science, Hudson 1972.

The fact that Steiner actually encouraged his followers to verify his statements independently means Peter Staudenmaier's accusation that "modern Anthroposophy is thus founded on blind faith in Steiner's convictions" is logically untenable. Even if it can be shown that a minority of his so-called followers tends to treat him as a guru against his wishes, it does not follow that everything done in a "far-flung network of public institutions" is "founded on blind faith in Steiner's convictions". Most anthroposophists and others involved in the "far-flung network of public institutions" have an agnostic attitude to Steiner's works. They find his thinking fascinating, and hold his conclusions as working hypotheses while they test his practical indications against reality as they experience it.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 41

2005-08-04T09:21:00.000-07:00

Continuing my commentary on the 12th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

That Steiner did actually call Anthroposophy a science, and was at pains to claim that it could be "verified by reason, logic, and scientific inquiry is evident from the following three quotes.

Rudolf Steiner, from the preface to “How to Know Higher Worlds”:

“Naturally, to research these facts one must possess the faculties necessary to enter supersensible worlds. But once these worlds have been researched, and the findings communicated, even those who have not themselves perceived the facts can form an adequate judgment of them. Much of what spiritual science presents can, in fact, be easily verified by the application of healthy judgment in a completely unbiased way.”

Rudolf Steiner, How to Know Higher Worlds, New York 2002, page 8

Or from the Preface to the English edition of “Theosophy”:

“There may be those who say that this supersensible world can only have significance for such as already have the power to perceive it, but this is not so. There is no need to be a painter in order to feel the beauty of a painting, yet only a painter can paint it. In the same sense it is unnecessary to be a researcher in the supersensible in order to judge the truth of the results of supersensible research.”

Rudolf Steiner, Theosophy, New York 1971, page xv

From the Introduction to “Theosophy”:

“Certain powers are required to discover the things referred to [the contents of the book], but if after having been discovered they are made known, every person can understand them who is willing to bring to them unprejudiced logic and a healthy sense of truth. ... Put yourself for a moment in the position of asking, 'If the things asserted here are true, do they afford a satisfying explanation of life'? You will find that the life of every man supplies a confirmation.”

Rudolf Steiner, Theosophy, New York 1971, pages xx – xxi

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 40

2005-08-03T08:28:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 12of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Anthroposophists maintain that Steiner's familiarity with the "astral plane," with the workings of various "archangels," with daily life on the lost continent of Atlantis (all central tenets of anthroposophic belief) came from his special powers of clairvoyance. Steiner claimed to have access to the "Akasha Chronicle," a supernatural scripture containing knowledge of higher realms of existence as well as of the distant past and future. Steiner "interpreted" much of this chronicle and shared it with his followers. He insisted that such "occult experience," as he called it, could never be judged or verified by reason, logic, or scientific inquiry. Modern Anthroposophy is thus founded on blind faith in Steiner's convictions. Those convictions deserve closer examination.

Here, yet again, Peter Staudenmaier presents statements that are in direct contradiction to the primary sources, and of course without any citations. Steiner did actually call his "occult experience" a science, and was at pains to claim that it could be "verified by reason, logic, and scientific inquiry". Whether one believes him or not is a separate matter, however it is factually incorrect to claim that he stated the opposite.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 39

2005-08-02T13:32:00.000-07:00

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 11 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Steiner's doctrine of reincarnation, embraced by latter-day anthroposophists the world over, holds that individuals choose their parents before birth, and indeed that we plan out our lives before beginning them to insure that we receive the necessary spiritual lessons. If a disembodied soul balks at its own chosen life prospects just before incarnation, it fails to incarnate fully—the source, according to anthroposophists, of prenatal "defects" and congenital disabilities. In addition, "the various parts of our body will be formed with the aid of certain planetary beings as we pass through particular constellations of the zodiac. [Footnote: Stewart Easton, Man and World in the Light of Anthroposophy, New York 1975, p. 164.]"

The above description, it should be pointed out, is based on a secondary source, a summary of Anthroposophy written by Stewart Easton. While I won't go into the individual points, I should point out that Peter Staudenmaier appears not to have actually read the primary sources necessary to formulate such a sweeping overview, relying instead on someone else's efforts. While I have nothing against secondary sources for quickly surveying a field of inquiry, I would suggest that a serious scholar would then go the extra step and actually read the primary sources, citing those to establish a point. Were he to put in the effort, Mr. Peter Staudenmaier would find that the primary sources tend to speak of "should" and "could" and do not bear the dogmatic character that they acquire in his retelling. Doubtless the purpose of writing this three sentence summary is to portray Steiner as silly. While effective, I should point out that such a hack job does not constitute scholarship, and the central accusation of racism has not been established.