Thanks for her your comment. I agree that some critics of Waldorf education imply that there is nothing good about it. I do not share that view. You can read more on what I think about Waldorf in the postscript on Waldorf education I wrote for another article on this site:

http://www.social-ecology.org/2009/01/the-art-of-avoiding-history-2/

Here is what I wrote in the conclusion to that article:

“To readers who are supporters of Waldorf, or involved in Waldorf projects in some way, it may be important to say, explicitly and concisely, that the history of your movement under the Nazi regime is complicated and ambivalent, and is not in my view something that you or other Waldorf participants need to feel personally ashamed about. It is, however, something that you would do well to educate yourselves and your colleagues about. As matters stand currently, that will mean taking a skeptical view of the usual Waldorf claims about that historical period, and looking to non-Waldorf and non-anthroposophical sources for more thorough accounts of this part of Waldorf’s past.

I would be pleased if my research provided an opportunity for Waldorf admirers to ponder this contentious history and take its lessons seriously. What is worrisome about the Waldorf movement’s continued failure to address anthroposophy’s racial legacy is not that Waldorf schools in the twenty-first century will start churning out little Hitler youths; what is worrisome is that Waldorf advocates and sympathizers may unknowingly help prepare the ideological groundwork for another unforeseen shift in the broader cultural terrain, in which notions of racial and ethnic superiority and inferiority could once again take on a spiritual significance that lends itself all too easily to practical implementation in a changed social and political context. For this reason among others, I strongly encourage those involved in Waldorf endeavors to take another look at the history of their movement and the doctrines at its core.”

My position is not that Waldorf or anthroposophy are hopelessly compromised by their past. I know several people who are currently in or were previously in Waldorf teacher training programs, and I know a variety of former Waldorf teachers and pupils, all of them fine people. Unfortunately, I have also had lengthy exchanges with currently active Waldorf teachers in several countries, from the US to Germany and beyond, who quite explicitly and emphatically defend the racist components of Steiner’s teachings.

So do many other Steiner enthusiasts. As you can see from the exchanges above, not a few of them — particularly the vocally indignant ones — are convinced that they have presented a “strong argument” by recycling the same well-worn myths. They seem baffled by the notion that a series of articles about antisemitism, holocaust denial, and apologies for fascism actually discuss antisemites, holocaust deniers, and apologists for fascism. This sort of incomprehension is, for better or worse, par for the course among a wide range of anthroposophists today.

My articles examine such views in detail, and that is what has aroused the ire of countless outraged admirers of Steiner. For you and any other readers interested in further exploring anthroposophist viewpoints, I once again recommend consulting the various public forums in which they are on full display:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/messages

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_now/messages

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steiner/messages

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/messages/

Best,

Peter Staudenmaier

The references you have researched along with others I came across through the waldorf critics website regarding many of Steiner’s comments about race were new to me. Through the teacher training I had completed, none were discussed or brought up by our teachers. I think this is a great disservice. After looking into the advent of Eugenics which was becoming popularized around this time in Europe and the US (as I understood), I am wary of my previous opinions. It could be that some of Steiner’s ideas, if interpreted as a necessity, would come to be what Eugenics was (is?).

Many of critics of waldorf Ed seem to imply that there is nothing good about it or the people who are now involved. I had assumed you held that position.
There is a continuing stream of validation stemming from ed. psych research, occupational therapy, and insights into the hand/brain connection which all support the effectiveness of many of the ‘methods’ employed within the waldorf curriculum.

My earlier response was partly a knee-jerk reaction against the seeming rejection of any good from waldorf and also a reaction towards the arrogance which is seemingly intrinsic to academia.

However, I also interpret my studies of Steiner’s lectures and text to reveal that he did not intend for Anthroposophy to become a systematic doctrine that one needs to ‘learn’ to become a waldorf teacher. It seems to be more about opening up to other ways of knowing- beginning with an objective study of natural phenomena. And most importunely, the individual is free to reject anything he had said. Anthroposophy is not a package deal. But I do agree with you, now, that the history of ‘anthroposophical groups’, along with specific people involved and the historical context is lesser known and perhaps a point of immense sensitivity to some.

Thanks for your comments. A meaningful discussion, in my view, requires anthroposophists to inform themselves about what Steiner actually taught and what their forebears actually did historically. On the topic of anthroposophical race theory, there is still a very long way to go if we are to move toward a meaningful discussion. Many anthroposophists share Andy’s view that examining the racist aspects of anthroposophy means determining which aspects of anthroposophy are “inappropriate.” That is not my view.

Among other problems, that approach mixes up normative and descriptive categories and is forthrightly ahistorical. Which sorts of statements about race seem “appropriate” fluctuates significantly over time and across cultural and historical contexts. If we want to figure out which of Steiner’s teachings were racist, we would do well to distinguish that from the question of which teachings we consider appropriate or inappropriate. Many anthroposophists also share the view that racism is a matter of “personal judgments.” That is a similarly ahistorical approach. I have tried many times previously to encourage anthroposophists to address these issues; for a recent summary, see here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/21660

On Andy’s larger question about general anthroposophist reactions to their movement’s history, the choices are of course up to anthroposophists themselves, not to me. What anthroposophists make of the history I recount is their business. In my view, though, there is no need to toss Steiner out completely. Andy himself provides a useful point of comparison: Evolutionary biologists today who reject the racist facets of Darwin’s work do not thereby repudiate everything Darwin said or did. The same is true for philosophers who reject the racist facets of Kant’s work, for instance. If anthroposophists could bring themselves to view Steiner as a historical figure, they could undertake the same procedure. As you both can see from the ongoing attempts at discussion with anthroposophists, many of them pointedly refuse to do so. That is a considerable obstacle to meaningful discussion.

Stephanie’s concern, as near as I can make out, has to do with the multiple meanings in any text. This is the sort of thing historians and other scholars deal with all the time. It is not unique to Rudolf Steiner. It is very common for different people to understand the same idea or event differently. This does not, of course, mean that all interpretations are equally valid. If you’d like to ascertain whether “the differentiation of racial/ethnic ‘qualities’ which Steiner has most definitely expressed” includes racist strands, a good approach is to consider what sorts of ideas count as racist, based on the historical development of racist thought, and then see how that standard applies to Steiner’s work. It is a fundamental mistake to conclude that the problems in Steiner’s teachings “remain in the realm of ideas.” It is not merely the ideas that are at stake, but the very concrete and consequential actions taken by anthroposophists over the years, including their participation in fascist politics. As uncomfortable as this topic may be for Steiner’s admirers, it is not somehow going to disappear on its own. It needs to be faced squarely in a historically informed manner if the anthroposophical movement is one day to move beyond this dimension of its past. Best,

Peter Staudenmaier

Your jibes about “antisemites, holocaust deniers, apologists for fascism” is the
usual kind of thing that you resort to and that anyone can see you `degrading
public discourse’ with here, at other various places and particularly on your
own links.

No one minds their views being examined and they certainly won’t find the
process “condescending and infuriating”. However, I think that anyone can see
from this exchange already that you don’t do that and instead resort to logical
fallacies and evasions.

Your extract from your last post just confirms the above observations. But as
you, again, appear to be unable to respond to the actual argument here – rather
than some other fantasised argument that you think that your having about
“antisemites, holocaust deniers, apologists for fascism” – I have to assume,
again, that that you have nothing to say and that my argument stands. I’m,
again, happy to leave it there. For any readers that haven’t died of boredom at
this stage the form of `public discussion’ that you can see taking place here is
something that Mr Staudenmaier is capable of keeping going for years – he
apparently doesn’t realise that he’s not actually addressing the argument at
all.

Also after re-reading over some of you original article and ensuing posts, I see how your main concern seems to be the acknowledgment of those within anthroposophical circles to admit and or study the entire history of its movement, including the use of various ideas by those in the ‘green wing’ of the nazi movement.

Your historical account is new to me, interesting and thought provoking, deterministic and accusatory. While I am aware that Steiner has called a nazi or anti-semite by others, I have never seen so much research into this claim.

I will, of course, partake in my own research as well. What immediately jumps out at me, and is something I alluded to previously, is that people and groups with such divergent actions and socio-political stances can all claim to use the works of Steiner as either inspiration or in ‘direct application.’ Was he only a nazi and so everything else, if authentically arising from his work, would surely support this claim? Was he only a pacifist, and what was re-appropiated by the ‘green wing’ and other individuals a misuse of ideas? Or is there so much ambiguity and misunderstanding that anyone, who has an interest in ‘occult’ ideas can find what they are looking for?

As a specialist studying the history of nazism, among other interests, it is logical that what you have found within Rudolf Steiner’s public and private lectures along with published texts, are references which you have interpreted as being sympathetic to anti-Semitic, nationalistic and fascist inclinations. Suppose a historian focusing on trends in peaceful, non-violent, human rights movements were to look through the same lectures and texts, would they find references which could be interpreted in a way to support the notion that anthroposophy is just that? And suppose a historian focusing on education or agriculture, or spiritual thought were to scour over the same text, they would surely find plenty of references to cite in order to support their hypothesis.

What meaning then lies within the text itself? Can it be so individual? How can people experience the same event or idea and yet understand it so differently? It is too simplistic and narrow to just dismiss any other interpretation as being less valid. Yet that is what has been demonstrated, by both the instigator and ensuing defender (everyone playing each role). However, we must not dismiss the very real reality that we are most easily able to ‘see’ what has been projected from our own consciousness and/or subconscious.

As mentioned previously, there has arisen two sides to this debate. Each is thoroughly devoted to their divisive hypothesis and heavily rely’s on partial quotes and/or personal sentiment and a subjective disposition to provide their sides support. This is a common approach to an argument- perhaps even illuminating the nature of arguments. Two insular camps who only validate their own experience.

As a teacher who has graduated from a Waldorf teacher training course, I find your argument (although it is referred to as a historical and contemporary fact) a necessary topic needing thorough discussion and reflection within each and every person who informs their world view from Rudolf Steiner’s work. From my own experience, I have sat beside peers, struggling with the differentiation of racial/ethnic ‘qualities’ which Steiner has most definitely expressed. And so, perhaps it will soothe your mind to know that such honest reflection and questioning does in fact take place.
There needs to be a welcoming place for skeptical inquiry of idea’s emerging from spiritual science. However there also needs to be recognition of and reconciliation with the practical applications of the very same idea’s.
While you have emphasized and provided a critical analysis of a particular aspect of anthroposophical thought, you remain in the realm of ideas. The sympathizers have emphasized particular actions, practical applications that they know and feel are contradictory to your thesis.
This dilemma is at least partly due to the irresponsible attribution of anything which could be considered ‘anthroposophical’ to Rudolf Steiner alone- both by those inside and outside. We have been striking away personal responsibility. Rudolf Steiner was a man who shared his ideas, his realities, because there were people who were interested, who asked this of him! Over 100 years later, we must admit that he is no longer alive. We must admit that succeeding generations are in different circumstances and will meet the text with a different understanding. We must admit that we are left, ideally in freedom, to evolve, change, test and pursue what we, in our good conscience, know and feel is relevant to contemporary needs.

You have said that a meaningful discussion of Anthroposophy cannot proceed without addressing things such as its racist content. I was wondering what you had in mind as a meaningful discussion. My view of the discussion so far is mostly of two sides behind brick walls throwing pebbles at each others wall. I would like to try and come behind your wall and see what might happen.

You quoted Dante Puzzo as saying, “Racism rests on two basic assumptions: that a correlation exists between physical characteristics and moral qualities; that mankind is divisible into superior and inferior stocks.” This is one formulation of what constitutes racism, yet we can see the first assumption applied in things such as Prozac or Ritalin where behavior (or moral qualities) are controlled by the physical means of a pill. These medicines and others are based on the correlation between the physical and the moral. We also see the idea of superiority in how most adults relate to children and try to teach them things or direct their behavior as if they know something the child does not (and we even see it in how a scholar relates to an anthroposophist or an anthroposophist to a scholar). The reason I bring these things up is that they show those two central concepts of racism, correlation of bodily aspects to the moral and perceived superiority, in a different context where they may be more appropriate (though that too could be debated). Which brings me to the question of racism: What makes it inappropriate to introduce these concepts when discussing race? Are they always inappropriate or just sometimes? If it’s all the time then the logical conclusion of excluding these concepts from race is something like Stephen Colbert who can’t tell the race (or gender) of his guests. If it is just sometimes, then where are we to draw the line on when moral characteristics are not tied to physical make up or how to differentiate races.

What is important, I think, is that we distinguish between making distinctions and judgments. Suppose you look at a squirrel and a beaver and describe endlessly their physical characteristics along with their skills and talents. Not until you say “I like squirrels more than beavers” does any personal judgment come in. You admit that beavers are better swimmers and dam builders, but for some reason you just like squirrels better. But we are humans and can’t quite do this with ourselves, we’re still getting over the time when those outside our tribe would attack us and so mix making distinctions with making judgments about others. I like to think that Steiner was able to make such distinctions without making those judgments. I know you don’t agree with me here, but I would like to know if you think such a thing is possible.

Another question I would like to ask you, is, as a historian, what do you think the role of history is? You obviously want to draw the attention of anthroposophist to their own history, but what do hope to accomplish by this? Do you hope they will abandon it or try to change it? Or do you want them to admit they are racists or something like that? In short how do you suggest we “help anthroposophy move toward a responsible engagement with its deeply problematic political and ideological inheritance?” I’m a graduate student in the history of science, so my thoughts turn to the racists history connected with Darwinism and Darwin himself. In spite of such a history, non-racists have been able to assimilate Darwin as a respectable historical figure, yet those who are aware of such a history may be less enthusiastic about assimilating him while still managing to not toss him out completely.

I look forward to your response,

Andy Hahn

In general, I think it is a bad idea to engage in extended exchanges with antisemites, holocaust deniers, apologists for fascism, and so forth, because it degrades public discourse. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of antisemites, holocaust deniers, apologists for fascism, and so forth within the ranks of Steiner’s latter-day followers, which can make it difficult to determine the appropriate approach to public discussion with anthroposophists.

These dynamics are not limited to Steiner’s admirers, however. Lots of people believe Obama is a socialist, for example. Lots of people believe in ‘intelligent design’ and similar myths. Lots of people believe in various and sundry conspiracy theories about Jews and many other Others. While undoubtedly re-assuring, it would be a mistake to think that such views are the preserve of occultists. Nonetheless, the patterns are worth examining. Though Wrinch’s preoccupation with me is notably personalized, his basic claims are common coin in the esoteric milieu. European anthroposophists frequently level the same peculiar charges against my German colleague Helmut Zander, for instance, the foremost historian of anthroposophy. This is a familiar dynamic between esotericists and scholars of esotericism.

As noted above, many admirers of Steiner share Mr Wrinch’s views, and they often consider critical examination of those views highly offensive. In particular, they find responses from scholars – whether Zander or myself or others who study the occult milieu – condescending and infuriating. This sort of reaction is virtually inevitable in light of the widespread historical ignorance among anthroposophists. It can nevertheless be worthwhile to try to salvage some substantive insights from such exchanges. As always, I encourage replies from anthroposophists interested in critical discussion of their movement. In that spirit, I will close by reproducing here my final response to Mr Wrinch from our most recent public correspondence, shortly before he was ejected from the email list which hosted him:

I know you think I’m mocking you, Ted. In reality, I am mocking your claims. You believe that you know more about these topics than the others here. I am amused by this belief, which is why you find my replies to you snide and sarcastic and so forth. In your own eyes, you are privy to special knowledge and understanding, a veritable Tony Stark of the anthroposophical world.

This is extremely common among esotericists. Anthroposophists in particular say the same sort of thing all the time. It’s not simply that you think you know more about history than historians and more about physics than physicists. It’s not simply that you think you know more about texts you’ve never seen in languages you don’t read. It is your personal investment in anthroposophy that gets in the way of discussion. For you, Steiner’s work isn’t an object of study, it’s a source of Timeless Truths, and the notion of viewing Steiner as a historical figure is an insult. That is why critique seems like mockery and slander and lying. Greetings,

Peter Staudenmaier

T.

Ted Wrinch

> ‘the beliefs of this particular anthroposophist’ are not what is under discussion here

Mr. Wrinch is mistaken about that. His beliefs regarding Aryans and Jews, for example, are widely shared by other anthroposophists. Those beliefs are exactly what is under discussion here. Lots of anthroposophists hold markedly confused beliefs about race, about fascism, about the left, and about all sorts of other topics. That is what gave rise to the article in the first place.

Many of the comments posted here by admirers of Steiner indicate that such beliefs are hardly a thing of the past, but continue to play a role within the anthroposophist milieu today. Like Mr. Wrinch, these anthroposophists do not appear to realize that the article is about them. I think they would do well to re-read it.

Peter Staudenmaier