This is perhaps good polemic, but not much else. The context of the quote makes it clear that Steiner opposed the war itself. In your parallel, McNamara opposes losing.

He’s talking of the Russians and the 6th epoch in that quote. His conception was that Central Europe – including the ‘Western slavs’ – was a mediator between Western and Eastern culture. In his view, if central culture was to disappear then the Eastern culture of the 6th epoch (that is to follow our own Anglo- Germanic’ one) – the epoch of brotherhood and spirituality – would be damaged. The quote from ‘Call to Save Upper Silesia’ stands:

“Then both cultures, side by side, the German and the Polish, will be able to develop in accord with their inherent forces, without fearing that they will be violated by the other and without a political State taking one or the other side.”

As we’ve established, not least from the quote above, Steiner was opposing nationalism with 3-folding. If 3-folding was ‘in the background’ of his negotiations that would suggest that he was still working out details when he set up the press office. ‘promot[ing] the cause of the Central Powers’ seems to suggest promoting 3-folding, which could have led to an early peace.

I would suggest that you are trying to make rather too much of your assumed superiority as a scholar relative to my status as a member of the public. In fact, I think I’ve done rather well as you haven’t showed Steiner supported the war, or that he was a nationalist, or that he thought attributing blame in the war was a good idea, etc Where you’ve picked me up on details it’s either been trivial (the date of one of the lectures) or wrong (your claim that the the distinction between separatism and autonomy was ‘crucial’ in the Upper Silesia conflict). It seems to me that your inability to get simple matters of interpretation like this correct points to a degree of polemical overshoot on your part, that is perhaps blocking your ability to function as a proper scholar.

———-

A modern 3-folding example

As a historian one would expect that you might be interested in understanding the history of a phenomena. But in this article you appear to have chosen an agenda beforehand to portray Steiner’s 3-folding ideas as a variety of right-wing thought, allied with nationalism and authoritarianism. But I think that I have provided sufficient quotes from Steiner to show that the reality is otherwise.

The reality of 3-folding’s implementation is also different from the account that you have provided. It is unfortunate that 3-folding did not make much headway against the forces of reaction in Europe around WW1 and had to be abandoned in Steiner’s lifetime – had it not been it is possible that Nazism might have been averted. But it is still a vital world impulse and has been used in the Philippines in the mid 90s to create an agenda for social change that attempts to foster balanced economic growth, social cohesiveness and justice, a democratic polity and to maintain a harmonious ecology. The policy objectives of this program were set out in a document known as Philippine Agenda 21. This document was piloted into existence, against much business and government resistance, by the anthroposophist Nicanor Perlas with the support of Philippine NGOs, who expressed a ‘vital and popular civil society’. The document has been approved by presidential decree and the president, Fidel V Ramos, had this to say about the program in his September 26, 1996 speech:

“In my State of the Nation address last 22nd of July 1996, I mentioned that we do not intend to ‘Grow now and clean up later’. But do not misunderstand me. Given the many demands of development, this ‘cleaning up later’ not only refers to the economy and the environment. It also means that we will clear up all other facets of Philippine life, including our policies and our culture.

When I say, we clean up in terms of our culture, we intend, for example, to grow and develop with our spirituality and sterling Filipinos values Intact. I do not want Filipinos to succumb to a materialistic consumerist lifestyle. I do not wish to see our world-renowned Filipino spirituality and social sensitivity to be sacrificed at the altar of the economic advancement.

Cleaning up as we grow in the realm of culture to me means to harness Filipino creativity, values, talents and skills to create a new model of development, one that is not only democratic, environmentally friendly and cost-effective, but also celebrates the vibrancy of our diverse cultures as well as respects and develops the tremendous potential that resides in every one of us. This, after all, is what being maka-Diyos, maka-tao, maka-kalikasan, and maka-bayan means in real terms.

..

Economic growth, unleashed by capitalism, has also been accompanied by other forms, less desirable forms, of growth. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reminds us that, if we are not careful, economic growth can lead to jobless, ruthless, voiceless, rootless, and futureless growth…

The growing awareness that economic growth is a means, not an end in itself, has influenced most of the countries of the world today to pine for ‘another development’, one that retains the useful features of capitalism without falling prey to its excesses.
Philippine Agenda 21 envisions a better quality of life for all through the development of a just, moral, creative, diverse yet cohesive society characterized by appropriate productivity, participatory and democratic processes, and living in harmony within the limits of the carrying capacity of nature and the integrity of creation.”

Jesaiah Ben-Aharon comments as follows:

“But this highest policy document of the Philippine Government, signed and approved by Presidential decree, is not only about a threefold-social- order concept, but have arisen though an intense threefold social process, in which, for the first time in human history, representative of the “third sector”, civil society, achieved an equal social standing, siting at the table of negotiation with the Government (Polity) and business (the economic sector), and bringing about a threefold reality already in the negotiation process.”
http://www.antroposofi.org/antropsy/aharon.htm

T.

Ted Wrinch

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

Greetings, my name is Eleanor, I was a student with the ISE this winter as well as last summer and have been studying social ecology for approximately 18 months.

This January I was most impressed by how the content of the courses and conversation moved back and forth from particular struggles and situations to more abstract, clearly fleshed out theoretical frameworks. We had a movement (occupy wall street) within which to apply the analysis and insights of social ecology.

Nonetheless, the philosophy and politics unique to social ecology took a peripheral role relative to most of the course content, which, through classes such as ‘Liberating Land for Community Control’ and ‘Aligning with Frontline Communities’, offered us the chance to dig deeply into community-based praxis. Overall, it was a big, diverse crowd, with many new folks, as well as several long-time friends of the ISE. It was an honor and a pleasure to be there each day.

So if an island nation is submerged beneath the ocean, does it maintain its membership in the United Nations? Who is responsible for the citizens? Do they travel on its passport? Who claims and enforces offshore mineral and fishing rights in waters around a submerged nation? International law currently has no answers to such questions.

United Nations Ambassador Phillip Muller of the Marshall Islands said there is no sense of urgency to find not only those answers, but also to address the causes of climate change, which many believe to be responsible for rising ocean levels.

“Even if we reach a legal agreement sometime soon, which I don’t think we will, the major players are not in the process,” Muller said.

Those players, the participants said, include industrial nations such as the United States and China that emit the most carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. Many climate scientists say those gases are responsible for global warming. Mary-Elena Carr of Columbia University’s Earth Institute said what is now an annual sea level rise of a few millimeters will increase dramatically by the year 2100. “The biggest challenge is to preserve their nationality without a territory,” said Bogumil Terminski from Geneva. International legal experts are discovering climate change law, and the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is a case in point: The Polynesian archipelago is doomed to disappear beneath the ocean. Now lawyers are asking what sort of rights citizens have when their homeland no longer exists.
t present, however, there appear to be at least three possibilities that could advance the international debate about ‘climate refugee’ protections and fill existing gaps in international law.

The first option is to revise the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees to include climate (or environmental) refugees and to offer legal protections similar to those for refugees fleeing political persecution. A second, more ambitious option is to negotiate a completely new convention, one that would try to guarantee specific rights and protections to climate or environmental ‘refugees`.

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

To re-frame this evolution of Spirit into the Marxist perspective of the evolution of money is interesting also.

I can’t help feel that these perspective somehow imbue the notion of hierarchical development and so the thesis and the anti-thesis into the third part of the trinity synthesis is really just a way of describing hoe two adjoining levels of a hierarchy come into conflict and form a bridge between the two.

An alternative way to view these perspectives is within the perspective of heterarchy rather then hierarchy. Mikko above decides to view from the perspective of hierarchy and so is unable to view natural evolution other than a dialectic. But within a heterarchy, the different inter-connections between different nodes can similarly give rise to natural adaptions, the emergence of money as a tool of economic communication and the telos of Spirit in which the self-awareness of the inter-connected network (of which the heterarchy consists of) is developed and realised by all those within it, the identity of the heterarchy (named as Spirit, Nature or God) becomes suffused into human institutions.

Hence, rather than a focus on competition and a place in the hierarchy whether as a result of material dialectism or ideal dialectism, one could see the inter-relationship between nodes within a greater network of relations where there might be competition but there is also co-operation. Thus a philosophy of Social Ecology could be based more on heterarchy rather than hierarchy. Particularly so, since Nature itself appears to be a heterarchy and so to understand that we form part of a heterarchy rather than hierarchy, although limited hierarchies may exist within it, is to also understand our correct place and relationship with it.