return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
talking about us
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:40:11 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: talking about us
A friend noted the following message from Bradford Riley on the Yahoo
Anthroposophy list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy/message/9375
An excerpt:
)The Waldorf Critics list has gone well beyond keeping anthros
)honest, it has become a cult of right wing spin in order to check
)and keep locked down, anyone who sits in the edge of critical
)intellectual issues, and has incarnated without the inner organ of
)religious wonder in their soul. That wonder factor allow
)intelligence to navigate in the intellect without betraying the
)gods. New incarnations of fanged, drooling petty intellects who
)wield massive factual details become very unimpressive when you see
)it used it such a destructive and cheap betrayal of the higher
)faculty of human intuition.
"A cult of right wing spin"? And I thought it was Anthroposophy that
was ultra-conservative. I guess everybody's going to insult each
other by calling them "right wing."
"...in order to check and keep locked down, anyone who sits in the
edge of critical intellectual issues..." I love the pretentious way
Anthroposophists claim to be intellectual pioneers; like the way
Trans Intelligence Quarterly subtitles itself "Foremost Thinking in
the World Today." It's one of the world's foremost anti-intellectual
movements, if you ask me.
"and has incarnated without the inner organ of religious wonder in
their soul." I guess that refers to those people like me who keep
pointing out that good intentions don't necessarily make good
medicine.
"New incarnations of fanged, drooling petty intellects..." Wow, this
is getting good.
"who wield massive factual details..." God (gods?) forbid we should
concern ourselves with facts!
"a destructive and cheap betrayal" Criticism -is- destructive when
what is being criticized is nonsense. Pop goes the balloon. You'd
think a "higher faculty of human intuition" would be able to produce
more than a quack cancer cure and a weak school system. Higher is as
higher does.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1191
-- Topica Digest --
Christian Science Monitor "Schools with a view"
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:04:37 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Christian Science Monitor "Schools with a view"
Click here to read this story online:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1202/p11s02-legn.html
Headline: Schools with a view
Byline: April Austin Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Date: 12/02/2003
San Diego parent Lonecia Landry has sent her daughter to Nubia
Leadership Academy, a charter school, for five years. She's aware the
school leases its facilities from Bayview Baptist Church, and that many
of the staff and students attend services there. For Ms. Landry, the
urgent need was to keep her daughter out of traditional public schools
- the same schools that employ her as a teacher.
Landry says she feels comfortable about having her daughter attend
Nubia Academy, even though they're not affiliated with the church.
"It's not like they're putting their views on the kids," she says.
Experts worry, however, that in parents' eagerness to escape
traditional public schools, some may be overlooking religious or other
ideological messages seeping into their children's lessons.
Because charter schools are public, they are not allowed to promote a
particular religion or belief system, although they are free from some
other layers of regulation governing mainstream public schools. But
critics worry that - particularly given that extra measure of freedom -
a handful may indulge in what Bruce Fuller at the University of
California, Berkeley, calls "stealth religion."
"It's naieve to think that if you have a charter school [sponsored by]
a church or mosque, that religious ideas wouldn't filter into the
psyches of students," says Andrea Grenadier, an education consultant
who lives outside Washington.
Charter proponents emphatically disagree. "We are under so much
scrutiny today, there is no way we would step over the church-state
line," says Peter Rupert, president of National Heritage Academies in
Grand Rapids, Mich., which manages 39 schools in five states. "Too much
is at stake."
And for many parents, the concern that their children might be exposed
to a religious viewpoint is less important than knowing they're
attending a safe, well-run school. But that's exactly what worries some
experts. "Parents will skate over the ethics questions because they
like what the school is doing overall," says Ms. Grenadier.
Most of the 2,700 charter schools in the United States have never
confronted such accusations. But a handful of charters have faced
lawsuits - including one pending in northern California - that raise
concerns as to who is reviewing curriculum.
Critics argue that in the rush to promote charter schools, state
legislatures have not kept enough safeguards in place. This includes
oversight of curriculum beyond meeting state education standards. The
popularity of charters has led to laws that in some cases make it
difficult for school boards to turn them down, or for unhappy parents
to seek redress.
In Nevada City, Calif., for example, a lawsuit involving several
Waldorf-run charter schools is scheduled for federal trial in September
2004. The suit was brought by a handful of parents calling themselves
People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS), who argue that
Waldorf founder Rudolf Steiner's philosophy is a religious one that
does not belong in public schools.
Debra Snell of PLANS says she's not opposed to charter schools, and
even helped start the Yuba River Charter School in Nevada City, which
uses the Waldorf method. But she became disillusioned by the "stealthy
manner" in which national Waldorf officials took control of the school.
Because California law immunizes charter schools from local and state
oversight, Ms. Snell says, "There is no place you can go to raise
problems. We made a presentation to the state, and they said, 'We have
no jurisdiction.' "
Families who choose charter schools may not know what they're getting
into. A quick search of online directories showed that religious
affiliations were not often mentioned, or were buried in text. A savvy
parent would need to parse the language used in mission statements or
visit the school itself.
But nonreligious ideologies can also be a point of concern.
In San Juan, Calif., the recent approval of a Humane Learning charter
school caught parent Ann Silberman off guard. While the idea of
teaching compassion toward all creatures appealed to her, the proposed
curriculum was vague.
In researching similar programs, she noticed phrases associated with
radical animal-rights groups. Ms. Silberman is now campaigning to halt
the school out of concern the curriculum will be hijacked.
She brought her concerns to the school board, but "they weren't
listening."
Parents with blinders on
Diana Halpenny, general counsel for the San Juan district, points out
that most state laws - including California's - discourage interference
in charter affairs. "The only recourse for an unhappy parent is to
change the situation from within, or pull their child out," she says.
"Legally, it's not really the district's business."
But parents often appreciate an emphasis on character development and
ethical behavior, two areas where traditional public schools fear to
tread. They also perceive charter schools as having more rigorous
academic standards. Those who can't afford a private religious
education flock to charter schools.
Professor Fuller sees it as part of a growing sense among parents that
their religiously affiliated program is just as entitled to public
funds as the next. "[As a nation] we may be worried about church-state
issues, but there's an unspoken conspiracy of 'I'll let you use public
funds for your school if you let me use them for mine,' " he says.
Watchdog groups concerned with church-state separation are looking
askance at situations such as the one in Minneapolis, in which the
principal of a Catholic private school plans to open her own charter
school.
Ascension Academy was approved to open next year, despite questions
raised by two state education officials concerned about religious
undertones. Dorwatha Woods will remain principal when she becomes
director of the charter.
Political footballs
A charter school can also become a political football, as Kamal
al-Khatib learned earlier this month in Palmdale, Calif. He says he was
defeated for a seat on the Antelope Valley school board because a local
group accused him of running a charter school that teaches "Islamic
values."
While the Guidance Charter School was formerly located in a mosque, Mr.
Khatib says the curriculum is completely secular. The 152 students come
from a variety of backgrounds, although he declined to say how many
were Muslim.
In South Pinellas, Fla., a group of Hare Krishna devotees chartered a
school in 1999. Then-school board member Judy Brashear voted twice
against granting the charter, saying the Krishnas would essentially run
a private school on public money. She was overruled.
When contacted for this story, Ms. Brashear said she did not want to
talk about that time. She was not reelected to the board in 2000.
Today, the school sits on land adjacent to a farm owned by the Hare
Krishna community.
Charter closures
Between 6 and 10 percent of all charter schools that ever opened have
shut down. Of those, most were closed for financial mismanagement, with
a small number of those for outright fraud. No one interviewed for this
article could pinpoint a charter school that was shut down because it
violated the first amendment clause against promoting religion.
While states have taken steps to increase financial accountability of
charters, watching the curriculum is left largely to parents.
Given the confusing array of state laws, it's difficult to say where
the buck stops. States need clearer standards for charters and
authorizers, say some critics.
Charter supporters largely agree that the authorizer's role needs
clarifying. But most insist that religious issues will not seriously
harm the charter movement.
"Having an agenda alone doesn't put a charter in violation of the
church-state laws," says Ms. Halpenny. "You have to ask, 'Is a religion
being taught?' "
(c) Copyright 2003 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
Click here to email this story to a friend:
http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/send-story?2003/1202/p11s02-legn.txt
The Christian Science Monitor-- an independent daily newspaper
providing context and clarity on national and international news,
peoples and cultures, and social trends. Online at
http://www.csmonitor.com
Click here to order a free sample copy of the print edition of the Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/sample_issue.html
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1192
-- Topica Digest --
RE: talking about us
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Christian Science Monitor "Schools with a view"
By jzig6318 mail.usyd.edu.au
RE: Uwe Werner defense of Steiner
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:50:01 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: talking about us
They're also talking about us on the new "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" list,
where a veritable who's who of former waldorf critics participants have
gathered, including Frank, Tarjei, Sune, Joel, Mike Helsher, and even
Dottie. The list can be read by the public here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/messages
The most recent discussion of Waldorf Critics that I noticed occurs roughly
between messages 230 and 240 (Nov 22 and 23). It is preceded by a
fascinating exchange involving Sune, Tarjei, Dottie, and John from
Openwaldorf; see messages 195 to 225 for a remarkable instance of avoiding
the question on all sides.
While Dottie waxes eloquent about "Atheists/Freedomthinkers/Humanists",
Tarjei reminisces about his days on the Waldorf Critics list. I particularly
enjoyed this gem from Tarjei about his "dispute with Peter Staudenmaier on
the WC list":
"Calling himself an anarchist, Peter S always insists that anthroposophy is
a fascist right wing ideology and that anthroposophists are, ipso facto,
fascist right wingers. And of course he scoffs at the suggestion that RS
could have been an anarchist."
Each of those claims is essentially the contrary of what I have said over
and over again. But alas, accurate reading of critical commentary does not
belong to the canon of anthroposophical virtues...
I will try to get to Dan's post about Uwe Werner later today.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home.
http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:15:52 +1100
From: jzig6318 mail.usyd.edu.au
Subject: Re: Christian Science Monitor "Schools with a view"
Hi,
I've only joined this list recently so this post reflects a limited knowledge
of the range of issues discussed. However, even from the few posts which I have
read I get the impression that PLANS operates from a strangely naive attitude
towards the issue of secular versus religious ( or idealogical) schools. There
seems to be an unspoken assumption that secularism is not an ideology. This is
an extremely naive presupposition which takes into account neither the
historical rise of the secular worldview, nor the profound philosophical
problems involved in defending it. It is a fact that the majority of the great
philosophers of the Western, not to mention the Eastern, tradition have been
religious in some sense. While I agree with the view that Waldorf schools, like
all other schools, should be transparent about their philosophical ( in this
case "religious") foundations, I don't see why this should not apply to so
called "secular" schools. From the perspective of an intelligent religious
person, (I am not speaking here of fundamentalists), it is not only false, but
dangerously misleading, for a secular school to promote itself as "neutral" or
non-ideological. This is simply not the case. Only someone with a very limited
grasp of the history of human thought can have an uncritical belief in the
final validity of the theories which make up the current scientific picture of
the world. In this sense, a school which teaches the Darwinian theory of
evolution or the idea that all intelligent life evolved from insensate matter,
is engaging in sophistry if it claims to be non-ideological. Of course much of
what they teach may be true, but it is only a non-ideology to those who believe
it uncritically. In short, I simply cannot see why so called "secular" schools
deserve public funding any more than Waldorf schools, or for that matter,
Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist or Islamic schools. It is up to parents to decide
what sort of foundation their children's education is to be based on. But I
cannot see the justification for thinking that the state should support one
"ideology", namely, secularism or naturalism, at the expense of others. I would
be interested to hear the opinions of PLANS members on this. To the extent
that certain Waldorf schools have been guilty of deception concerning their
pedagogical foundations, I think you are right in asking for transparency.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that PLANS is motivated by more than this. There
certainly seems to be a sense that the members of PLANS see themselves as
speaking from a "neutral", non sectarian or non-idelogical standpoint. But no
one has given any convincing argument that this is in fact the case.
Looking forward to a reply,
Jakob.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:24:28 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Uwe Werner defense of Steiner
Dan wrote:
)Here's an interesting article by Uwe Werner defending Steiner, put on
)the web by a French biodynamic vintner:
)
)http://www.coulee-de-serrant.com/steinerangl.htm
)
)The English translation is a bit rough; I think the phrase "these
)last years," referring to criticisms of Steiner, probably means "in
)recent years." Some of the statements are obviously false, like "No
)Nazi leader ever felt any sympathy with Anthroposophy." and calling
)the Anthroposophists who wrote the Dutch report on racism in
)Steiner's works "scientists." Peter Staudenmaier may have the German
)original and be able to sort out what's Werner and what's bad
)translation.
I hadn't seen this piece before, though portions of it are suspiciously
familiar; and I haven't been able to find a German version of it on the web.
I am slightly skeptical that Uwe Werner is the sole author; the text sounds
a little too baldly disingenuous even for him, but his shorter pieces are
sometimes more muddled than his already muddled book (the once cited in
footnote 4). I've mentinoed this several times before, but it bears
repeating that Werner's work on anthroposophy during the Nazi era represents
a backlash against those few contemporary German anthroposophists who have
been willing to examine the record of their predecessors' involvement in the
Third Reich.
In particular, Werner's book was meant as a refuation of the research
conducted by the anthroposophist Arfst Wagner ten years earlier. Wagner
collected a massive documentation about anthroposophist attitudes toward
Nazism and Nazi attitudes toward anthroposophy. Even though Wagner is
himself a committed anthroposophist and consistently spins all of the
material he publishes to put Steiner and mainstream anthroposophy in the
best possible light, the mere examination of historical evidence caused a
huge stir within anthro circles in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Uwe
Werner, chief archivist at the Goetheanum, was called upon to squelch this
long overdue discussion, and duly produced a ponderous tome meant to
exculpate anthroposophist collaborators with Nazism. Arfst Wagner and other
anthroposophists have published strongly critical reviews of Werner's book
in the anthroposophist press. Although much of what Werner says in this
latest piece is self-evidently preposterous, I think that his book is very
much worth reading for anyone who knows German; the evidence he draws on
frequently contradicts his own argument. Anyway, on to the latest Werner
piece:
)Concerning the allegations accusing Rudolf Steiner of racist and
)anti-semitic elements in his works.
)
)During his life time, Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) was an active
)opponent to antisemitism.
That's true. During his lifetime Steiner was also an individualist, an
anarchist, an atheist, a rationalist, a Monist, a harsh critic of Theosophy,
and any number of other things. Of course he was also an anti-individualist,
an irrationalist, an opponent of anarchism and atheism and Monism, a
Theosophist, and so forth, at other points during his life. For some reason
it seems to be hard for anthroposophists to grasp that the same person can
be both a supporter of antisemitism and an opponent of antisemitism at
different points in his or her life.
)As early as 1901, in view of the rising of
)antisemitism, he published about ten articles on the matter of the
)antisemitic stuggle in the renowned newspaper "Mittheilungen aus dem
)Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus"
This is one of those give-aways that indicate that whoever wrote this piece
doesn't know what they're talking about. The number of articles Steiner
wrote for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus is
seven, all of them published during a four-month period in 1901. That can be
very easily ascertained from a brief glance at Steiner's Collected Works.
Moreover, the journal of the Abwehrverein was not the least bit renowned; it
was a marginal publication with little impact on public life, dwarfed by the
periodicals of mainstream German Jewish groups. Even at its height the
journal's circulation was tiny. This is very well-studied terrain, and it is
not difficult to find reliable scholarship about the Abwehrverein and its
public profile. None of this reflects poorly on Steiner, of course, but the
indifference toward historical facts does reflect poorly on his latter-day
followers.
)an organ of the association
)involved with the struggle with antisemitism in Berlin (Verein zur
)Abwehr des Antisemitismus). The editor, the Jewish poet and writer,
)Ludwig Jakobowski, was Steiner"s friend, one amongst many significant
)Jewish individuals he visited socially.
Steiner did more than visit Jacobowski socially; he was quite close to
Jacobowski in the last years of the latter's life. Jacobowski's own stated
goal was for Jews to "completely disappear" into the German nation.
)In his articles, Steiner qualified the antisemitic and racist view of
)life as "contrary to healthy thought", as a barbaric and uncivilized
)thought.
That's true. Steiner's period of opposition to antisemitism was sincere,
albeit brief; his 1901 articles show him struggling to comprehend
antisemitism as a cultural phenomenon. He never quite succeeds, but there is
no doubt that at this time he forecefully rejected what he understood
antisemitism to be.
)He protested against the tendency in german writings and
)literature of germanizing and in essence an anti-semitic attitude.
Of course Steiner himself contributed to this tendency in his own earlier
writings from his pan-German period, when he did not shy away from
antisemitic prejudices and indeed defended them vigorously.
)A
)few years before, in 1897 and 1898 on the occasion of the Dreyfus
)affair, Steiner stood up publicly against the condemnation of the
)jewish captain Dreyfus, supporting Emile Zola"s written action of
)defense.
Steiner never once mentions Dreyfus's Jewishness in any way, much less
stands up against the antisemitic nature of the campaign against Dreyfus.
Steiner's position in the dispute was determined primarily by his hostility
to the French, and had nothing to do with opposition to antisemitism. In
fact in 1897 Steiner completely dismissed antisemitism as "harmless" and
insisted that anybody who was concerned about antisemitism was simply
suffering from "Jewish hypersensitivity".
)In accordance with a large number of Jewish people in Europe, Steiner
)supported the idea of assimilation: "The Jews need Europe and Europe
)needs the Jews".
This is a foolish error, and once again indicates a woeful lack of
familiarity with the basic historical facts. German Jews by and large
supported assimilation in the sense of acculturation, a process whereby Jews
would be increasingly integrated into German society while retaining their
Jewish identity. Steiner emphatically rejected this viewpoint. His version
of assimilation was tantamount to elimination. He wanted Jewishness as such
to completely disappear. That is exactly what Steiner says in the article
quoted above: the very existence of Jews, he wrote there, is a "mistake of
world history" that must be corrected.
)He did not favour the idea of a Jewish state as
)represented by the Zionist movement
Neither did the vast majority of German Jews.
)because he was an opponent to any
)kind of nationalism or imperialism which he regarded as outmoded and
)unable to provide a foundation for the future social life and in
)truth harmful and leading to war.
Steiner did not condemn German nationalism or German imperialism. He
condemned British, French, and Slavic nationalism and imperialism. Most of
all he condemned Jewish nationalism, over and over again. That is exactly
what other German nationalists of the era did as well. It is a very common
feature of nationalist thought.
)One does not understand Steiner if one does not take into account
)that at the very center of his work is to be found research for a new
)humanism. Steiner makes the human individual aware of the
)responsibilities standing before himself, before society and before
)his spiritual origin. In this respect, Steiner opened new horizons as
)much for the understanding as for the practise of existence. He
)brings to light the spiritual essence of the human individual
)distinctly beyond his corporeal lineage. It is this that made a
)number of people interested in Anthroposophy. And it suffices when
)approaching any anthroposophically oriented initiative to be aware
)that it is inspired by this kind of humanity where racism and
)antisemitism have no place.
That paragraph is a series of inept non-sequiturs. People who think that
self-professed individualists and humanists are by definition incapable of
harboring racist or antisemitic beliefs need to educate themselves about the
history of racism and antisemitism.
)In fact, at the age of 33 years, Steiner published his "Philosophy of
)Freedom" where he already asserts his refusal to judge the human
)being according to a criteria based on racial identity2.
Another non-sequitur. Here is what Steiner says about the determining role
of race in Philosophy of Freedom: "Each member of a totality is determined,
as regards its characteristics and functions, by the whole totality. A
racial group is a totality and all the people belonging to it bear the
characteristic features that are inherent in the nature of the group. How
the single member is constituted, and how he will behave, are determined by
the character of the racial group."
)This
)perspective can be found throughout all his works. He will express it
)later in 1908, for example in saying "To hold ideals of the races
)today will lead humanity into decadence" or "The idea of race has
)lost any kind of cultural significance for the future"3.
Following the apparently predominant anthroposophist theory of textual
analysis, these snippets miraculously wash away Steiner's simultaneous
insistence that racial spirits and racial character are of central cultural
significance today and for millions of years into the future.
)In doing this, Steiner did not lack in enemies made in the camps of
)the nationalists, the racists and the imperialists,
No German nationalist or racist at the time lacked enemies among competing
brands of nationalism and racism. The above statement is as stupid as
claiming that Dick Gephardt is not a Democrat since many other Democrats are
currently campaigning strenuously against him.
)especially at the
)time of his appearance on the public scene in 1919 with the movement
)for the social three-foldness
Steiner's first audience for his threefolding ideas were staunch Austrian
and German nationalists. He conceived of threefolding originally as a way to
preserve German hegemony within central and eastern Europe.
)on May 15, 1922, attacked by the extreme Right in the Hall while
)giving a public lecture in Munich, he was obliged to stop his tour.
He did not stop his speaking tour. Anthroposophists can't seem to report
this incident without getting some major fact completely wrong.
Interestingly, Christoph Lindenberg's biography of Steiner, the most
thorough study available, says that Steiner himself wasn't attacked at all
during the Munich incident. Either way, this obviously tells us nothing
whatsoever about whether Steiner's doctrines were racist, nationalist, or
antisemitic.
)Rudolf Steiner died in 1925, the year of the refounding of the Nazi
)party marking its beginning of ascension to power 8 years later in
)1933. At this time, the hatred against Steiner and the
)anthroposophists was not forgotten. All the Nazi authorities,
)including Rudolf Hess, gave their agreement for prohibition of the
)anthroposophical society on german soil because of its "subversive
)character and danger for the state". The ban was proposed by Heydrich
)and Himmler in the name of security service and enforced by the
)Gestapo on the 1st of November 1935.
This is genuinely dull-witted reasoning. Making sense of history always
demands a comparative approach. The Nazis also banned the Ludendorffers and
the Ariosophists, arguably the most rabidly antisemitic nationalist splinter
groups of the era. According to the logic invoked by anthroposophists, this
fact would somehow absolve Ludendorff and Ariosophy of antisemitism and
racism. For that matter, Hitler himself would magically become an "opponent
of antisemitism", since after all other far-right nutcases denounced Hitler
as a pawn of the Jews.
)No Nazi leader ever felt any sympathy with Anthroposophy.
That is utter nonsense. Werner's own book includes mountains of evidence
attesting to both Hess's and Baeumler's sympathy for various aspects of
anthroposophy, but there were many other Nazi leaders who shared their
attitudes, among them the war criminal Otto Ohlendorf and chief of the
concentration camps Oswald Pohl, not to mention the folks I study like Darre
and Seifert.
)It was
)obvious to them that a conception like that of Anthroposophy, in
)which existence is founded upon the human individuality, was in
)opposition to their own which was based on the idea of nationality
)and race.
Lots of anthroposophists had no trouble reconciling these views during the
Nazi era. Not a few of them became Nazis themselves, while others cooperated
intensively with various Nazi bureaucrats. Here is a brief example: In an
official memorandum to Rudolf Hess from March 1935, the Association of
Waldorf Schools declared, under the subheading "Attitude toward Jewry":
"Because the basic outlook of Waldorf schools is emphatically Christian, and
because Waldorf pedagogy rejects the one-sided intellectual element, the
Jews show little sympathy for Waldorf schools. The percentage of Jewish
pupils is therefore very low." The notion that anthroposophists generally
resisted the appeal of Nazism is pure wishful thinking.
)There is a characteristic example in the conclusion of a
)report written by an academic, Jakob Wilhelm Hauer
Hogwash. Nothing about Hauer's demented diatribes was in any way
characteristic of Nazi attitudes toward anthroposophy. I am consistently
baffled by the anthroposophist refusal to crack open a history book before
pontificating about Hauer and his animosity toward Steiner. Hauer played no
significant role at all in the internal Nazi struggles over anthroposophy.
In stark contrast to Walter Schellenberg, whose testimony anthroposophists
strictly ignore, Hauer was completely removed from any influence, much less
any active role, in the circles around Heydrich and Himmler that organized
the eventual crackdown on anthroposophists (the crackdown itself did not
begin until Hess had left Germany in 1941).
Himmler's daily log book has been recovered by historians and was published
in a superb annotated edition in 1999. In the entirety of Himmler's log for
1941 and 1942, the period during which the anti-anthroposophist faction of
the Nazis finally asserted its authority, Hauer is never even mentioned, not
once, not even in passing, although the Hess crisis is covered in detail,
including the new campaign against "Anthroposophy, Theosophy, and
Ariosophy". Schellenberg, on the other hand, is mentioned more than twenty
times.
)However, aspects of specific accomplishments inspired by Steiner"s
)impulses caught the attention of certain Nazi leaders.
Amazing, since none of them ever felt the slightest sympathy for these
impulses...
)There was, for
)example, the case of bio-dynamic agriculture which had a "return to
)nature" appeal and offered a further political advantage in the
)decrease of german dependence upon chemical fertilizers importation.
)So, one after the other, Rudolf Hess, then Richard Walther Darré, the
)agricultural minister, and finally Himmler took an interest in
)bio-dynamics, but -and it goes without saying- as long as it was
)separated from its anthroposophical basis.
This is one of the things that makes me wonder whether Werner really wrote
this. In his book he reprints an unambiguous official memorandum from Hess's
office declaring very explicitly that in Hess's view, biodynamics could
*not* be separated from its anthroposophical basis. Which ought to be
obvious in any case, since without its anthroposophical basis there simply
is no such thing as biodynamics. Furthermore, there is little sense
pretending that top Nazis like Darre and Himmler merely "took an interest"
in biodynamics; in fact they made biodynamic agriculture a component of
state policy, even establishing biodynamic plantations at Dachau, Auschwitz,
and other concentration camps, sometimes overseen by longstanding
anthroposophists who joined the SS in order to assist in spreading
anthroposophical practices as an appendage to genocide.
)Many personnalities of Jewish lineage joined the anthroposophical
)movement when Rudolf Steiner was still living and after his death,
)many strove during the last century to fulfill his impulses in the
)various domains of life.
We could quibble about the "many" part, but this is basically accurate. A
number of Jews were indeed drawn to Steiner. Some of them, like Ludwig
Thieben, renounced their Jewishness and became raving antisemites. But let's
look at the logic here: Lots of Jews joined the Fascist party in Italy. That
didn't stop the Fascists from adopting an antisemitic line. What the author
of this text neglects to do is, once again, place this detail about "persons
of Jewish lineage" into a meaningful comparative context. How many other
Jews joined right-wing or nationalist outfits in pre-Nazi Germany? How many
of them held racist beliefs? For that matter, how many gentile
anthroposophists shared Steiner's antisemitic beliefs, and propagated these
beliefs within anthroposophical media? My own current research is pursuing
this question, among others; I've been systematically working through major
anthroposophist periodicals from the 1920's and 1930's. There is no shortage
of racist, antisemitic, and especially German nationalist material.
)Numbers of anthroposophical Jews perished in
)the Nazi camps and amongst them the renowned composer Viktor Ullmann.
Ulmann was killed because he was a Jew, not because he was fond of Steiner.
To suggest otherwise is to completely misunderstand what the holocaust was
and why it happened.
)It suffices to look closer to the pedagogical movement (there are
)over 850 schools in all the cultures of the world) or to the work
)done in medecine, in pharmaceutics, in pedagogy for handicapped
)childhood and also in bio-dynamic agriculture to acknowledge that
)these initiatives have nothing to do with a racist, antisemitic or
)nationalist view of life : on the contrary, they radiate humanism as
)well for the human being as for the whole earth.
That is perfectly nonsensical. If you want to know what anthroposophists in
Breslau thought of Nazism in 1933, you're wasting your time visiting Waldorf
schools in Berkeley in 2003.
)However, these last years, Rudolf Steiner was under attack. The
)authors pretend to reveal in his works a hidden face, a racist,
)antisemitic or sectarian face.
Steiner did not hide his racist face in his writings and lectures, though
this face has sometimes been hidden by later anthroposophists. His
antisemitic face, on the other hand, was something that Steiner himself was
never consciously aware of, as far as we know.
)They did not hesitate to pervert
)Rudolf Steiner"s intentions, turning them into their contrary,
Nobody can decide with any reliability what Steiner's intentions were. We
do, however, know what he wrote and said. That is the only legitimate object
of discussion at issue.
)by
)detaching from their context parts of his lectures and, in doing so,
)affirming these fragments prove to be racist, antisemitic or
)sectarian.
Yes, that is exactly what responsible historical inquiry requires, according
to the peculiar anthroposophical understanding of the terms "context" and
"fragments". That many anthroposophists find this procedure distressing
testifies to their unfamiliarity with basic scholarly practice.
)They went as far as falsifying texts. This method is
)wellknown in the case of deffamation and there is only one way to
)avoid this trap : one has to make inquiries.
That's a grand idea. What is stopping Uwe Werner from making inquiries right
there in the archives of the Goetheanum, where he works, by simply reading
the anthroposophical press from the 20s and 30s?
)Therefore, it is essential to verify these allegations if one wishes
)to get a true picture of the actual situation.To fulfill this task,
)one does not have to study "all Steiner"s materials".
Indeed. A good place to start is with Steiner's texts and lectures about
race, about the German mission, and about Jews. No need to read everything,
just the relevant materials.
)It suffices to
)glance through one of the 360 Steiner"s books to acknowledge that
)these accusations have no grounds.
Say what? Looking at one of the books will tell you what's in the other 359?
What kind of archivist believes that?? Hell, why go to all the trouble of
publishing, not to mention reading, all those hundreds of volumes if you
already know what they say?
)Moreover, three major scientific
)study researches have been published in german langage on that
)specific topic and they came to the same conclusions. One of these
)conducted by dutch scientists was put down in 2000; it analysed the
)terminology used by Rudolf Steiner in his works, including parts of
)the texts taken from opponents7. The other two researches, one
)dealing with the accusations of racism, the other with antisemitism8
)were published in Stuttgart in 2002. These researches were conducted
)by the german historian Lorenzo Ravagli in collaboration with two
)co-authors.
Ravagli's field is theater, not history. It is difficult to believe that
Werner is unaware of this. In any case, the notion that these studies were
scientific is laughable; each of them explicitly makes fun of scientific
approaches to the material. Moreover, Ravagli and company certainly did not
come to "the same conclusions" as the Dutch commission; in fact Ravagli et
al rather stridently emphasize their disagreements with the Dutch report. It
is virtually inconceivable that any reader of the Ravagli-Bader book could
have missed this prominent element in their argument. This leaves me not
only wondering who actually wrote this text, but just what they actually
bothered to read before writing it.
)Marcus Schroll, rabbi of the Jewish community in Dusseldorf commented
)upon this work of Ravagli : "One can say that this study is really
)profound and well documented. It honestly makes objection to
)unfounded accusations of antisemitism addressed to Anthroposophy.
)Once again, it proves that in our superficial times, it is necessary
)to study the sources,the best mean to counter moronic state and lack
)of knowledge9.
This is possibly my favorite quote about Lorenzo Ravagli, one that nearly
always surfaces when less credulous anthroposophists question his remarkable
misreadings and errors. I hope that other Waldorf Critics listmates have had
a chance to look through Ravagli's commentary on the antisemitism question
(the one that Frank Thomas Smith is offering, in English, as a free e-book);
it truly is worth perusing as a monument to utter obliviousness.
)It is a non-sense to identify Rudolf Steiner with racism and
)antisemitism : to make such an affirmation proves a will to defame.
Well, that certainly would make things simpler, wouldn't it? Decide
beforehand that one possible outcome is allowable, whereas any other result
simply indicates defamatory intent. When you begin with that handy premise,
there's no need to examine what Steiner actually said and wrote; the
question answers itself automatically. This appears to be how most
anthroposophists approach the matter.
)Nowadays, many websites societies prohibit circulation of false
)informations and slanders and therefore deny access to sites
)spreading these accusations against Rudolf Steiner.
Wouldn't want impressionable readers to look into the subject themselves,
now would we? That might hinder the proper attitude of reverence....
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of slow downloads and busy signals? Get a high-speed Internet
connection! Comparison-shop your local high-speed providers here.
https://broadband.msn.com
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1193
-- Topica Digest --
re: Christian Science Monitor
By momof2gals mindspring.com
FW: Topica Exchange: Upcoming Maintenance
By Gary goodwinter.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:11:31 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: Christian Science Monitor
Jakob said:
However, even from the few posts which I have
read I get the impression that PLANS operates from a strangely naive
attitude
towards the issue of secular versus religious ( or idealogical) schools.
There
seems to be an unspoken assumption that secularism is not an ideology.
Lisa here: Hi, Jakob. I am just popping in here briefly to comment on what
you say above. (I would love also to comment on other things you said, but
cannot spend the time just now. Maybe later! (g))
Whether or not secularism is an "ideology" or not has little to nothing to
do with PLANS's agenda. PLANS's objective is not to engage in a
philosophical debate about secularism versus religious faith.
It is, rather, to let people know that Waldorf schools, despite their
claims to the contrary, are *religious* schools. Waldorf schools are based
on, and closely follow (in their curriculum, methodology, etc.) the tenets
of Anthroposophy, which is a religion. (Master Waldorf teacher Eugene
Schwartz commented once that Waldorf schools offer children "one religious
experience after another." Saying that out loud in public did not make Mr.
Schwartz very popular with his fellow Anthroposophers.)
Please note, as well, that PLANS is NOT an anti-religion group .. not at
all. Our aim is to inform people that Waldorf schools are religious schools
(we usually say the "parochial schools of Anthroposophy") and to make sure
that, as such, they are not operated in the public realm, which we assert is
a violation of the Constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and
state.
Bottom line: Waldorf schools are Anthroposophical (religious) schools and
need to come clean and make sure parents considering enrolling their
children know that. If Waldorf schools made sure that every parent who walks
through the doors understands that almost everything at the school -- from
the colors of the classroom walls to the snacks the children eat to the
curriculum to the way it is taught to when it is taught and more -- is based
on a religion called Anthroposophy, there would be far, far less public
criticism of Waldorf. In fact, I believe that if Waldorf schools announced,
loudly and clearly, what they believe, more people than ever would flock to
apply their children.
Unfortunately, that is not what happens in reality. In reality, the
schools tend to hide their religious nature, to deny it, etc.
Hence PLANS.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:10:57 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: FW: Topica Exchange: Upcoming Maintenance
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3153373863_267237_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
FYI...
----------
From: Topica Support (support get.topica.com)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:01:30 -0800
Subject: Topica Exchange: Upcoming Maintenance
Upcoming Downtime
Dear Topica Exchange User,
We would like to let you know that we will be doing routine system
maintenance this Saturday, December 6, 2003 starting at 9:00am PST (17:00
GMT) for approximately 24 hours.
During this period, you will not be able to access some of your lists,
however, any messages received will be queued for later delivery. Any
clicks on unsubscribe link in the messages will not be processed during the
maintenance period.
All functionality and data will be restored immediately after the
maintenance period.
Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
Topica Support Team
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1194
-- Topica Digest --
Re: talking about us
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
talking about us, the sequel
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Uwe Werner defense of Steiner
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Christian Science Monitor "Schools with a view"
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:11:22 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: talking about us
And speaking of history...
a fellow named "Tarjei" is quoted as saying (on another list):
) "Calling himself an anarchist, Peter S always insists that anthroposophy
is
) a fascist right wing ideology and that anthroposophists are, ipso facto,
) fascist right wingers. And of course he scoffs at the suggestion that RS
) could have been an anarchist."
to which Peter Staudenmaier replied here:
) Each of those claims is essentially the contrary of what I have said over
) and over again. But alas, accurate reading of critical commentary does not
) belong to the canon of anthroposophical virtues...
Why would Tarjei say something that is factually incorrect? I have been
reading this list for a couple of years now and I have not heard Peter
always insist that anthroposophy is a fascist right wing ideology. Nor have
I heard anthroposophists characterized as such. The anthroposophists I
know personally are definitely NOT right of centre.
Bewildered,
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 00:20:10 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: talking about us, the sequel
Our occasional correspondent Michael Helsher is itching for a fight
over on the "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" list.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/
)From: "Michael Helsher" (mhelsher n...)
)Date: Thu Dec 4, 2003
)Subject: Talking about us?
)
)Peter Peter pumkin eater is talking about us on the critics list!
)
)Oh the vanity of being included in the string of heavy-hitter
)seasoned participants that he mentions in a recent post at:
)http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read
)
)I feel like a star is born. Maybe I should sign up on that list
)again and act like a bonified all-knowing anthropop!
)
)ahh but alas, I'm afraid that my Steinerific lingo is not yet up to
)the task :^(
)
)Joel had a great idea over at the pool: that we all sign up all it
)once and overwhelm there defenses by shear force of numbers. Sharon
)is out of the picture lately so there defenses have been weakened. I
)propose that we quadruple team against Peter S.. Perhaps Tarjie (I
)know that you said that you would not participate on that list
)again, But for this event I think you should re-cant), Joel, Dottie
)and myself (taking on the smaller left over chunks of course) could
)tag-team. Frank and Sune can handle Dan. Sounds to me like Christen
)could handle Debra and Diana...
)
)Oh yes... I smell victory!
)
)"Cry Havoc!
)
)And let slip the dogs of war...
)
)Merrily
)
)Mike Helsher
Hey, Mike, c'mon back, and by all means bring your friends! We love a
good argument here.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:58:53 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Uwe Werner defense of Steiner
Peter Staudenmaeir wrote (regarding the Uwe Werner piece):
(snip)
During his lifetime Steiner was also an individualist, an
anarchist, an atheist, a rationalist, a Monist, a harsh critic of Theosophy,
and any number of other things. Of course he was also an anti-individualist,
an irrationalist, an opponent of anarchism and atheism and Monism, a
Theosophist, and so forth, at other points during his life. For some reason
it seems to be hard for anthroposophists to grasp that the same person can
be both a supporter of antisemitism and an opponent of antisemitism at
different points in his or her life.
(snip) (an interesting critique of the article) Thanks for taking the time
to shed light on this topic, Peter. I cut this particular bit because I can
relate to the person who can support and then oppose the same ideas at
different points of his or her life. In my case, it stems from a belief
that Waldorf Education was part of a greater social renewal I so desperately
sought for my family vis a vis a materialistic, consumer fed, plastic, sugar
(aspartame) coated world. So, I picked and chose my Steiner quotes like
cherries on a tree - conveniently ignoring the "bad ones." Unfortunately,
the bad ones are part of the tree and when I felt compelled to look down
deep at the roots... well, I got to know the tree and stopped eating
cherries altogether. A person can easily support something one day and
oppose it later on. I call it human nature. Why is this difficult for
some anthroposophists to understand?
Peter, while I do not have your grasp of history and the colourful
characters who dot the philosophical, political and spiritual landscape of
that time... I have no reason to doubt your knowledge of the subject. For
example, when Werner is quoted:
)As early as 1901, in view of the rising of
)antisemitism, he published about ten articles on the matter of the
)antisemitic stuggle in the renowned newspaper "Mittheilungen aus dem
)Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus"
And you reply:
"This is one of those give-aways that indicate that whoever wrote this piece
doesn't know what they're talking about. The number of articles Steiner
wrote for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus is
seven, all of them published during a four-month period in 1901. That can be
very easily ascertained from a brief glance at Steiner's Collected Works.
Moreover, the journal of the Abwehrverein was not the least bit renowned; it
was a marginal publication with little impact on public life, dwarfed by the
periodicals of mainstream German Jewish groups. Even at its height the
journal's circulation was tiny. This is very well-studied terrain, and it is
not difficult to find reliable scholarship about the Abwehrverein and its
public profile. None of this reflects poorly on Steiner, of course, but the
indifference toward historical facts does reflect poorly on his latter-day
followers."
I am hoping that someone with a different view than yours will back Werner
up with his claim. Much of this material is not anecdotal in nature. It is
factual. There are more examples in your critique that would make for a
very informative discussion, should someone care to share their knowledge
with the list. It seems that whenever we have a real opportunity to look
beyond the meditative stages of anthroposophy - I.e. the history of the
movement - a brief exchange occurs whereby either an ad homimem is launched
or the person opposing your view of history..simply leaves the list with
many questions still hanging in the air.
What is wrong with discussing history? What is right in avoiding history?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 00:05:54 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Christian Science Monitor "Schools with a view"
Jacob, it's a pleasure to hear a new voice speak up. You wrote,
)I've only joined this list recently so this post reflects a limited knowledge
)of the range of issues discussed. However, even from the few posts
)which I have
)read I get the impression that PLANS operates from a strangely naive attitude
)towards the issue of secular versus religious (or idealogical) schools. There
)seems to be an unspoken assumption that secularism is not an ideology. This is
)an extremely naive presupposition which takes into account neither the
)historical rise of the secular worldview, nor the profound philosophical
)problems involved in defending it.
I profess to be a secular humanist, and I have no problem if you call
that my religion. If there were secular humanist schools I'd
certainly support them, but we're such a small minority, we can't
afford to have our own schools.
)It is a fact that the majority of the great
)philosophers of the Western, not to mention the Eastern, tradition have been
)religious in some sense. While I agree with the view that Waldorf
)schools, like
)all other schools, should be transparent about their philosophical ( in this
)case "religious") foundations, I don't see why this should not apply to so
)called "secular" schools. From the perspective of an intelligent religious
)person, (I am not speaking here of fundamentalists), it is not only false, but
)dangerously misleading, for a secular school to promote itself as "neutral" or
)non-ideological. This is simply not the case. Only someone with a very limited
)grasp of the history of human thought can have an uncritical belief in the
)final validity of the theories which make up the current scientific picture of
)the world. In this sense, a school which teaches the Darwinian theory of
)evolution or the idea that all intelligent life evolved from insensate matter,
)is engaging in sophistry if it claims to be non-ideological. Of course much of
)what they teach may be true, but it is only a non-ideology to those
)who believe
)it uncritically.
I beg to differ with you. Scientific inquiry is compatible with all
the mainstream religions, world-wide. A minority of extreme sects,
for example some Evangelical Christians and Anthroposophists, dispute
scientific knowledge, but most religions have made peace with the
obvious. It's ironic that you distance yourself from
"fundamentalists," but the argument you make is one that they favor.
Here's an article that's in a pamphlet distributed by Americans
United for Separation of Church and State:
)excerpt from http://www.au.org/resources/MythvFact/TenMyths.htm
)
)MYTH: The Supreme Court has declared that Secular Humanism is a
)religion, and Secular Humanism is the established religion of the
)public schools.
)
)In a footnote to the Supreme Court's 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins
)decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "Among religions in this country
)which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in
)the existence of God is Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular
)Humanism, and others." The Torcaso case dealt with religious tests
)for public office; it had nothing to do with public schools. The
)justice's comment is far from a finding that humanism is being
)taught in the schools.
)
)The Supreme Court and lower federal courts have ruled repeatedly
)that public schools and other government agencies may not establish
)"a religion of secularism" any more than they can promote any other
)religious viewpoint. The courts have decreed that public schools
)must be religiously neutral. Government neutrality toward religion
)is not the same thing as government hostility toward religion. They
)are synonymous only in the view of Religious Right groups that label
)as hostility any action by government that does not favor their
)beliefs.
)
)Furthermore, the percentage of Americans who call themselves secular
)humanists is very small. It is not possible that such a minuscule
)group could take control of the entire public school system, which
)is highly decentralized and controlled by local school boards chosen
)by the voters or their representatives. "Secular humanism" is a
)bogeyman the Religious Right uses to attack public education.
JACOB
)In short, I simply cannot see why so called "secular" schools
)deserve public funding any more than Waldorf schools, or for that matter,
)Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist or Islamic schools. It is up to parents to decide
)what sort of foundation their children's education is to be based on. But I
)cannot see the justification for thinking that the state should support one
)"ideology", namely, secularism or naturalism, at the expense of
)others. I would
)be interested to hear the opinions of PLANS members on this.
I agree with you completely that public funding of schools based on
secular humanist ideology would violate the Establishment Clause of
the U.S. constitution in the same way that public funding of Waldorf,
Jewish, etc. schools would. But non-religious schools, which include
all public schools and some private schools, aren't secular humanist
schools.
)To the extent
)that certain Waldorf schools have been guilty of deception concerning their
)pedagogical foundations, I think you are right in asking for transparency.
)Unfortunately, it seems to me that PLANS is motivated by more than this. There
)certainly seems to be a sense that the members of PLANS see themselves as
)speaking from a "neutral", non sectarian or non-idelogical standpoint. But no
)one has given any convincing argument that this is in fact the case.
I'm not neutral about religion myself, but PLANS aims to be. You're
welcome to question the board members who participate here in search
of evidence that PLANS is or is not neutral, nonsectarian and
non-ideological. Our board includes secular humanists, members of
mainstream religions, and a prominent Evangelical Christian. I don't
see how such a religiously diverse group could agree on our mission
if we were not neutral about religion.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1195
-- Topica Digest --
Article about Waldorf math in French
By dan dandugan.com
Re: talking about us
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 10:52:21 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Article about Waldorf math in French
In the Quebec paper Le Devoir today:
http://www.ledevoir.com/2003/12/06/42279.html
Les maths à la sauce nouvel âge
Les écoles Waldorf, que plusieurs aimeraient voir se multiplier au
Québec, soulèvent plus que leur part de controverse en Amérique du
Nord
Agence Science-Presse
...dition du samedi 6 et du dimanche 7 décembre 2003
Mots clés : Québec (province), ...ducation, mathématiques, waldorf
« Un, deux, trois, quatre. Cinq, six, sept, huit. » Ils étaient une
dizaine d'adultes, en rond, à compter tout haut, à culbuter leur
petit sac de sable de la main gauche (neuf) à la main droite (dix),
puis à la gauche (onze), pour le passer au voisin de droite (douze).
Avec ce ballet, des parents expérimentaient... la table de
multiplications de quatre. Du moins telle qu'elle aurait pu être
enseignée à leur petit s'ils l'avaient envoyé en première année dans
une école à pédagogie Waldorf.
Caractéristique dominante de cette pédagogie : « les rythmes de
développement » des enfants. C'est ainsi qu'on n'enseigne que par le
jeu et l'imitation aux moins de sept ans... parce que l'âme n'a pas
encore intégré le corps. De 7 à 14 ans, on mise sur l'oralité. Contes
de fées, légendes et mythes sont alors à l'honneur des cours
d'histoire... et de biologie !
Les mathématiques sont également revues à travers le tricot.
L'histoire, par un modelage en cire d'abeille. L'idée étant que les
matières de l'après-midi -- comme le jardinage, les travaux manuels
ou l'artisanat -- consolident les apprentissages du matin. Ici, pas
de manuels scolaires. Pas d'ordinateurs ni de médias électroniques
avant le secondaire parce qu'on est convaincu que ceux-ci « briment
l'imagination » des jeunes.
Une demande a été présentée aux commissions scolaires de Montréal et
Marguerite-Bourgeoys afin d'implanter « la première école publique à
vocation particulière basée sur la pédagogie Waldorf à Montréal ».
Après avoir étudié le projet, appelé ...lan Waldorf Montréal, les deux
commissions scolaires ont décliné la demande pour les rentrées de
septembre 2002 et 2003. La Commission scolaire de Montréal n'offrait
que des locaux à partager alors qu'...lan Waldorf tenait à une école
entièrement dédiée à « sa » pédagogie. Marguerite-Bourgeoys
justifiait son choix par la réforme scolaire, qui requiert toute
l'attention du personnel, mais ce n'est que partie remise : le
dossier Waldorf demeure sur sa liste des projets à étudier. Et ...lan
Waldorf poursuit son projet d'ouvrir une école pour septembre 2003.
Au cours de l'été 2002, onze parents ont tenté, au cours de séances
d'information de trois heures, de convaincre d'autres parents de
rallier leur cause. L'atmosphère s'avérait plutôt chaleureuse et
familiale. La salle soupirait d'envie lorsque trois anciens Waldorf,
dans la vingtaine, se souvenaient du climat « non concurrentiel » des
classes (pas d'examens notés au primaire). Mais les questions étaient
soigneusement évitées. Au cours des trois heures, consacrées en
grande partie à des contes, des mises en situation et des chansons),
personne n'a prononcé le mot « anthroposophie ». On n'en fait aucune
mention non plus dans les 23 pages du document remis aux commissions
scolaires en novembre 2001. C'est pourtant derrière ce terme que se
dissimule toute la philosophie créée en 1919 par le fondateur des
écoles Waldorf, Rudolf Steiner (voir autre texte).
Imbibant l'ensemble de la démarche scolaire, l'anthroposophie reprend
entre autres la thèse de la réincarnation et du karma. Les « rythmes
de développement » de l'enfant sont basés sur l'arrivée successive de
trois « corps » qui, selon Steiner, composent l'être humain : le
corps physique, qui s'incarne à la naissance, suivi du « corps
éthérique » à la chute des dents (vers sept ans) et du « corps astral
», qui provoque la puberté, à 14 ans. Steiner était convaincu que les
humains ont déjà vécu en Atlantide et vont un jour vivre sur Vénus,
Jupiter et Vulcain ( ?) lorsque, dans une vie future, ils auront
atteint un stade plus élevé de ce « développement ».
« Les enfants n'entendent pas directement parler de réincarnation.
Mais la pédagogie est basée sur ce fait », reconnaît Vincent Breton,
fondateur de l'association Rudolf Steiner de Québec. Cette
association anthroposophique tente depuis 20 ans de lancer une école
privée Waldorf à Québec. Dès 1994, elle a organisé un congrès
d'information sur la pédagogie Waldorf et l'anthroposophie. Sans
blâmer le silence qu'...lan Waldorf Montréal choisit de garder au sujet
de l'anthroposophie, Vincent Breton se dit favorable à ce que les
parents sachent que le projet est directement relié à cette
philosophie et y inscrivent leurs enfants en toute connaissance de
cause plutôt que de le découvrir après coup.
Un enfant sans âme
Selon M. Breton, lui-même père de quatre enfants, si les lettres sont
assimilées en deuxième année plutôt qu'en première, c'est parce que
l'esprit, qui vivait avant la naissance de l'enfant, n'a pas encore
fini de « s'incarner dans son corps physique ».
« On nous a parlé du développement de l'enfant mais jamais que l'âme
s'incarne à l'âge de sept ans », s'insurge un père qui a retiré ses
deux enfants de l'école privée Rudolf-Steiner dans les années 90 --
la seule école Waldorf dans l'île de Montréal -- et désire demeurer
anonyme. Comme les enfants ne rapportent pas de devoirs à la maison,
les parents ignorent ce qui se passe réellement. Lorsque ce père a
parcouru les ouvrages anthroposophiques de la bibliothèque de
l'école, il a déchanté.
Il se rappelle les rencontres avec les professeurs : « Tout est très
contrôlé. Le professeur parle. On ne pose pas de questions. »
Les professeurs, eux, entendent bel et bien parler d'anthroposophie.
Ils complètent leur certification d'enseignement du Québec par une
formation spéciale de un à trois ans, en Californie, en France, au
séminaire de formation de l'école Rudolf Steiner de Montréal ou au
Rudolf Steiner Centre à Thornhill, en Ontario. Sur son site Internet,
on peut lire qu'ils font un « travail intensif en anthroposophie pour
une éducation en profondeur », qu'ils étudient la « sagesse dans les
contes de fées » ou qu'ils apprennent l'existence de « douze sens ».
Yves Casgrain, ex-directeur de la recherche à Info-Secte et auteur
d'un livre sur les sectes, prépare actuellement un ouvrage sur les
écoles Waldorf. La somme de trois ans d'entrevues avec des
professeurs de nombreuses écoles privées : « On leur conseille
d'être évasif, de savoir à qui parler et quoi taire. » Sans qualifier
l'anthroposophie de sectaire, Yves Casgrain rapporte des propos d'un
ancien étudiant : « Si je décidais de pratiquer l'anthroposophie à
nouveau, ce serait via l'eurythmie [la "science du mouvement"], qui
est un moyen d'entrer en contact avec l'au-delà. » Ce même élève lui
racontait aussi qu'à l'école, on maintient que « quand on fait des
maths, il y a des anges qui se promènent dans la classe ».
Même si, poursuit Yves Casgrain, « le but de ces écoles n'est pas de
transformer les jeunes en anthroposophes », la pédagogie a un
caractère « initiatique » : « Les professeurs ont une vision à long
terme : préparer l'enfant à son karma et l'outiller pour ses futures
vies, dans trois ou quatre vies. C'est plus ou moins à l'insu des
parents. »
Le fait que les organisateurs d'...lan Montréal soient si discrets sur
la philosophie de Rudolf Steiner s'explique peut-être par le fait
qu'ils ont déjà eu maille à partir avec les médias. Depuis 1998, les
parents de l'école La Roselière de Chambly observent un moratoire de
silence. À l'époque, la ministre Pauline Marois n'avait pas voulu
renouveler le permis d'établissement à vocation particulière :
l'école n'utilisait pas de matériel didactique approuvé, son
directeur était aussi le commissaire et certains parents étaient
partis, choqués par son caractère ésotérique (dont une prière au
soleil). Une mère se plaignait que l'orthopédagogue avait suggéré un
traitement à sa fille gauchère pour qu'elle écrive de la main droite.
Pour l'instant, la seule école Waldorf primaire et secondaire dans
l'île de Montréal, l'école Rudolf Steiner, est donc une école privée.
Il existe trois écoles primaires publiques au Québec, à Waterville,
Victoriaville et Chambly. L'une d'elles a été mentionnée à quelques
reprises dans l'actualité lorsque Louis Taillefer, spécialiste des
supraconducteurs à l'Université de Sherbrooke, a récolté les honneurs
dans le milieu scientifique et en a profité pour souligner que ses
enfants y sont inscrits (voir autre texte). Il existe également des
jardins d'enfants, dont L'Oiseau d'or à Montréal. Chaque fois, les
promoteurs de l'école sont les parents, comme M. Taillefer.
Depuis un an et demi, près d'une dizaine d'initiatives convergent
pour relancer la défunte Association pour la pédagogie Waldorf au
Québec. L'école de Chambly souhaite élargir son enseignement au
secondaire. D'autres travaillent à s'implanter en Abitibi, à
Adamsville et dans des quartiers de Montréal. À Québec, des parents
anthroposophes ont tenu une conférence publique en janvier. « Depuis
que des parents sont les maîtres d'oeuvre avec les conseils
d'établissement, explique Vincent Breton, on voit de plus en plus de
ces initiatives pour un enseignement différent. » ...lan Waldorf
Montréal compte aussi reprendre ses conférences publiques.
Steiner et l'anthroposophie
Décrit tour à tour comme un scientifique, un philosophe, un artiste
et un pédagogue, l'Autrichien Rudolf Steiner a vécu de 1861 à 1925.
Mais il se disait aussi doué de clairvoyance. En 1913, il quitte la
section allemande de théosophie -- dont il emprunte certains dogmes
comme la réincarnation -- pour fonder une nouvelle discipline,
l'anthroposophie.
Selon cette croyance, des humains existent sous forme d'esprit depuis
la création du monde ; ils ont progressé à travers diverses étapes,
dont celle de l'Atlantide, et ont engendré les animaux.
Les contes de fées, l'Ancien Testament, la mythologie nordique et
l'étude des civilisations indienne, persane, égyptienne et grecque
prennent une tout autre signification quand on lit Steiner. « Pour
obtenir une efficacité, il est essentiel de croire en ces paraboles
comme des réalités absolues », écrit-il dans Education Of The Child
In The Light Of Anthroposophia.
Dans 40 livres et 6000 conférences, Steiner a détaillé ce qu'il
affirme être les applications de l'anthroposophie, dont une médecine
anthroposophique, où se mélangent des relents d'arts et
d'homéopathie, et une agriculture biodynamique, dont il subsiste
plusieurs associations aujourd'hui. Mais la plus connue des
applications, ce sont ces écoles Waldorf, du nom de l'usine de
cigarette Waldorf-Astoria, où Steiner a créé sa pédagogie en 1919.
Plus de 850 écoles et de 1200 à 2000 jardins d'enfants l'utilisent à
travers le monde.
Poursuites aux ...tats-Unis
PLANS, People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools, un groupe basé en
Californie, poursuit actuellement en justice deux écoles publiques
Waldorf américaines. Il recense sur son site des enseignements
douteux qu'il attribue à l'anthroposophie : les planètes
influenceraient la croissance des plantes, les ...gyptiens auraient
déplacé les blocs des pyramides avec le pouvoir du son. « On a
enseigné à mon garçon que Newton avait tort quand il disait que le
spectre de la lumière était composé de plusieurs couleurs. Et un
professeur m'a dit que le coeur ne pompait pas le sang », affirme Dan
Dugan, un des membres de PLANS, renvoyé d'une école de San Francisco
à la fin des années 80 parce qu'il posait trop de questions.
Le 10 février dernier, la poursuite de PLANS a été jugée valide par
une cour d'appel de Californie. PLANS allègue qu'en utilisant des
fonds publics pour faire la promotion de l'anthroposophie, l'école
viole une règle de base de la Constitution américaine, qui dit que la
religion n'a pas sa place dans les écoles publiques.
Le fait de n'autoriser que peu ou pas de questions lors des séances
de recrutement est typique, selon M. Dugan. « Tout est programmé. Les
parents sont invités à jouer les étudiants. Ça les intimide, évitant
ainsi des questions adultes et des discussions. »
L'AWSNA, l'association des écoles et instituts Waldorf en Amérique du
Nord, vend sur son site Internet des livres qui expliquent en quoi la
mythologie nordique explique le futur de l'évolution humaine. L'AWSNA
fait également l'objet d'une poursuite pour racisme et
discrimination, une accusation qui colle depuis longtemps à
l'anthroposophie.
Isabelle Roberge, Agence Science-Presse
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:03:29 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: talking about us
In my ongoing study of Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education, I have been
trying to make sense of the roots. The debate between Peter Staudenmaier
and anthroposophists is fascinating. Yes, it involves some work in peeling
off various layers of "Steiner said... no he never...." but gradually I
find that the more I dig, the more earth can be shaken from those roots for
all to see. The problem I still find is one of substance, logic and perhaps
semantics.
When I read Peter's articles, I find myself nodding and understanding what
he is saying. I am looking objectively for a logical argument to counter
what he has written. Seriously. When I read some other arguments
countering his understanding of historical events (anthroposophic roots, in
this case) I am usually left wondering if the writer is referring to Peter's
piece or something entirely different. I appreciate the time all these
people have put into the debate but I still do not understand how two (or
more) people can talk - ostensibly - about the same subject from such
completely different angles.
It's like someone at le Louvre admires a painting and speaks about the
artist to a fellow art lover beside him... who digests the words and agrees
that baseball is a fine game, indeed. What the...?
I stumbled on something today which lit a light bulb here at Walden Pond.
This one sentence by Tarjei from his web site (who is monitoring this list)
might well be the missing link I so very much wanted to find. Here's the
deal: One person views history as, well... history in the mainstream sense -
while the other views it as occultism. Tarjei, from his site:
"...I told Peter Staudenmaier that the roots of anthroposophy are to be
found in the spiritual world, and that in order to understand this properly,
an occult conception of historical events must be taken into consideration."
Eureka. I think I understand the problem.
I take it then, that facts, dates, etc. are of little importance when
history is studied with an "occult conception of historical events." This
is the only conclusion I can draw. I am grateful for this clarification vis
a vis "history" and "history via occultism." I must add, however, that I
have peeked at the Anthroposophy Tomorrow list (a public list) and I find
the language quite harsh and the judgements of Waldorf critics to be
unwarranted and rude. I am critical of Waldorf Education but am not part of
any "smear campaign" and I do not consider Peter or Dan to be "cowards."
Surely, we can discuss the topic without ad hominems?
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1196
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Uwe Werner defense of Steiner
By pstaud hotmail.com
Mother Sues Private School over Daughter's Progress
By dan dandugan.com
Private school let girl fall behind, suit says
By dan dandugan.com
Re: talking about us
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Uwe Werner defense of Steiner
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:22:00 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Uwe Werner defense of Steiner
Hi Walden,
thanks for your posts. I really appreciate your insights into what it's like
to encounter anthroposophical projects and then come to terms with critical
perspectives on those projects. You brought up a number of very interesting
issues that I think ought to be talked about more often. I'd like to address
a couple of them here. By the way, Tarjei Straume responded to your messages
with several posts to the anthroposophy tomorrow list. The moderator of that
list argued for avoiding an extended list-vs-list exchange, which I find
reasonable, and it sounds like they have invited interested critics to join
their list, so that might be the best place for a direct reply to Tarjei.
Thus I'll try to stick to more general themes here. You wrote:
)(snip) (an interesting critique of the article) Thanks for taking the time
)to shed light on this topic, Peter. I cut this particular bit because I
)can
)relate to the person who can support and then oppose the same ideas at
)different points of his or her life.
It seems to me that most thinking people can relate to this dynamic; who
hasn't changed their minds on important questions in the course of their
lives? I think the reason that many anthroposophists have a hard time
recognizing this in Steiner's case is that they see Steiner as a figure who
transcends history, who wasn't subject to the same human circumstances as
the rest of us. It's hard to understand the historical development of a
person from the past when you view that person as standing outside of
history.
) So, I picked and chose my Steiner quotes like
)cherries on a tree - conveniently ignoring the "bad ones."
This is the approach that a lot of believers take to their own tradition.
It's fine to do that within one's own circles -- for example, when
christians argue with other christians about what true christianity is, it
makes sense for each of them to pick and choose those quotes that they feel
express the genuine essence of christian belief -- but it is foolish to
follow this approach in public discussions with people who do not share the
same tradition. It isn't really all that difficult to keep this simple
difference in mind; when I talk about green politics with people who are
deeply suspicious of radical environmentalism, for example, I don't try to
convince them that my particular version of green thinking is the only one
or the main one or the true and genuine one, and I don't dismiss their
criticisms of other variants of green thinking simply because those variants
differ from my own. I think that public discussions of anthroposophy would
be much easier if anthroposophists would re-consider their attitude toward
outside inquiry, and acknowledge that the "bad" Steiner quotes belong just
as much to the anthroposophical tradition as the "good" ones.
)Peter, while I do not have your grasp of history and the colourful
)characters who dot the philosophical, political and spiritual landscape of
)that time... I have no reason to doubt your knowledge of the subject.
I'd like to encourage you to doubt my arguments on the subject, if not my
knowledge of the subject. I think that historical knowledge is furthered by
doubt, skepticism, and taking a second look (and sometimes a third and a
fourth look) at controversial topics. What troubles me about
anthroposophical responses to my work is that they frequently refuse to
engage with the historical questions at hand -- instead of challenging my
characterization of Jacobowski, for example, or my depiction of the Verein
zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus, many anthroposophists pull back into their
shells and insist that Steiner couldn't possibly have held disagreeable
beliefs, because this would contradict their view of Steiner as transcendant
spiritual teacher rather than human historical figure.
)I am hoping that someone with a different view than yours will back Werner
)up with his claim. Much of this material is not anecdotal in nature. It
)is
)factual. There are more examples in your critique that would make for a
)very informative discussion, should someone care to share their knowledge
)with the list.
Yes, very much so. In fact in this case much of the best scholarship is
available in English. On the history of the Abwehrverein, including the
question of how widely read its journal was, there are several excellent
sources, among them Ismar Schorsch's standard work Jewish Reactions to
German Anti-Semitism 1870-1914; Uriel Tal's classic Christians and Jews in
Germany; and the very thorough two-part article series by Barbara Suchy,
"The Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus", Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 29
and 30 (1984 and 1985). This represents the basic recognized historical
scholarship on the organization, and anybody writing about it would do well
to consult these works. That Uwe Werner (or whoever wrote that article that
Dan forwarded) evidently failed to do so is very telling indeed. It would be
absolutely delightful if some anthroposophist out there would take the time
to study these sources and construct a counter-argument to the one I have
put forward. Since Schorsch's book is probably the easiest for
non-specialists to come by, I'll quote a few relevant passages here:
Chapter three of Schorsch's study is titled "Help from Outside: Verein zur
Abwehr des Antisemitismus, 1891-1914". Schorsch describes the Abwehrverein
as "a Christian defense organization" (p. 80), since it was founded by
liberal Christians in response to the rise of organized political
antisemitism, and he examines the deep-seated ambivalence that many German
Jews felt toward the very notion of defending themselves against the
onslaught of increasingly militant antisemites. Schorsch then discusses the
organization's journal, the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des
Antisemitismus, on pages 85-86. He emphasizes the journal's "limited
effectiveness", and notes that less than half of the organization's own
memberhsip even subscribed to the journal; he gives a circulation figure of
6,000, hardly an impressive number in Germany at that time. With a reach
that small, and with the majority of members of its own already small
organization declining to subscribe to it, it makes little sense to describe
the journal as "renowned".
I also strongly encourage interested anthroposophical readers to consult
Schorsch's discussion of Steiner's friend Jacobowski; see pp. 47-48 and
94-95 as well as the associated footnotes. Other excellent sources on
Jacobowski in English include Sander Gilman, Jewish Self-hatred:
Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews; Ritchie Robertson, The
'Jewish Question' in German Literature; and Katherine Roper, German
Encounters with Modernity.
) It seems that whenever we have a real opportunity to look
)beyond the meditative stages of anthroposophy - I.e. the history of the
)movement - a brief exchange occurs whereby either an ad homimem is launched
)or the person opposing your view of history..simply leaves the list with
)many questions still hanging in the air.
)
)What is wrong with discussing history? What is right in avoiding history?
Avoiding history often indicates that people have something to hide,
something they would rather not examine. In the case of many of the
anthroposophists I have tried to engage with, the avoidance seems to have
very powerful roots, roots that I don't understand particularly well. I
would like to second your invitation to any and all anthroposophists to
challenge, correct, and expand the historical claims that I have made here,
in the hope of generating an informed discussion of the history of Steiner
and the movement he founded.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Shop online for kids’ toys by age group, price range, and toy category at
MSN Shopping. No waiting for a clerk to help you! http://shopping.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:33:44 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Mother Sues Private School over Daughter's Progress
From the web site of KARE in Minneapolis:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news-article.asp?NEWS_ID=56194
Mother Sues Private School over Daughter's Progress
A concerned mother has filed a lawsuit against a private school
in Minneapolis claiming the school was responsible for her daughter's
inadequate educational progress.
Anna Bronson said she had to spend "considerable monies" on
tutoring a couple of years ago after she discovered her fifth-grade
daughter at the City of Lakes Waldorf School was doing math and
reading at a third-grade level.
She is claiming breach of contract and seeking more than $33,000.
"Basically Waldorf knew that the child was falling behind grade
level and they made promises to address the situation and provide
necessary remedial educational services," Bronson's attorney, Deborah
Weber, said.
"Ultimately they did nothing" to fix the problem, she said.
School administrator Frances Kane said the school has denied the
allegations.
The school is one of more than 150 affiliated Waldorf schools in
North America and several hundred worldwide. The approach stresses
imagination, creativity and hands-on experiences. Waldorf students
may progress at different rates than public school students, the
Association of Waldorf Schools of North America says on its Web site.
Bronson's lawsuit claims that in 2001, at the beginning of her
daughter's fifth-grade year, the school told unhappy parents that it
would form a tutoring group to "correct deficiencies in the students'
educational skill set" and promised Bronson's daughter a spot in it.
But the girl wasn't included when the group was formed, nor did
the school form a second promised tutoring group after a benefactor
donated money for it, the lawsuit said.
Bronson said her daughter now attends public school.
(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Last Updated - 12/6/2003 9:47:05 AM
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:36:25 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Private school let girl fall behind, suit says
From the web site of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4252139.html
Private school let girl fall behind, suit says
Pam Louwagie, Star Tribune
Published December 6, 2003
Parents who enroll their children at the private City of Lakes
Waldorf School in Minneapolis probably know they won't be getting a
conventional education.
Along with traditional topics, the curriculum includes knitting,
clowning and fairy tales. They're part of teaching methods that some
people swear by, spending thousands each year to educate their
children in them.
But when one mom discovered a couple of years ago that her
fifth-grade daughter at the school was doing math and reading at a
third-grade level, she apparently thought the school wasn't doing its
job.
Anna Bronson sued the school recently, claiming its "pedagogical
negligence" was responsible for her daughter's inadequate progress.
She is claiming breach of contract and seeking more than $33,000,
saying she had to spend "considerable monies" on tutoring to bring
her daughter up to grade level.
"Basically Waldorf knew that the child was falling behind grade level
and they made promises to address the situation and provide necessary
remedial educational services," Bronson's attorney, Deborah Weber,
said. "Ultimately they did nothing" to fix the problem, she said.
School administrator Frances Kane said the school has denied the allegations.
Bronson said she now thinks the problems started in third grade. Part
of the money is to recover tuition, she said. The school's Web site
lists tuition for grades 1 through 8 at $7,255 a year. Bronson said
her daughter now attends public school.
The school, at 2344 Nicollet Av. S., is one of more than 150
affiliated Waldorf schools in North America and several hundred
worldwide. The approach stresses imagination, creativity and hands-on
experiences.
Waldorf students may progress at different rates than public school
students, the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America says on
its Web site. The schools, which are independently run, may also vary
slightly in their progress schedules, said James Pewtherer, spokesman
for the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America. Sarah Karon,
whose two daughters attend the school, said she sees genius in the
teaching methods.
"It uses the childrens' own talents and experiences to immerse them
in the lessons," said Karon, who joined the school's board last
summer. "It's just a different kind of timing than you might see at
most other schools."
Bronson's suit claims that in 2001, at the beginning of Akeena
Bronson's fifth-grade year, the school told unhappy parents that it
would form a tutoring group to "correct deficiencies in the students'
educational skill set" and promised Bronson's daughter a spot in it.
But the girl wasn't included when the group was formed, nor did the
school form a second promised tutoring group after a benefactor
donated money for it, the suit said.
Though unfamiliar with Bronson's suit, education law attorneys said
such lawsuits against schools are rare and don't often proceed in
court because it's difficult to pinpoint blame.
But parents shelling out cash for a private education may have
contract expectations, they said.
"When a parent sends a child to a private school, it does constitute
a a contract," argues attorney Phil Villaume, who teaches education
law at St. Thomas University.
Pam Louwagie is at
)plouwagie startribune.com.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:06:33 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: talking about us
Hi again Walden, you wrote in your other posts:
)Why would Tarjei say something that is factually incorrect? I have been
)reading this list for a couple of years now and I have not heard Peter
)always insist that anthroposophy is a fascist right wing ideology. Nor
)have
)I heard anthroposophists characterized as such. The anthroposophists I
)know personally are definitely NOT right of centre.
I think the problem here is mixing up specifc statements with general
statements. When I write that many German, Swiss, and Austrian
anthroposophists in the 1920's and 1930's shared a number of right-wing
beliefs, some latter-day anthroposophists think I am saying that all
anthroposophists everywhere and at all times have been rightwingers. While
there are certainly right-wing anthroposophists today, including a number of
neo-fascist anthroposophists (mostly followers of Werner Haverbeck, the most
important post-war far-right anthroposophist), it appears that most
contemporary anthroposophists in the contexts that I know well, including
Germany and the United States, are more or less liberal or left-leaning. At
the same time, many of them seem indifferent at best toward the reactionary
aspects of Steiner's teachings. This has been a basic assumption of my work
on anthroposophy all along. The whole reason I find the movement interesting
is that it recapitulates the kinds of left-right crossover that I study in
late 19th and early 20th century central Europe. That is, for example, why
the unexamined racial thinking embedded within anthroposophy is important,
in my view.
)I appreciate the time all these
)people have put into the debate but I still do not understand how two (or
)more) people can talk - ostensibly - about the same subject from such
)completely different angles.
I experience this a lot, especially with other historians. The past is
complex territory, and the evidence that happens to come down to us is often
contradictory. But I think something else is involved when the topic of
Steiner arises, namely a specifically anthroposophical reluctance to accept
the basic standards of historical investigation. I don't really know any way
to get around this reluctance, but I think it will have to change before we
can reasonably expect fruitful dialogue between anthroposophists and outside
scholars.
)I stumbled on something today which lit a light bulb here at Walden Pond.
)This one sentence by Tarjei from his web site (who is monitoring this list)
)might well be the missing link I so very much wanted to find. Here's the
)deal: One person views history as, well... history in the mainstream sense
)-
)while the other views it as occultism. Tarjei, from his site:
)
)"...I told Peter Staudenmaier that the roots of anthroposophy are to be
)found in the spiritual world, and that in order to understand this
)properly,
)an occult conception of historical events must be taken into
)consideration."
Yes, that is one of several factors that make it virtually impossible for
anthroposophists who share this view to understand what I write about their
movement. There is no such thing as "an occult conception of historical
events", and even if there were, historians would be obligated to disregard
it as incompatible with scholarly methods. The most capable scholarly
analysts of occult movements, from Goodrick-Clarke to Webb to Godwin to
Gardell, carefully avoid taking occultist narratives at face value,
particularly regarding historical questions.
)I take it then, that facts, dates, etc. are of little importance when
)history is studied with an "occult conception of historical events." This
)is the only conclusion I can draw. I am grateful for this clarification
)vis
)a vis "history" and "history via occultism."
Some occultists have a veritable fetish for dates, but usually a limited
capacity for distinguishing fact from fancy. They are also frequently
credulous toward obviously unreliable sources. All of this makes public
discussion difficult. It is nevertheless important to try to comprehend how
they view their own history in their own terms, but it is a serious mistake
to confuse this with the actual historical background. Because Steiner was
himself a committed occultist, understanding his teachings is a doubly
complicated affair, and in this respect a certain amount of interpretation
is inevitable. But on more straightforward matters of fact, such as which
Nazis said what about anthroposophy at which times, or how many articles
Steiner published in which periodicals during which period of his life, the
historical record just isn't that ambiguous. It is on these latter questions
that most anthroposophist explanations so clearly fail. I hope that this
will eventually change, but I can't say I'm all that optimistic.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t worry if your Inbox will max out while you are enjoying the holidays.
Get MSN Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:17:23 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Uwe Werner defense of Steiner
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)It seems to me that most thinking people can relate to this dynamic;
)who hasn't changed their minds on important questions in the course
)of their lives? I think the reason that many anthroposophists have a
)hard time recognizing this in Steiner's case is that they see
)Steiner as a figure who transcends history, who wasn't subject to
)the same human circumstances as the rest of us. It's hard to
)understand the historical development of a person from the past when
)you view that person as standing outside of history.
There's also the fact that Steiner said (or, rather, pretended) that
he had always been talking about Anthroposophy and never changed his
mind.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1197
-- Topica Digest --
Some Questions for Peter Staudenmaier.
By jzig6318 mail.usyd.edu.au
RE: Some Questions for Peter Staudenmaier.
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Some Questions for Peter Staudenmaier.
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Some Questions for Peter Staudenmaier.
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Uwe Werner defense of Steiner
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Un physicien parmi les parents
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:00:44 +1100
From: jzig6318 mail.usyd.edu.au
Subject: Some Questions for Peter Staudenmaier.
Hello Peter Staudenmaier,
I have just joined the list so this post will contain some fairly basic
questions about your position in relation to Steiner and the question of right
wing, fascist, anti-semitic and racial doctrines. I hope you'll excuse me if
these issues have been dealt with in earlier posts. I am very interested in the
issue but present study commitments ( I am working on a PhD in philosophy) make
it difficult for me to take the time to get a comprehensive overview of the
history of this particular debate. Because of this I would rather have your
current perspective directly.
1) What exactly is your project as far as Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy are
concerned? What exactly are your accusations and who exactly are they directed
to? Since your comments seem to range from discussions of Steiner's own views,
particularly as these appear in his lectures and published writings, to
discussions of the ideas of particular anthroposophists, I am unclear as to
whether you are attempting to argue that Steiner himself was right leaning,
racist and/or anti-semitic, or that certain anthroposophists were. Or is it
both? Obviously there is a big difference between these two claims. If you were
making a claim about the racial and political views of individual
anthroposophists, then in order to prove that these questionable views were
specifically anthroposophical as opposed to being simply the personal views of
people who happened to call themselves anthroposophists, you would have to
demonstrate an indubitable link between these racial theories and Rudolf
Steiner's own work. You would also have to clarify what you mean by
"anthroposophy". If you simply meant the belief system of anyone who calls
themselves an anthroposophist and claims to represent the ideas of Rudolf
Steiner than this would be a highly contentious claim. As a Christian I do not
recognise those guilty of participating in the Inquisition as representatives
of the teachings of Christ, despite the fact that they might have seen
themselves as such, and been recognised as such by others. Obviously this is a
debatable point. But I am simply pointing out that it is obviously the case
that being part of a group in the external sense of being a formal member, or
claiming to represent it faithfully is not equivalent to actually being a
faithful representative. Holding Christianity responsible for the Inquisition
is only possible if you can show conclusively that the practices of the
Inquisition follow from the basic principles of the Christian religion. Since
Christianity has a history, this would obviously also include dealing with the
issue whether the particular brand of "Christianity" practiced by members of
the Church at the time was " Christianity" at all. Obviously the issue is
extremely complex. What I am pointing out is that if you have accusations to
make about anthroposophy you need to give some account of what you take that
term to cover, including giving a reasoned defence of your use of the term.
2) From the few posts of yours that I have read, I get the impression that you
are making accusations of anti-semitism and or racism against both Steiner and
individual anthroposophists. The implication seems to be that this alleged
racism and/or anti-semitism is somehow essential to the anthroposophical
world-view and thus that there is a clear relationship between the thought of
Rudolf Steiner and someone like, for example, Werner Haverbeck, whom you
characterise as " the most important post-war far-right anthroposophist". Is
this a fair reading of your position? More precisely, are you claiming that the
views of an individual with extreme right wing racist and nationalist
sentiments e.g. Haverbeck are representative of Anthroposophy as this is
represented in the works of Rudolf Steiner? I want to get clear about this, in
particular, I want to get clear about your position on the question of degrees.
Are you claiming that all the anthroposophists who you see as having
questionable opinions on racial issues, including Rudolf Steiner, belong in the
same category in terms of the degree of their purported racism?
3) I realise that deal with some of this in your recent post but I want to get
absolutely clear about it. In the recent post you deny that you are making a
blanket statement about all anthroposophists. I quote:
" When I write that many German, Swiss, and Austrian
anthroposophists in the 1920's and 1930's shared a number of right-wing
beliefs, some latter-day anthroposophists think I am saying that all
anthroposophists everywhere and at all times have been rightwingers. While
there are certainly right-wing anthroposophists today, including a number of
neo-fascist anthroposophists (mostly followers of Werner Haverbeck, the most
important post-war far-right anthroposophist), it appears that most
contemporary anthroposophists in the contexts that I know well, including
Germany and the United States, are more or less liberal or left-leaning."
But this does not clarify whether you are making a blanket statement about
those anthroposophists, including Steiner, who you think do have these right
wing tendencies.
Immediately after this you say:
"At the same time, many of them seem indifferent at best toward the reactionary
aspects of Steiner's teachings. This has been a basic assumption of my work
on anthroposophy all along."
This seems to suggest that what you are really interested in doing is proving
that Steiner's work contains "aspects" which can be considered reactionary.
What exactly do you mean by "reactionary"? Is this term meant to cover only
those aspects of Steiner's work which you think connect him to right wing,
racist ideology? Or do you use the word in a more general sense as a negative
judgement of the philosophical/religious character of Steiner's work. I want to
clarify this because the use of words like " irrationalist" in one of your
posts suggest that you think of Steiner's thought as being, either in part, or
as a whole, irrational, or unscientific. This may or may not be connected to
the issues of political and racial views. Either way I want to get clear about
whether your cricitism is motivated purely by ethical and politcal
considerations, or whether you are also critical of anthroposophy on general
philosophical grounds because of its philosophical and theological claims. From
the wording of the above quote, I assume that as far as the question of right
wing, racist ideology goes, you are not making a claim about Steiner's work as
a whole. Is this a justified assumption?
What, in your mind, would be the ideal form of response to your criticisms from
the anthroposophical side of the debate? Do you think that if Steiner was shown
to have had certain "reactionary" beliefs at certain stages of his life,
anthroposophists would be either rationally or ethically obliged to reject his
work as a whole? In other words, even if Steiner was shown to have certain
views which are reactionary, do you think there is any reason why
anthroposophists cannot simply reject those particular ideas and retain the
ones which stand up to scrutiny? In a recent post, Walden seemed to suggest
that his discovery of questionable aspects of Steiner's teaching, helped it
seems by your investigations, led him to reject the whole thing as hopelessly
flawed. However, he failed to give any indication of what these individual
flaws were and how they related to a judgement of the whole of anthroposophy. A
clarfication of this point is crucial from my perspective if I am to get clear
about your views. In the context of academic philosophy, it is very rare to
find people rejecting the entire philosophy of any thinker on the basis of
certain personal or theoretical mistakes which the might have made, even
serious ones. The most famous recent case of a major philosopher being
criticised for his ethical and political failings is Martin Heidegger. But very
few people would defend the view that his whole philosophy is somehow rendered
worthless by the fact of his brief involvement with National Socialism. This is
not because of a lack of awareness of the seriousness of his mistake but simply
through a belief that the connection between his philosophy and national
socialism has not been substantiated to the degree necessary to justify its
complete rejection.
As far as I can see, there are three main reasons someone might have for
rejecting anthroposophy. The first reason would be if accusations concerning
Steiner's political and racial views turned out to be true, and if these views
could be shown to be absolutely fundamental to the anthroposophical worldview,
such that if they were removed, the whole thing would crumble into a heap. If
they were not thus fundamental, and if an anthroposophist did not have other,
independent, reasons for rejecting anthroposophy as a whole, then it would seem
to me to be an extremely superficial and irrational thing to do. Are you
claiming that these purportedly reactionary views are foundational in the sense
that anthroposophy could not exist without them?
The next two reasons also apply equally well either to anthroposophists or to
those approaching it from outside. I am outlining these in order to find out
where you are coming from.
The second reason would be if the person had serious philosophical, or
scientific reasons to deny the validity of basic anthroposophical claims, such
as the existence of a spiritual world populated by spiritual entities, the
existence of the human soul, the existence and nature of reincarnation as
described by Steiner and so on. In other words, a person coming from the
perspective of some form of scientific naturalism might reject anthroposophy
because their philosophical perspective simply cannot countenance any talk of
realities beyond those discussed in the natural sciences. The third reason
would be if the person had their own religious reasons for rejecting it, such
as a Christian rejecting it because they think that the doctrinre of
reincarnation is not compatible with Christianity. In which of these camps, if
any, do you belong?
I am interested in clarifying your perspective on all these issues since I feel
that the discussion of Steiner and work arising from his ideas on this list is
often rather vague. The main purpose of the Waldorf Critics list seems to be to
educate the public about the philosophical foundations of Waldorf education.
Something which Waldorf schools themselves are accused of avoiding. However,
mixed in with this aim there seems to be much general, and usually extremely
superficial criticism of Steiner. Mostly, this can't really be called criticism
since, with the exception of your own relatively detailed claims, much of its
doesn't go beyond expressing a general feeling that Steiner's system is
strange, wacky, irrationalist or whatever. As a person who is not a member of
the anthroposophical society but who has a very high opinion of those aspects
of Steiner's work which I have read, particularly his philosophical writings, I
am interested to understand what motivates the people contributing to this
list. Having read a few posts, I have felt somewhat bemused by the barely
suppressed hostility coming from both sides of the debate. I figure that the
only way in which I can engage in a serious discussion with anyone on this list
is if some initial foundations are laid, in terms of getting clear about each
others background assumptions, and the exact nature of each person's criticism
of anthroposophy. This post is intended to begin this dialogue with you in
particular. I hope to do the same with anyone else who has something
substantial to say, critical or otherwise, about Rudolf Steiner's work.
I look forward to a reply,
Jakob.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:42:55 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Some Questions for Peter Staudenmaier.
Hi Jakob, thanks for your questions. You wrote:
)I have just joined the list so this post will contain some fairly basic
)questions about your position in relation to Steiner and the question of
)right
)wing, fascist, anti-semitic and racial doctrines. I hope you'll excuse me
)if
)these issues have been dealt with in earlier posts.
That's okay, it's part of being on a public list.
)I am very interested in the
)issue but present study commitments ( I am working on a PhD in philosophy)
)make
)it difficult for me to take the time to get a comprehensive overview of the
)history of this particular debate. Because of this I would rather have your
)current perspective directly.
I'll do my best, and I'll try to keep it brief (brevity is not my strong
point, I'm afraid).
)1) What exactly is your project as far as Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy
)are
)concerned?
I'm very slowly writing a book about Steiner's racial theories.
)What exactly are your accusations and who exactly are they directed
)to?
They're not really accusations; I'm a historian, not an attorney.
)Since your comments seem to range from discussions of Steiner's own views,
)particularly as these appear in his lectures and published writings, to
)discussions of the ideas of particular anthroposophists, I am unclear as to
)whether you are attempting to argue that Steiner himself was right leaning,
)racist and/or anti-semitic, or that certain anthroposophists were. Or is it
)both?
Both. I think that Steiner's published work contains important racist
elements, as well as antisemitic elements, and that many prominent
anthroposophists developed these elements further, particularly in the first
generation after Steiner's death. A good number of those early
anthroposophists were indeed right leaning, and several of them greeted the
rise of Nazism with pronounced sympathy. Steiner's own politics were
murkier; he seems to have understood himself as more a less a progressive,
but a number of his specific positions pointed toward the right, in my view.
)Obviously there is a big difference between these two claims.
Yes, though it is important to keep in mind that many anthroposophists base
their chief conclusions squarely on Steiner's work. That is typically the
case with the racist and antisemitic strands within the anthroposophical
tradition.
)If you were
)making a claim about the racial and political views of individual
)anthroposophists,
It isn't their personal views that interest me, it is their versions of
anthroposophical doctrine that I find significant.
)then in order to prove that these questionable views were
)specifically anthroposophical as opposed to being simply the personal views
)of
)people who happened to call themselves anthroposophists, you would have to
)demonstrate an indubitable link between these racial theories and Rudolf
)Steiner's own work.
The anthroposophists I write about clearly establish this link themselves;
it is the heart of everything they say on questions of race, nationality,
etc. Steiner's writings and lectures on these topics are certainly
contradictory (in the sense that one text is often at odds with another),
but rarely ambiguous.
)You would also have to clarify what you mean by
)"anthroposophy". If you simply meant the belief system of anyone who calls
)themselves an anthroposophist and claims to represent the ideas of Rudolf
)Steiner than this would be a highly contentious claim.
Contentious among anthroposophists, to be sure. That's why it is improper
for outside analysts to pick and choose specific instances of
anthroposophical belief and declare them the true version. What I mean by
"anthroposophy" is indeed more or less the collective belief systems of
those who call themselves anthroposophists and claim to represent the ideas
of Rudolf Steiner, to the extent that their claims are grounded in Steiner's
works.
)As a Christian I do not
)recognise those guilty of participating in the Inquisition as
)representatives
)of the teachings of Christ, despite the fact that they might have seen
)themselves as such, and been recognised as such by others.
That won't wash with historians. The Inquisition was perpretrated by
Christians, not by Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus or Jews or agnostics or
atheists. Your own relationship to that aspect of Christian history is your
business. In public discussions, it is illegitimate to invoke your private
understanding of Christian behavior in order to write the less savory
aspects of Christianity's history out of the record. The position you stake
out in discussions with other Christians, on the other hand, is another
matter entirely.
)Obviously this is a
)debatable point. But I am simply pointing out that it is obviously the case
)that being part of a group in the external sense of being a formal member,
)or
)claiming to represent it faithfully is not equivalent to actually being a
)faithful representative.
The distinction falls apart whenever you talk with people who stand outside
the tradition in question. Determinations of what counts as "faithful" are
up to the would-be faithful themselves.
)Holding Christianity responsible for the Inquisition
)is only possible if you can show conclusively that the practices of the
)Inquisition follow from the basic principles of the Christian religion.
That is a major mistake. The point of studying the past is not to hold an
entire heterogenous spectrum of religious communities somehow "responsible"
for prior events; the point is to understand who participated in these
events and why. The folks who organized and carried out the Inquisition
were, in fact, Christians, and they saw their actions as compatible with,
indeed as required by, their Christian beliefs. That other Christians did
not and do not share those specific views is irrelevant at this basic level.
)Since
)Christianity has a history, this would obviously also include dealing with
)the
)issue whether the particular brand of "Christianity" practiced by members
)of
)the Church at the time was " Christianity" at all.
What else might it have been? For non-Christians, there is little point in
engaging in such an exercise, unless it is directly related to the
particular historical or doctrinal question at hand. If it is so related,
then the proper approach is certainly not the definitional one you seem to
propose, but rather an empirical approach that takes account of the
competing varieties of Christianity in its myriad forms. If I may engage you
on a philosophical level for a moment: It sounds to me like you are arguing
for a more or less deductive take on 'what is genuine
anthroposophy/christianity/etc.', instead of taking the time for an
inductive approach, which to my mind is what historical inquiry demands. But
perhaps I have misunderstood your point.
)Obviously the issue is
)extremely complex. What I am pointing out is that if you have accusations
)to
)make about anthroposophy you need to give some account of what you take
)that
)term to cover, including giving a reasoned defence of your use of the term.
I think that is obvious and unremarkable. I use the term in the same way
Steiner used it and in the same way his initial followers used it and in the
same way many of his latter-day acolytes continue to use it. If I may ask,
why do you find this either surprising or difficult to believe?
)2) From the few posts of yours that I have read, I get the impression that
)you
)are making accusations of anti-semitism and or racism against both Steiner
)and
)individual anthroposophists.
I don't see the point in calling them accusations. Theosophical literature
in Steiner's era was overflowing with racist and antisemitic content. My
work traces the ways in which those elements were adopted into
anthroposophy.
)The implication seems to be that this alleged
)racism and/or anti-semitism is somehow essential to the anthroposophical
)world-view and thus that there is a clear relationship between the thought
)of
)Rudolf Steiner and someone like, for example, Werner Haverbeck, whom you
)characterise as " the most important post-war far-right anthroposophist".
)Is
)this a fair reading of your position?
Except for the fact that I do not imply this, but say it outright, yes, that
is pretty much accurate.
)More precisely, are you claiming that the
)views of an individual with extreme right wing racist and nationalist
)sentiments e.g. Haverbeck are representative of Anthroposophy as this is
)represented in the works of Rudolf Steiner?
"Representative of"? I get the sense that you don't know who Haverbeck was.
Since many other anthroposophists loathed him, it makes little sense to call
his version of anthroposophy "representative" of the movement as a whole.
But I don't see how there can be any doubt that he was indeed an
anthroposophist. Haverbeck based his far-right teachings firmly on Steiner's
doctrines and was extremely active within anthroposophical circles. Do you
mean to dispute that?
)I want to get clear about this, in
)particular, I want to get clear about your position on the question of
)degrees.
)Are you claiming that all the anthroposophists who you see as having
)questionable opinions on racial issues, including Rudolf Steiner, belong in
)the
)same category in terms of the degree of their purported racism?
I don't think I understand the question. What range of "degrees" does racism
fall into, in your view? I agree that there are different types of racism,
but I'm not sure if that's what you're getting at. Steiner taught, among
other things, that the human species is divided into lower races and higher
races, that skin color is directly tied to spiritual disposition, that
history and social existence can only be understood through racial
characteristics, that humankind evolves by successive incarnations in
progressively higher racial forms, that souls which fail to progress are
relegated to a backward race, that souls which do progress are elevated to
an advanced race, that Europeans and especially Germans belong to the most
advanced race, that the white race is the spiritually creative race and the
race of the future, that intelligence is correlated to blonde hair and blue
eyes, that black people belong in Africa and that their presence in Europe
is a disgrace, that indigenous peoples are stunted and decadent and
degenerated, and that the Jewish people has no reason to exist. Those
teachings are racist, in my opinion. If you disagree, could you explain why?
)3) I realise that deal with some of this in your recent post but I want to
)get
)absolutely clear about it. In the recent post you deny that you are making
)a
)blanket statement about all anthroposophists. I quote:
)
)" When I write that many German, Swiss, and Austrian
) anthroposophists in the 1920's and 1930's shared a number of right-wing
) beliefs, some latter-day anthroposophists think I am saying that all
) anthroposophists everywhere and at all times have been rightwingers.
)While
) there are certainly right-wing anthroposophists today, including a number
)of
) neo-fascist anthroposophists (mostly followers of Werner Haverbeck, the
)most
) important post-war far-right anthroposophist), it appears that most
) contemporary anthroposophists in the contexts that I know well, including
) Germany and the United States, are more or less liberal or left-leaning."
)
)But this does not clarify whether you are making a blanket statement about
)those anthroposophists, including Steiner, who you think do have these
)right
)wing tendencies.
Which blanket statement? I think that Steiner and quite a few other early
anthroposophists did indeed share a number of right-wing views, and I
further think that this tells us something important about the political
development of anthroposophy in Germany, Austria and Switzerland in the
1920's and 1930's. I do not think that this complex of right-wing beliefs
exhausts anthroposophy as such.
)Immediately after this you say:
)
)"At the same time, many of them seem indifferent at best toward the
)reactionary
)aspects of Steiner's teachings. This has been a basic assumption of my work
)on anthroposophy all along."
)
)This seems to suggest that what you are really interested in doing is
)proving
)that Steiner's work contains "aspects" which can be considered reactionary.
Sort of. I don't do a lot of "proving", since I consider it obvious that
some of Steiner's statements about blacks, Asians, aboriginal peoples, and
Jews are racist and antisemitic. My work focuses instead on exploring how
these elements came to find a comfortable home within anthroposophy in the
first place and what role they might have played in drawing many
anthroposophists closer to the sections of the German right that I study.
)What exactly do you mean by "reactionary"? Is this term meant to cover only
)those aspects of Steiner's work which you think connect him to right wing,
)racist ideology?
Yes. I use the term more or less interchangeably with "right-wing".
)Or do you use the word in a more general sense as a negative
)judgement of the philosophical/religious character of Steiner's work.
No. I do not have a negative judgement of the religious character of
Steiner's work; and while I find much of Steiner's early philosophical
writing derivative and unpersuasive, I don't think it is significantly
related to his racist views, for the most part.
)I want to
)clarify this because the use of words like " irrationalist" in one of your
)posts suggest that you think of Steiner's thought as being, either in part,
)or
)as a whole, irrational, or unscientific.
Surely that is obvious. Steiner frequently excoriated rationalism and
scientific methods. Of course he also liked to claim scientific status for
his own doctrines. Would you prefer the term "anti-rationalist" to describe
the former set of teachings?
)This may or may not be connected to
)the issues of political and racial views.
I do see a connection, but a mediated one. I think that Steiner's
irrationalist side probably made him more susceptible to nonsense like the
Aryan myth, for instance.
)Either way I want to get clear about
)whether your cricitism is motivated purely by ethical and politcal
)considerations, or whether you are also critical of anthroposophy on
)general
)philosophical grounds because of its philosophical and theological claims.
For starters, my criticism of anthropsophy and my historical claims about it
are two distinct things. There is no shortage of contemporary racists and
far-rightists who approve of Steiner's racial theories even though they are
not anthroposophists themselves. These people share my understanding of
anthroposophy's political history, but accompany it with praise, not
criticism. On your second point, I am not bothered by anthroposophy's
theological claims, and I only criticize its philosophical claims when they
reinforce the elements within anthroposophy toward which my primary
criticism is directed (namely the racist etc aspects). I am not, in short,
an opponent of anthroposophy as such, I am a critic of several of its
constituent elements.
)From
)the wording of the above quote, I assume that as far as the question of
)right
)wing, racist ideology goes, you are not making a claim about Steiner's
)work as
)a whole. Is this a justified assumption?
Aside from banalities such as "mostly written in German", how could anybody
possibly make any substantive claims about Steiner's work as a whole? He
went through so many mutually contradictory phases in the course of his
intellectual development that the very notion is idle. Even his mature
anthroposophical teachings are frequently self-contradictory. When I talk
about the racist components of Steiner's ideology, I am talking about the
racist components of Steiner's ideology. I am not talking about the
non-racist components or the anti-racist components or the components that
have no discernible relationship to race whatsoever.
)What, in your mind, would be the ideal form of response to your criticisms
)from
)the anthroposophical side of the debate?
I would dearly love to see some anthroposophist take this history seriously
and confront it honestly. The conclusions anthroposophists might draw from
such a process of examination are up to them, not me, but I would be pleased
if they came to publicly, explicitly, and unambiguously repudiate the racist
and antisemitic portions of Steiner's doctrines.
)Do you think that if Steiner was shown
)to have had certain "reactionary" beliefs at certain stages of his life,
)anthroposophists would be either rationally or ethically obliged to reject
)his
)work as a whole?
No, of course not. That would be an obvious non sequitur. For that it's
worth, I have made this argument repeatedly in m