To Peter - continuation
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:37 pm
Subject: To Peter - continuation
I had to do this on Word, because I have a
lousy e-mail system and I can't cut and paste in a reply. It's
the whole of your last post (our discussion) with my new stuff between "lines". I hope it
makes sense. I use different colors in Word, but they don't come
through here.
[from:
agreement and disagreement 1]
Subj: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement
and disagreement
Date: 2/22/2004 12:58:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: pstauden@yahoo.de (Peter Staudenmaier)
Hi Christine, I was glad to get such a
thorough reply from you. You wrote:
First, what is your personal conclusion
about Rudolf Steiner and racism? Have you concluded that Rudolf
Steiner in the final development was truly "racist"?
Yes, that is part of my conclusion, though
what seems important to me is not whether Steiner was racist
as a person, but whether his teachings contain important racist
elements. But I do, as it happens, think it legitimate to describe
Steiner as a racist. I think that several of my relatives are
racists (kind of like your dad, maybe), and a number of very
significant philosophers whose work I treasure were racists,
and one of the great composers of all time, Richard Wagner, was
an ardent racist and a raving antisemite. I think it is both
possible and necessary to recognize the racist facets of figures
like these, without using that as an excuse to dismiss the rest
of their work.
What exactly is this defined as?
I think the most sensible definition of
racist belief is something along these lines: a way of thinking
that sorts human groups into racial categories, accords essential
meaning to these categories, delineates specific differences
between them, associates these differences with significant cultural,
spiritual, or intellectual traits, and ranks the resulting constellation
of categories in some hierarchical order of higher and lower.
(Christine)
Quick definitions (Racism) (One Look Dictionary)
noun: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards
members of another race
noun: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically
superior to members of other races
Encyclopedia article (Wikipedia)
Racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions
that negatively discriminate against people based on their perceived
or ascribed race. Sometimes the term is also used to describe
the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities,
or that individuals should be treated differently based on their
ascribed race. (continued at Wikipedia)
In comparing your definition above with the
very simple definitions I got from One Look Dictionary and Wikipedia,
I see a subtle but important difference.
The crucial word in your definition, I think
is "ranks". Yes, this word does imply judgment of value
on the part of the person or society or institution doing the
"ranking" and is tied in with the "predjudice
that members of one race are intrinsically
superior to members of other races. However, it does not absolutely
denote "discriminatory or abusive behavior" or serve
as proof that this judgment of value will always lead or require
the holder to "negatively discriminate against people based
on their perceived or ascribed race". I feel that the nature
and history of overt racism in the United States would tend to
make an observer of such as remark as "Rudolf Steiner was
racist or held racist beliefs" immediately assume that the
philosophy he developed would promote "discriminatory or
abusive behavior" or to "negatively discriminate against
people based on their perceived or ascribed race."
This is why I made my point about your readers,
actual and potential:
Or, do you not think that any association
with the word "Nazi" may call up an emotional response
in great numbers of people who do not have the time or inclination
to do such scholarly work on their own?
To which you responded:
No, I definitely disagree with you on that
point, as I tried to spell out in one of my replies to you on
the waldorf critics list. I think that terms like "racist"
and "Nazi" have specific meanings that can and should
be used responsibly, not as terms of abuse but as analytical
descriptions.
I accept and respect the fact that you and
perhaps others, are using such words "responsibly"
with clear and definite meanings. However, I maintain that in
society in general, the percentage of people is very low who
a. have made an in depth study of the definitions and meanings
of racism and b. would approach your work without emotional pre-conceptions.
Is the idea of the "Jewish people"
assimilating into society at large a racist idea?
No, definitely not. Most German Jews during
Steiner's lifetime were assimilationists. In fact the majority
of them had already achieved a considerable measure of integration
into "society at large". What they had not done, and
what most of them quite reasonably declined to do, was abandon
their Jewish identity in the process. In contrast to these pro-assimilationist
Jews, assimilationist antisemites demanded a complete dissolution
of Jewishness as such. I think that Steiner, in several stages
of his career, fit into this latter pattern. But this sort of
antisemitism was by no means racist, at least not necessarily
so, and in several crucial respects it was fundamentally different
from the racial versions of antisemitism that were also current
at the time.
Wouldn't the ideas of separation, "purity
of blood", segregation (as exemplified in the United States
with "people of color" be more "racist"?
Yes, segregation and purity of "blood"
generally belong to the arsenal of racial antisemites, not of
assimilationist antisemites. In fact one of the best scholars
on this issue, Donald Niewyk, distinguishes between "integrationist"
and "segregationist" antisemites, whereas I tend to
use the terms "assimilationist" and "dissimilationist".
Most of the integrationist/assimilationist antisemites -- a group
which included several of the most infamous and influential antisemites
of the time -- were not racial antisemites, though they were
typically racists in other respects.
Also, with the creation of Israel and the
intense devotion to Jewish nationalism, do we not see just the
kind of continued antipathy and violence as a result of that
antipathy between "races" - specifically in the Middle
East? And is this a result of "blood" or "religion"
or "culture"? I don't know.
I think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
has more to do with struggles over land and security than it
does with blood, religion, or culture. But in any case, I don't
see a fundamental difference, at this level, between Jewish nationalism
and Ukrainian nationalism or Puerto Rican nationalism or Tibetan
nationalism and so forth.
(Christine)
And we are in agreement that Steiner spoke
and acted against nationalism, especially fervent and/ or violent
nationalism. That he proffered the opinion that the recognition
of individual worth and value should and indeed, must take precedent
over all nationalistic ties and characteristics. Is this correct?
The second (multi faceted) question is:
what is your expressed purpose in bringing this discussion into
the arena of the appropriateness of Waldorf Education in 1. public
schools and 2. society at large?
I have very little to say on that topic.
I don't know enough about Waldorf education to make an interesting
case either way, and I don't have strong feelings about Waldorf
as such. I get the sense that Waldorf schools, especially in
North America, comprise a very wide range of beliefs and practices,
some of which have relatively little to do with the aspects of
anthroposophy that I study. As far as the public schools part
of your question goes, it seems to me that the PLANS folks have
a very good point about the establishment clause, and I generally
come down on the side of secularism as the safest option in a
society like the contemporary US.
(Christine)
You know that I have already very clearly
and specifically outlined my points of agreement with PLANS,
especially in terms of the opinion that Waldorf Education should
be kept separate from the state school system. I am actually
pleased that they are being denied charters. I think it will
mean less "messes" to clean up afterward. I clearly
state in my article on Religion in Waldorf Schools posted here
that Waldorf Schools are not right for everyone and why. And
I hope I make it clear that it is not because the Waldorf School,
its teachers or the philosophy behind it does not want to accept
people from all religious backgrounds, but rather that because
of the diversity of religious exposure contained in the curriculum,
parents who wish to have their child exposed only to a limited
set of belief systems would feel uncomfortable in our schools.
At the same time, though, it seems that your
research on Rudolf Steiner and his "racist" statements
are being used by PLANS and Waldorf Critics as a secondary argument
to the legal fight to remove Waldorf Charter Schools. I still
don't understand why you are lending your work
to this if, as you say above,
I have very little to say on that topic.
I don't know enough about Waldorf education to make an interesting
case either way, and I don't have strong feelings about Waldorf
as such. I get the sense that Waldorf schools, especially in
North America, comprise a very wide range of beliefs and practices,
some of which have relatively little to do with the aspects of
anthroposophy that I study.
And below:
I think that terms like "racist"
and "Nazi" have specific meanings that can and should
be used responsibly, not as terms of abuse but as analytical
descriptions. I spend an enormous chunk of my time reading documents
written by Nazis (actual Nazis, the kind who proudly call themselves
Nazis), and I pay close attention to what distinguishes their
perspectives from those of other authoritarian right-wingers.
Rudolf Steiner was certainly not a Nazi, but a number of his
followers were, and there was a significant strand within the
Nazi movement that looked favorably on various aspects of Steiner's
work. The point of exploring these historical connections is
not to call up an emotional response but to prompt informed consideration
of the ambiguous record of alternative spiritual movements and
their wide-ranging political affiliations.
What is the usefulness to you and your work
specifically with Steiner's Anthropsophy of associating yourself
and your work with PLANS? And what do you see as the specific
benefit to PLANS of associating itself with your work?
While your scholarship on the issue is
profound and has involved many hours of research and thought,
do you think that you have presented it in a way and through
a medium that would keep the discussion in an academic and objective
realm?
I hope not! I am very critical of the academic
realm and the stultifying conception of objectivity that is so
often associated with it. That is one of the main reasons I have
avoided an academic career so far and remained an independent
scholar (though I must confess that I am currently in the midst
of throwing in that particular towel); one of my goals is to
move historical discussions out of the academic realm so that
non-academics can participate in them. My published work on anthroposophy
is not objective in the sense I think you mean, and no competent
reader could mistake it for such; I am very up front about my
own skeptical stance. Much of what I write on anthroposophy is
a mixture of scholarship and polemic, addressed to a non-specialist
audience. It is not a neutral reflection on the pros and cons
of Steiner's various doctrines.
(Christine)
Since I have not read your published work
yet, may I ask what the prime objective of that work is? Is it
specifically written with a stated viewpoint as to the amount
of value to be found in Rudolf Steiner's work for the individual
and/ or for society? And if so, which end of the value see-saw
do you lean toward? Pro or con?
Or, do you not think that any association
with the word "Nazi" may call up an emotional response
in great numbers of people who do not have the time or inclination
to do such scholarly work on their own?
No, I definitely disagree with you on that
point, as I tried to spell out in one of my replies to you on
the waldorf critics list. I think that terms like "racist"
and "Nazi" have specific meanings that can and should
be used responsibly, not as terms of abuse but as analytical
descriptions. I spend an enormous chunk of my time reading documents
written by Nazis (actual Nazis, the kind who proudly call themselves
Nazis), and I pay close attention to what distinguishes their
perspectives from those of other authoritarian right-wingers.
Rudolf Steiner was certainly not a Nazi, but a number of his
followers were, and there was a significant strand within the
Nazi movement that looked favorably on various aspects of Steiner's
work. The point of exploring these historical connections is
not to call up an emotional response but to prompt informed consideration
of the ambiguous record of alternative spiritual movements and
their wide-ranging political affiliations.
A third question arises in me. Please forgive
me if you have illucidated this elsewhere - I do not have the
time to search all of the archives of the past five or more years
of discussion on other forums - have you seen examples of overt
or covert racism in the practice of Waldorf Education. If so,
would you please discuss these examples?
The most important example, in my view,
is the one I mentioned to you recently on the waldorf critics
list, namely the "racial ethnography" curriculum in
Dutch Waldorf schools, which was not discontinued until well
into the 1990's. I hope it's okay with you if I simply quote
some of what I wrote on the topic last year at the openwaldorf
site (where you can also find vigorous discussion of this and
related themes). Very briefly: Until the mid-1990's, Dutch Waldorf
schools continued to teach courses on "racial ethnography"
to 7th and 8th grade pupils. These courses were based squarely
on Steiner's racial theories, and their role in the Waldorf curriculum
was discussed extensively in the journal of the Dutch Waldorf
movement. This longstanding practice changed only after the mother
of a Waldorf student went to the press with her child's class
notebooks about racial characteristics. The resulting media attention
spurred the Dutch Anthroposophical Society and the Waldorf federation
to review the "racial ethnography" curriculum, which
they eventually decided to abandon. Public schools in the Netherlands
had nothing remotely similar to these courses on "racial
ethnography"; the only schools where such material was taught
were Waldorf schools. This incident was the origin of the much-discussed
"Dutch report" on anthroposophy and race.
(Christine)
I would like to read more and understand more
about what is meant by "racial ethnography" in the
7th & 8th grade curriculum. In seventh grade, to the best
of my knowledge, Waldorf schools in Europe, Great Britain and
the United States should be working with history as contrasted
with the mythology explored from First through Fourth. Fifth
Grade is a transitional year that culminates in Ancient Greece and a combination of Greek mythology,
which was an active part of their culture and that which we consider
"historical" events and biographies. Sixth Grade sees
the presence of mythology in Ancient Rome, but much less adherence
to them as an active belief system in the lives of the Romans.
Then we have the real historical drama of the Pax Romana and
the life of Jesus Christ as a biography without which understanding
what follows as history would be impossible. Also should have
here the life of Mohammed. The stage then is set for Seventh
Grade and the Renaissance up through the age of exploration.
I don't at this moment understand how "racial ethnography"
comes into it. Here are the definitions
I have from Wikipedia:
Ethnography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Ethnography is the practice in cultural anthropology
of writing a scientific description of an individual human society
or of a situation within a society. It is also the name for the
resulting text. The comparison of cultural details uncovered
through ethnography is the province of ethnology. (my emphasis)
Classic ethnographies include Argonauts of
the Western Pacific by Bronislaw Malinowski and The Nuer by E.
E. Evans-Pritchard. More commonly read ethnographies include
Nisa by Marjorie Shostak and Mama Lola by Karen McCarthy Brown.
Critiques of traditional ethnographic rhetoric
and writing have come into increasing prominence, at least from
the 1960s onwards. Critical, postmodern, and poststructural ethnographies
often entail "confessional" writing, postcolonial critiques
of canonical work, and literary interpretation and deconstruction.
Ethnology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Ethnology is a genre of anthropological study,
involving the systematic comparison of the beliefs and practices
of different societies. Among its goals are the reconstruction
of human history, and the formulation of laws of culture and
culture change, and the formulation of generalizations about
human nature.
Of course, the history of Western Civilization
through the Age of Exploration and into the "Age of Revolution"
(French, American, Industrial) includes a great deal of belief
by the peoples of that time in racial and cultural superiorities
and the colonialism and violence done in the name of those beliefs.
Are you saying that the Dutch Waldorf Schools were teaching this
history in such a way as to promote the concept to the children
that these ideas of racial superiority were justified?? If so,
I would also be appalled! But I don't know without reading the
actual reports if this is true. I would also have to state that
nowhere in Rudolf Steiner's work would I find justification for
such teaching. His long range and long term projections about
spiritual development were never meant as a justification of
the holding of views on racial superiority of any kind. Nor were
such ideas presented to adult audiences intended to be passed
on to children of pre-teen years. To me personally, teaching
about the atrocities of Western Civilization from the Crusades
to Colonial America should have the opposite result entirely
- that is to show the awfulness of ideas of racial superiority
and the horrors that result from such ideas. This does not mean
that we cannot find good in biographies such as those of Charlemagne,
Joan of Arc, or even (dare I say it?) Christopher Columbus or
Queen Victoria. ( I am personally very down on Columbus!) But
they were who they were within their time periods and what they
said, thought and did must be placed in context of everything that was "known" and "believed"
at that time. How can the students come to be people who have
the ability to intellectually understand what is worthwhile and
what is reprehensible in the history of humanity unless they
fully "experience" each time period with as much imagination
as possible? Introducing these historical ideas would be, in
my opinion, necessary for any young person to understand what
impelled major historical events. However, to allow them to walk
away from that time period believing that those ideas should
be maintained and applied in our time would be to do exactly
what Steiner describes below as "not moving forward"
or "getting stuck in development" (my paraphrases).
Is this what the report on the Dutch Waldorf
Schools concluded? That history was being taught in such a way
as to promote, justify and give sanction to the ideas of racial,
ethnic and/ or religious superiority as existed from say 1500
to 1900? I really want to know.
The "races" that
Steiner speaks of in Occult Science, to the best of my understanding
are streams of development over long "epochs" of time
and, especially taking into consideration the basic tenets of
reincarnation, include every one of us as individuals. I fully
believe that I have been Jewish, Catholic, African or possibly
a slave in the United States, maybe Moslem, (but I don't think
so yet) - Ancient Persian, yes definitely. I have been male and
female and have lived in times and places completely unlike the
one I am in now. I also believe that I will be all of these things
again and live in times and places still more unlike this one
or any past ones. I believe that whereever there is "antipathy"
toward any kind of person, creed or system of thought within
myself, there will I be drawn primarily so that I can "live
through" it from the "other"'s point of view.
I believe that evolution is not racial, but individual and that
all the differences that exist in the physical realm have their
purpose and meaning and can only be understood as part of a "puzzle"
or "tapestry" of interlocking pieces or threads. I
believe that in every moment of antipathy lives a seed of love
- one that will be watered and brought to blossom in a future
place and time.
Much of what you write above sounds to
me perfectly compatible with Steiner's version of reincarnation.
The crucial difference is that by my reading, Steiner considered
evolution to be both individual and racial. He sometimes taught
that some racial forms are higher than others, and that spiritual
progress is correlated to racial progress. Here is a passage
that might show you what I have in mind:
"Everyone who works
in this way prepares the ground for the human bodies of the future,
for the bodies that souls will later need. There is a word that
beautifully expresses this work toward the future, which we will
understand when we clarify the difference between soul development
and racial development. All of you were once Atlanteans, and
these Atlantean bodies looked very different, as I have already
described. The same soul that was once in an Atlantean body somewhere
is now in your body. But not all bodies have been prepared, in
the way yours have been, by a small number of colonists who long
ago migrated from the West to the East. Those who remained behind,
who bound themselves up with their race, they degenerated, while
the advanced ones founded new civilizations. The last stragglers
on the way to the east, the Mongols, still retain something of
the culture of the Atlanteans. In the same way, the bodies of
those people who do not develop themselves in a progressive fashion
will continue into the next era and will constitute the Chinese
of the future. There will once again be decadent peoples. After
all, the souls that inhabit Chinese bodies are those that will
once again have to incarnate in such races, because they had
too strong an attraction to that race. The souls that are today
within you will later incarnate in bodies that come from people
who work in the way I have indicated, and who beget the bodies
of the future, just as the first colonists from Atlantis once
did. And those who cling to the ordinary, who do not want to
join with the movement toward the future, they will become fused
with their race. There are people who want to stick to the familiar,
who want nothing to do with progress; they refuse to listen to
those who lead the way beyond the race to newer and newer forms
of humanity. The myths have preserved this intention in a wonderful
manner. The best way they could portray this is by pointing to
one of the greatest ones, who spoke the words: “Whosoever
does not leave father and mother, wife and child, brother and
sister, cannot be my disciple”; and by depicting, in contrast,
the tragedy of the person who says, I want nothing to do with
such a leader, and rejects him. How could one express this more
clearly than in the image of the person who rejects the leader,
and who is incapable of advancing! That is the legend of Ahasver,
the Eternal Jew, who sat there and pushed away the greatest leader,
Christ Jesus, who wanted nothing to do with evolution, and who
therefore must remain in his race, must always reappear in his
race. These are myths that have been given to humankind for its
eternal memory, so that humankind knows what it is dealing with."
(Steiner, Menschheitsentwickelung und Christus-Erkenntnis pp.
186-187)
It seems to me that passages like that
one (and there are lots more like that one) simultaneously represent
the sort of 'tapestry' approach that you invoke, and depend on
racist premises. This is one of the reasons why I say that Steiner's
work contains significant racist elements, even on those occasions
when Steiner looked toward a non-racial future.
Peter Staudenmaier
(Christine)
I still don't understand what you mean exactly
in the paragraph above by "racist premises" which would
by what you say above extend to my own world view.
If so, I need to know and understand exactly
what it is in my world view that depends on a racist premise.
Forgive me if I am being dense, but I still don't get it. If
one postulates that "getting stuck" in spiritual development
has physical consequences, yet one recognizes that this "getting
stuck" is a Free Will and Individual decision, then how
is this a racist idea? I would have thought a racist version
would be that a person COULD not accept Christ or what ever is
to be thought of as "spiritual progress" (my terminology)
BECAUSE he or she is a member of a racial or ethnic group - that
they would be unfree and limited by the physical body they were
born into. I always thought of racist ideology as being that
the Individual was dependent and by inference, limited by
racial characteristics (whatever they may be
defined as by the racist).
In the passage above, I do hear the voice
of someone who, like Christians of many sects and denominations,
believes that Christ Jesus was and is the forerunner of the future
of humanity. And, like other Christians who believe their beliefs
are truth or Moslems who believe their beliefs are true, I hear
the voice of one saying that it would be better for all people
if they would recognize and follow these beliefs.
I do not, however, hear in that voice any
note of condemnation toward the "Eternal Jew" or toward
Atlanteans "stuck" in Chinese incarnations. Nor do
I hear any cause for condescension or overt or covert discrimination
against either Jewish or Chinese people.
I also hear in the body of Rudolf Steiner's
work the fervent call to the Individual to transcend all limitations
of national and genetic identity - all clan, creed and social
limitations of any kind. And for the Individual to recognize
the Individual in the Other, even in the kind of situation where
the "Other" may prefer to put his or her national,
religious or heredity association above
his or her own freedom of personality. Rudolf Steiner's call
above all others, except possibly the call to love and know the
Christ Being was to love and know "the Other" in our
Self and our Self in "the Other". The two are inextricably
linked in both Steiner's and my personal world views.
Respectfully,
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:16 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter - continuation
Hi Christine, thanks for your reply. You offered
several definitions of racism, which sound fine to me, except
for the emphasis on 'behavior'; as you'll recall from my reply
to Linda Clemens ten days ago, I reject the reduction of racism
to a kind of behavior; I see it as just as importantly a kind
of thinking. That's why I recommended the books by Mosse, Macmaster,
Harding, etc., which look at the development of racist belief
systems in a historical perspective. I think this is what you're
getting at when you point out the difference in emphasis between
my definition of racist thinking and the ones you came up with:
In comparing your definition above with the very simple definitions
I got from One Look Dictionary and Wikipedia, I see a subtle
but important difference.
The crucial word in your definition, I
think is "ranks". Yes, this word does imply judgment
of value on the part of the person or society or institution
doing the "ranking" and is tied in with the "predjudice
that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members
of other races. However, it does not absolutely denote "discriminatory
or abusive behavior" or serve as proof that this judgment
of value will always lead or require the holder to "negatively
discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed
race".
Quite true. In my opinion, actively discriminatory behavior is
only one expression of racism; it is scarcely the only one. People
who believe in higher and lower races can accurately be described
as racist, in my view, regardless of how they treat others.
I feel that the nature and history of overt racism in the
United States would tend to make an observer of such as remark
as "Rudolf Steiner was racist or held racist beliefs"
immediately assume that the philosophy he developed would promote
"discriminatory or abusive behavior" or to "negatively
discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed
race.
Sometimes racist beliefs do indeed have this sort of overt consequence,
but sometimes the effect is much more subtle. It is even possible
to combine racist beliefs with anti-racist behavior; some of
the 19th century abolitionists, for example, held a wide range
of racist views.
I accept and respect the fact that you and perhaps others,
are using such words "responsibly" with clear and definite
meanings. However, I maintain that in society in general, the
percentage of people is very low who a. have made an in depth
study of the definitions and meanings of racism and b. would
approach your work without emotional pre-conceptions.
Before I reply to that very reasonable point, I have to note
that 'racist' and 'Nazi' are significantly different terms in
this respect. There is lots of room for legitimate disagreement
about just what constitutes "racism". But the people
I call Nazis are people who called themselves Nazis; it makes
little sense to argue over whether they were 'really' Nazis.
In any case, I don't think I entirely agree with your argument
above. I think there are many people in our society who have
an informed sense of what racism means and who are capable of
bracketing their own emotional pre-conceptions when discussing
the matter or reading about it or whatever. As for whether my
readers know enough about Nazism, I'm not sure; that is part
of why I go to some lengths in my published work to clarify who
I have in mind and what role they played within the broader Nazi
movement. My first article on anthroposophy (which examined the
relationship between Steiner's followers and the so-called "green
wing" of the Nazi party) explicitly warned against a guilt-by-association
interpretation of these historical events.
And we are in agreement that Steiner spoke and acted against
nationalism, especially fervent and/ or violent nationalism.
That he proffered the opinion that the recognition of individual
worth and value should and indeed, must take precedent over all
nationalistic ties and characteristics. Is this correct?
I think we are only in partial agreement on that score. I agree
that Steiner saw his own mature doctrine (after the theosophical
turn) as consistently anti-nationalist. I do not agree that his
teachings were in fact free of nationalist assumptions. In fact,
I think that in an important sense the very opposite was the
case. I see many strands of German cultural nationalism in Steiner's
mature work.
You know that I have already very clearly
and specifically outlined my points of agreement with PLANS,
especially in terms of the opinion that Waldorf Education should
be kept separate from the state school system.
Yes, I think you and I see eye to eye on that one.
At the same time, though, it seems that your research on Rudolf
Steiner and his "racist" statements are being used
by PLANS and Waldorf Critics as a secondary argument to the legal
fight to remove Waldorf Charter Schools.
My understanding is that this was already a part of PLANS' argument
before I came along. In any case, I had never heard of PLANS
when I began my research on anthroposophy, and I didn't join
the waldorf critics list until more than a year after I wrote
my first article on the topic. From what I can tell, there were
extensive quotations from Steiner's racial doctrines posted at
the PLANS site long before that, and I have found abundant discussion
of these issues in the wc-list archives from years prior to the
publication of my first article.
I still don't understand why you are lending your work to
this [...] What is the usefulness to you and your work specifically
with Steiner's Anthropsophy of associating yourself and your
work with PLANS? And what do you see as the specific benefit
to PLANS of associating itself with your work?
I am very easygoing about who posts my work on the web (this
is one of the things that some anthroposophists appear to hold
against me), and I don't think that PLANS has misused my work
in any way. There are occasional members of the wc-list who,
in my view, have a mistaken conception of the relationship between
anthroposophy and antisemitism, for example, or anthroposophy
and Nazism, and when I think that is the case I say so on the
list. I'm not sure what else I ought to do. Any suggestions?
Since I have not read your published work
yet, may I ask what the prime objective of that work is? Is it
specifically written with a stated viewpoint as to the amount
of value to be found in Rudolf Steiner's work for the individual
and/ or for society? And if so, which end of the value see-saw
do you lean toward? Pro or con?
Con. Yes, I state my viewpoint very clearly (by my standards,
at least). My first article concludes by urging progressive non-anthroposophists
to take a very skeptical stance toward working with anthroposophists
on political projects. My articles on anthroposophy were not
written for scholarly journals, they were written for an educated
popular audience. I am a critic of anthroposophy, and I think
all readers of my articles can tell that, since I say it loud
and clear.
I would like to read more and understand
more about what is meant by "racial ethnography" in
the 7th & 8th grade curriculum.
There is a lot of material on this issue on the web. If you type
in "Dutch Waldorf" at google you'll get oodles of it.
Are you saying that the Dutch Waldorf Schools were teaching
this history in such a way as to promote the concept to the children
that these ideas of racial superiority were justified??
According to the official report on the matter by a commission
of Dutch anthroposophists, the "racial ethnography"
classes were a Dutch anomaly; they blame it on Max Stibbe, one
of the founders of Waldorf education in the Netherlands and a
defender of apartheid.
I would also have to state that nowhere in Rudolf Steiner's
work would I find justification for such teaching.
I can't agree. Steiner frequently characterized some racial groups
as higher and others as lower, some as progressing and others
as decadent, not merely in the past but today as well.
His long range and long term projections about spiritual development
were never meant as a justification of the holding of views on
racial superiority of any kind. Nor were such ideas presented
to adult audiences intended to be passed on to children of pre-teen
years.
I'm not sure why you are so confident about that. I can think
of several obvious exceptions off the top of my head. Here's
one from the book Faculty Meetings With Rudolf Steiner, p. 559,
where Steiner tells the assembled teachers:
"The French are committing
the terrible brutality of moving black people to Europe, but
it works, in an even worse way, back on France. It has an enormous
effect on the blood and the race and contributes considerably
toward French decadence. The French as a race are reverting."
Do you disagree that such statements are plainly
racist?
Is this what the report on the Dutch Waldorf Schools concluded?
That history was being taught in such a way as to promote, justify
and give sanction to the ideas of racial, ethnic and/ or religious
superiority as existed from say 1500 to 1900? I really want to
know.
I think the racial ethnography courses were separate from the
history curriculum. A summary of the Dutch report is available
in English; see here:
http://www.info3.de/ycms/artikel_190.shtml
I am not recommending the report itself; I think it's a whitewash.
I still don't understand what you mean exactly in the paragraph
above by "racist premises" which would by what you
say above extend to my own world view.
I have no idea whether they extend to your own worldview. What
I meant is that the lengthy Steiner passage about racial advancement
that I quoted is built around racist premises. Do you disagree?
Forgive me if I am being dense, but I still don't get it.
If one postulates that "getting stuck" in spiritual
development has physical consequences, yet one recognizes that
this "getting stuck" is a Free Will and Individual
decision, then how is this a racist idea?
It isn't necessarily a racist idea, unless one directly associates
these "physical consequences" with particular races,
which is exactly what Steiner does in the passage in question.
At that point, yes, it becomes a racist idea. The very notion
of contrasting degenerate racial groups and advanced racial groups
is a racist idea, in my view. Do you disagree?
I always thought of racist ideology as being that the Individual
was dependent and by inference, limited by racial characteristics
(whatever they may be defined as by the racist).
Sure, that's one variant of racist ideology, but hardly the only
one. In any case, what you mean by "Individual" above
is evidently an individual soul that appears in a variety of
incarnations through time (correct me if I'm misunderstanding
you here); but racial ideology only refers to actual incarnations,
to specific racial forms.
I do not, however, hear in that voice any note of condemnation
toward the "Eternal Jew" or toward Atlanteans "stuck"
in Chinese incarnations.
I don't know about condemnation, but he says very clearly that
these unfortunates refuse to progress and are therefore trapped
in inferior racial forms. I think that is an obviously racist
idea. Do you disagree?
I also hear in the body of Rudolf Steiner's work the fervent
call to the Individual to transcend all limitations of national
and genetic identity - all clan, creed and social limitations
of any kind.
Yes, I hear that in Steiner's work as well. As I've tried to
explain previously, I don't think these elements somehow erase
the less pleasant elements represented by the passage about Chinese
and Jews. I think it makes more sense to try to take both sides
(well, all sides, I suppose) of Steiner's racial and ethnic doctrines
into account. I hope this makes my own perspective clearer. Thanks
again for a thoughtful exchange,
Peter Staudenmaier
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
