Waldorf Principles
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 11:38 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
To the Waldorf and Athroposophical communities
and to the Waldorf Critics and PLANS communities:
You know, flaming and high emotional tactics
certainly make for a circus atmosphere level of entertainment,
but this stuff just isn't doing our "cause" any good
at all.
I think that there is a very profound good
in having a group like "Waldorf Critics" - although
I wish it were more of a "Waldorf Challengers" group,
which they can be sometimes. The fact that they question Waldorf
Education's philosophy, methods and materials is actually a good
thing if it sparks intelligent Waldorf Educators to stop a moment
and re-think and re-evaluate their work in the light of the most
contemporary sociological and psychological findings in education.
It is my personal conviction that Waldorf Education is inherently
consistent with all the best findings of educational psychology
and can hold its own against any challenger.
The difficulty may be in finding people who have the time to
do the necessary work. Waldorf teaching is a truly 24/7 vocation
and while there are many Waldorf teachers who could contribute
a lot to this discussion, probably very few actually have time
to do so. In fact, very few active Waldorf teachers probably
have time to spend in front of the computer on the internet or
reading e-mails. So it falls on the shoulders of a few people
out here in cyberspace to at least champion the cause. The reality
here, though, is that people who have such time are likely to
be inactive in the movement, either because they have been involved
at one time, but had to leave for personal reasons; or have a
great interest in Waldorf education but have not as yet become
a trained Waldorf Teacher; or (unfortunately) may have once been
involved in Waldorf Education, but have been forced to become
inactive due to problems in their own personalities or mental
and emotional balances. (And yes, there are such - I have met
quite a few).
The danger in even attempting to respond to
or refute allegations made by WC and PLANS members is that we
are all working with bits and pieces of events and situations
brought out as examples. Each "side" brings forth only
what supports its goals and intentions and rarely is a discussion
focused, level-headed and open minded enough for a real consensus
to take place. Attacking the WC/PLANS side for being "materialistic"
"atheistic" or "Ahrimanic" is meaningless
for our purposes, as is, on the other hand, their attacking WE
and Anthroposophists for being "cultish" "anti-science"
or "religious".
WC/PLANS members have every right to their
own world view, as WE/Anthropops have a right to ours. There
is much middle ground, actually, to be found in the very latest
findings of educational psychology, neuroscience and sociological
studies, but nothing will be gained along these lines by an us/them
antagonistic approach.
I have stated before and I will state again
here and in any other forum that I agree with and support these
basic, fundamental principles and objectives of the WC/PLANS
movement:
1. Waldorf Education philosophy, methods and
materials do not belong in a public school system.
2. Full and detailed disclosure should be
made to every prospective parent who approaches a Waldorf School
as to the nature and intention of the philosophical movement
known as Anthroposophy as it forms the basis and foundation of
Waldorf Education; as well as the presence and nature of religious
and philosophical teaching as it appears in the Waldorf curriculum.
3. Waldorf Educators should be ready and able
to acknowledge when a parent feels that either his or her child
or his or her self has suffered in some way through their experience
in a Waldorf classroom or through the actions or words of a Waldorf
Teacher or other member of a Waldorf School community. All such
grievances should be taken seriously and addressed in a timely
and open minded manner. Explanations for methods used in a Waldorf
classroom should be provided in a manner and context appropriate
to the understanding of the parent, with
all due respect for the parent's educational and philosophical
background. While the need may arise for a family to withdraw
from a school due to inherent differences in religious philosophy
or world view, there should be a check point system to evaluate
whether or not
a. full and appropriate information was given to the parents
from the outset;
b. the teacher in question was actually putting Waldorf methodology
into practice appropriately from any standpoint, within or outside
of the WE/Anthro community; and
c. there were any factors that may have influenced a breakdown
of communication and trust between a teacher and student or teacher
and parent separate from Waldorf Educational philosophy per se,
such as school/community politicals, personality clashes, student
problems outside the scope of a "normal" classroom
situation requiring outside assistance (physical problems requiring
a medical doctor's advice and involvement, for example.)
The above being stated as my personal convictions,
I will also state my objections to the WC/PLANS tactics and approach
to Waldorf Education as I understand it to have been promoted
so far:
In their efforts to acquire a base of support
for their legal efforts against Waldorf Charter Schools, PLANS
has actively sought particular statements by Rudolf Steiner and
passages from published books and books of lectures that can
be interpreted to make Rudolf Steiner, the philosophical movement
known as Anthroposophy and by association, the Waldorf School
Movement to appear to be an elitist, racist
organization that promotes a narrow world view that seeks to
involve people in a cult movement. The words "racism"
and "cult" are powerful buzz words in this culture
and are very effective in promoting an emotional backlash toward
any group associated with them. PLANS has been well aware that
the use of these words would gain them a large number of supporters
who may other wise have no particular objection to the presence
of Waldorf Education in their public school classroom, indeed,
who may not have had any particular interest in it, one way or
another. The WC/PLANS organization has gone out of its way to
paint the Anthroposophical Movement and everyone in it with the
National Socialism emblem and to associate it emotionally with
a neo-nazi cult mentality. This is a libelous association which
does a severe injustice to the movement at large and to the widely
diverse philosophical, social and political backgrounds of its
members and associates. It is my belief that PLANS has a legal
basis for removal of Waldorf Education from the public school
system without this defamation of character (although support
for its objectives may have been slower to come and smaller in
scope). The association of WE/ Anthroposophy with either word
must be stopped and irrefutable evidence brought forward into
the arenas of legal and social opinion that both Anthroposophy
and Waldorf Education are in concept and practice universally
human and make no qualitative or quantitative differential between
any persons in respect to race, creed, color, sex or national
origin. In fact, Waldorf Schools for example are more universally
inclusive in both concept and practice than many private school
systems and organizations and have a curriculum in which is built
a basic introduction to every religious thought system of mankind
- ancient and modern. To my knowledge, no other school system
has this claim to make.
As to the use of the word "cult"
in relation to either the Anthroposophical Movement or the Waldorf
Education Movement, this is also a libelous allegation and it
does not stand up against current definitions of "cult"
which can be found in movement such as the following:
www.factnet.org
American Family Foundation (AFF)
Community Resources on Influence & Control (CRIC)
Cult Awareness & Information Centre, Australia
Cult Awareness Network (CAN)
Cult Hotline & Clinic
Cult Information Center (CIC)
Dialog Center International (DCI)
Escape
Ex-Cult Archive
FAIR
Info Cult
reFOCUS Network
Religious Movement Resource Center
Resource Center for Freedom of Mind
The Ross Institute
V.V.P.G. vzw
Watchman Fellowship
Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center
Cult Information Service
The Ex Cult Member Organization
While any group of people whose stated purpose
is to study and possibly put into practice the ideas and teachings
of any individual, living or dead, can be viewed to a certain
point as a "cult", which would include by such definition,
all recognized churches and philosophical organizations, the
use of "cult" in the context of attack against the
Waldorf School and Anthropsophical movements has been an attempt
to associate them with the concept of "coersive persuasion".
Cults which perform the actions and reactions that make of the
technique of "coersive persuasion" use the following
tactics as outlined at www.factnet.org:
HOW TO DETERMINE IF A GROUP IS A DESTRUCTIVE CULT
Q) Anybody can unfairly attack
a group they disagree with by calling it a cult or saying they
are using coercive mind control. How does FACTNet prevent this
type of problem and determine fairly whether or not a group is
a cult?
A) FACTNet uses specific criteria
to determine if a mind control system has been used, and does
not suggest organizations are destructive or dangerous cults
without careful research and determination that the evidence
fits definite criteria. These criteria are threefold.
The first set of criteria
comes from the group' use of a specific set of mind control tactics.
Please see "A technical overview of mind control tactics"
at http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm for details or see http://www.factnet.org/coercivemindcontrol.html for a shorter version. These two
documents are derived from the work of Dr. Margaret Singer professor
emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley the acknowledged
leading authority in the world on mind control and cults.
The second set of criteria
has to do with defining other common elements of mind control
systems, as defined by Robert Jay Lifton's eight point model
of thought reform. Please see "Robert Jay Lifton's Eight
Point Model of Thought Reform" also at http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm. If most points in this model are
being used in a cultic organization, it is most likely a dangerous
and destructive cult.
The third set of criteria
have to do with defining common elements of destructive and dangerous
cults. The following section will help clarify what some of those
specific elements and criteria are.
Common Properties of Potentially
Destructive and Dangerous Cults
The cult is authoritarian
in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme
authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates
for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's
wishes and roles. There is no appeal outside of his or her system
to greater systems of justice. For example, if a school teacher
feels unjustly treated by a principal, appeals can be made. In
a cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on
all matters.
The cult's leaders tend to
be charismatic, determined, and domineering. They persuade followers
to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow
them. They (not the individual) then take over control of their
followers' possessions, money, lives.
The cult's leaders are self-appointed,
messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life.
For example, the flying saucer cult leaders claim that people
from outer space have commissioned them to lead people to special
places to await a space ship.
The cult's leaders center
the veneration of members upon themselves. Priests, rabbis, ministers,
democratic leaders, and leaders of genuinely altruistic movements
keep the veneration of adherents focused on God, abstract principles,
and group purposes. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus
of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.
The cult tends to be totalitarian
in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely
to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where
they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think,
and say.
The cult tends to have a double
set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within
the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand,
they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers.
Established religions teach members to be honest and truthful
to all, and to abide by one set of ethics.
The cult has basically only
two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising. Established
religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise
funds. However, their sole purpose is not to grow larger; such
groups have the goals to better the lives of their members and
mankind in general. The cults may claim to make social contributions,
but in actuality these remain mere
claims, or gestures. Their
focus is always dominated by recruiting new members and fund-raising.
The cult appears to be innovative
and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition,
offering something novel, and instituting the only viable system
for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills.
While claiming this, the cult then surreptitiously uses systems
of psychological coercion on its members to inhibit their ability
to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and
the cult.
A careful, honest and factual study of Rudolf
Steiner and the Anthroposophical movement will prove beyond a
shadow of a doubt that NONE of the above criteria apply. The
last criterium seems to be the one that the WC/PLANS groups most
want to associate with the WE movement. However, the following
is in fact the truth:
1. Rudolf Steiner carefully placed his teaching
in the context of objective world history and scientific fact
as it was known through 1925. Anthroposophists since 1925 have
constantly re-examined the original world to see if it remains
valid in light of developments in both fields since 1925.
2. There is no social, economic or political
structure in place anywhere in the world by which the Anthroposophical
Society headquartered in Dornach, Switzerland or the Anthroposophical
Society at large can influence anyone to join the movement, pay
money to the movement or limit their personal expression and/or
interpretation of Rudolf Steiner's material. There is no persuasive
element, either obvious or covert that can or tries to put pressure
on anyone inside or outside of the organization to "believe"
anything that Dr. Steiner said or to support through words, deeds
or money any ideas contained in his work or any individuals who
have gone on to work with his ideas. Members of the Anthroposophical
Movement are not under any directive, spoken or unspoken as to
what they wear, eat, read, watch, listen to, say or do. Members
are never encouraged in any way (direct or indirect) to avoid
or ignore other religious teachings, scientific findings or philosophical,
social or political ideologies.
Members are never requested, directly or indirectly,
to locate in a geographic area or to limit or restrict their
contacts with any family members or friends outside the "movement."
Members are never requested or required to reliquish any
memberships or associations with any other religious,
political or social organizations. Members are never limited
or restricted in participating in the work or society of the
movement through judgments or evaluations by other members, other
than considerations of basic civic and ethical proprieties. Members
do not hold in "veneration" any other member of the
society, either living or dead, including Rudolf Steiner, beyond
an affectionate respect. Members do not actively recruit people
to join the Anthroposophical Society, nor is there any such recruitement
system in existence. Members are never solicited for money except
for yearly dues if active, subscription fees for publications
and occasional appeals for economic assistance for specific projects,
the response to which is always voluntary and confidential.
3. Rudolf Steiner never promoted himself or
allowed himself to be promoted as a cult leader or figure. In
point of fact, when the Anthroposophical Society was created,
after a group of people wished to separate themselves from the
Theosophical Society, Rudolf Steiner was asked to be the "President"
of the Society. He refused the position, while agreeing to be
involved as a teacher and
lecturer. It was only after the burning of
the first Goetheanum in Dornach on New Year's Eve, 1921, that
Rudolf Steiner accepted the position of the President of the
Anthroposophical Society in an effort to renew the courage and
vitality of the worldwide movement in the face of brutal attack
(my interpretation). Rudolf Steiner maintained avidly the supreme
importance of the individual's study of Anthroposophical concepts
on their own, and their own personal connection with and committment
to those ideas. He refused point blank on many occasions to tell
any person what he or she "ought to do" in any given
situation, personal or Society related. He stated definitively
on many occasions what the result (physical, emotional or spiritual)
was of particular human activities, but he expressly left it
to the individual to do or not do what he or she saw fit.
The other primary objection that I have to
the tactics and strategies of the WC/PLANS groups is the use
of personal problems as being illustrative of problems to be
found worldwide inherently in the practice of Waldorf Education.
By this I mean, that while each individual parent or family has
a perfect right to express dissatisfaction with the methods and
practice of Waldorf Education in relation to themselves, they
repeatedly infer that Waldorf methods and techniques are inherently
destructive to all students and their families. They also characterize
all Waldorf Teachers and Waldorf Schools as being uniformly alike
and "mindless" in their application of those methods
and techniques. This is far from the truth and borders on a "smear"
campaign. In the stories that I have read so far on their websites,
I find no indication that the whole story is being told or that
the parents feel themselves to have had any responsibility for
the outcomes of the situations they are describing.
I personally have never known two Waldorf
teachers to be exactly alike on anything! I have never known
any Waldorf teachers who are instructed to "take Steiner's
word for it." or who would consent to do so. I have known
Waldorf teachers who were not Anthroposophists and many who considered
themselves Anthroposophists but who also participated in other
religious or philosophical groups at the same time. There were
conflicts from time to time when several teachers, usually with
a group of parents, tried to promote an outside sect (for example,
Sufiism) in a school in a way that interfered with standard Waldorf
curriculum and practice.
I can't even remember having had any "Anthroposophical"
parents in the initiative schools that I taught at. (I'm trying
to remember if there were.) I have had classes of children whose
parents ranged from "pagan" to "Christian"
with everything possible in between. I can't remember any Moslems,
but I have written an article called "Religion in the Waldorf
Schools" which outlines why I think
most fundamentalist Christian or Moslem parents would not choose
a Waldorf School for their children. The
Waldorf curriculum is specifically designed to expose all of
the students to all major world religions at the appropriate
age and stage of development of the child. Any parent with a
strong fundamentalist or atheistic view would quite rightly not
choose a Waldorf School for his or her child. Every parent should
be made aware of the Waldorf curriculum and how it is taught
as soon as they approach the school for information.
Lastly, I object to the tactic used by both
the Waldorf Critics and PLANS groups of asking for answers to
their questions or objections then refusing to listen to the
answers or information provided or to acknowledge the honest
and open minded efforts of Waldorf supporters. This is a common
strategy (concious or otherwise) of groups and individuals who
adopt an offensive approach. Questions asked with this motivation
are designed only as springboards to further attacks and the
position in taken in which it is assumed that the side being
attacked will not provide any meaningful answers. The motivation
here is not one of inquiry and research
but of adversarial debate. Since PLANS has a legal agenda to
promote, it makes sense to use the political debate forum as
a model. Unfortunately, political debates are not designed to
reach understanding and consenus of opinion. They are designed
to be emotionally charged and devisive and usually, to mask real
problems behind the buzz words and catch phrases of popular "issues."
A real mutual study of Waldorf methods and educational perspectives
in the light of other philosophies and techniques of education
in use today in both public and private schools would be a really
useful tool for educators and parents in the Waldorf Movement
and outside of it. Like any other practice, in art or science,
there is always room for evaluation and adaptation.
Human beings are never static, children the
least of all. There is something new to be learned every day.
We do not live in the same world as Rudolf Steiner, Maria Montessori,
Piaget, Froebel, Dewey, Aristotle, Albertus Comenius,
Sylvia Ashton-Warner or any other wonderful educator
or educational philosopher that we can study and learn from.
Every idea has to be metamorphosed into today's lesson, today's
experience.
I have heard experienced Waldorf teachers
say that after they have completed an eight year journey with
one class, when they come to take a second First Grade, it is
like they never taught before. The world has already changed
and the children have changed too. So has the teacher. It is
a different concept from the kind of school where a teacher may
teach Third Grade for thirty years, after a while possibly falling
into a "routine" of teaching the same material the
same way, no matter what the children may bring into the classroom,
adapting only to material obtained from time to time through
required "teacher refresher" courses mandated by the
state. This repetition of material has as its very
good intention the goal of making a teacher an "expert"
in his or her field and niche of curriculum.
It does not, however, failsafe against mistakes that the teacher
may make, in some cases repeatedly. It does not guarantee the
optimisation of student learning from year to year. It does not
guarantee that every child in a public school will be understood
and evaluated as an individual and that
each child's strengths and weaknesses will be factored into the
learning process by every teacher he meets in the course of eight
years. Waldorf schools cannot make that
guarantee, either. But the fact that the teacher must "live"
with the results of his or her mistakes over the course of eight
years and cannot pass them off to another teacher in the following
year, means that the teacher is inherently making a committment
to self evaluation and continued learning and growth. The smaller
size of any private school and the more intimate working together
of parents and teachers to promote and support the school offers
the opportunity for more frequent dialogue and communication.
It may also lead to more heartbreak when such communication breaks
down, but it is a very human risk and must be weighed against
the kind of state school system where the communication is less
frequent and more artificially constructed and censored.
Waldorf Education requires the following principles,
the three H's of education, from every one of its participants
- parent or teacher:
Honesty - to be ruthlessly honest with one's
self and tactfully honest with each other
Humility - to be ready to learn and adapt to what comes both
from the children and from the community
Honor - to honor both the ideals which live in one's own heart,
mind and soul and to honor what lives in the heart, mind and
soul of the other, whether child or adult
To the extent to which any group that seeks
to criticize or challenge the Waldorf School Movement and its
Members, that group should adopt, promote and defend these three
principles as well.
Christine Natale
February 8, 2004
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 12:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
At 20:38 08.02.2004, Christine wrote:
To the Waldorf and Athroposophical communities
and to the Waldorf Critics and PLANS communities:
You know, flaming and high emotional tactics
certainly make for a circus atmosphere level of entertainment,
but this stuff just isn't doing our "cause" any good
at all.
Frankly, the role of a missionary for a cause
doesn't appeal to me one bit. I want honesty. The circus is already
there; the only question that remains is who are going to be
its directors and who will be the dancing elephants. On the WC
list, anthro-clowns are doubling as dancing elephants for the
PLANS directors.
I think that there is a very profound good
in having a group like "Waldorf Critics" - although
I wish it were more of a "Waldorf Challengers" group,
which they can be sometimes.
It took me a long time to become aware that
the PLANS-WC cult was supposed to be a "Waldorf Challengers"
group like you describe. I discovered their organization when
someone gave me some print-outs from their website about Steiner
and the Jews, Anthroposophists and the Holocaust, abut anthroposophy
being racist to the core and disgusting and so on. so frankly,
I don't give a damn about Waldorf schools or their critics. They
can tie up the courts all they want, and I don't give a shit
about what the judges decide about taxpayers money and curriculum
in so-called charter schools. It's none of my damn business,
but the critics keep saying that I'm a Waldorf representative
in their court circus because I defend RS. They keep saying that
everything I write is to be used to warn Waldorf parents against
Waldorf schools. I don't care.
I have therefore refrained for the most part
from participating in discussions about Waldorf schools and their
educational system, because it's outside my field of experience
and knowledge. I have only discussed Christology, ocultism, initiation
and things like that. And Nazism. But I've been through the Waldorf
dance too; they're only going around in circles. Check out these
threads from 1999, when I was there:
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy Disclosure to
Parents
http://www.uncletaz.com/wc/wcthreads/disclosure.html
What is Anthroposophical Influence?
http://www.uncletaz.com/wc/wcthreads/anthroinflu.html
First Amendment and WE
http://www.uncletaz.com/wc/wcthreads/firstamendwe.html
All this stuff has been discussed so thoroughly
that what's happening now is only senseless repetition and a
PR effort to persuade the world to the PLANS point of view, not
only regarding Waldorf, but regarding Anthroposophy and Steiner
as well. Why Steiner's Christology is compatible with the KKK
and things like that. Flaming and high emotional tactics? You
bet.
The fact that they question Waldorf Education's
philosophy, methods and materials is actually a good thing if
it sparks intelligent Waldorf Educators to stop a moment and
re-think and re-evaluate their work in the light of the most
contemporary sociological and psychological findings in education.
I would never disturb or disrupt or criticize
intelligent discussions of this kind, and I never have.
It is my personal conviction that Waldorf
Education is inherently consistent with all the best findings
of educational psychology and can hold its own
against any challenger.
It may hold its own in an honest debate, but
the Jews did not hold their own against allegations of global
conspiracy. The lies were too many and too gross.
The difficulty may be in finding people
who have the time to do the necessary work. Waldorf teaching
is a truly 24/7 vocation and while there are many Waldorf teachers
who could contribute a lot to this discussion, probably very
few actually have time to do so. In fact, very few active Waldorf
teachers probably have time to spend in front of the computer
on the internet or reading e-mails. So it falls on the shoulders
of a few people out here in cyberspace to at least champion the
cause.
The cause of Waldorf schools must be championed
by experienced Waldorf teachers and parents. There is room for
that here at Anthroposophy Tomorrow too if they come forward
and start some threads. Your post here may be a good start.
<snip>
Attacking the WC/PLANS side for being "materialistic"
"atheistic" or "Ahrimanic" is meaningless
for our purposes, as is, on the other hand, their attacking WE
and Anthroposophists for being "cultish" "anti-science"
or "religious".
That's what makes it a circus.
"Come now, gentlemen,
your love is all I crave
You'll still be in the circus when I'm laughing,
laughing in my grave"
- Mick Jagger: "Memo from Turner"
WC/PLANS members have every right to their
own world view, as WE/Anthropops have a right to ours.
I don't think any of us have argued against
free speech or freedom of thought.
There is much middle ground, actually,
to be found in the very latest findings of educational psychology,
neuroscience and sociological studies, but nothing will be gained
along these lines by an us/them antagonistic approach.
Neither do I think we have expressed ourselves
antagonistically against any educational or psychological theories.
We have expressed ourselves antagonistically against calling
Anthroposophy Nazism, and it is our right to do so.
I have stated before and I will state again
here and in any other forum that I agree with and support these
basic, fundamental principles and objectives of the WC/PLANS
movement:
<snip>
If this were all PLANS-WC was about, I wouldn't
have bothered with them in the first place. They wouldn't have
interested me. I am not, and have never been, a Waldorf teacher.
My son attends Waldorf school in a different city where his mother
lives, who is a Waldorf teacher.
There are Waldorf schools all over Norway,
called Steiner schools, and that's the only thing ordinary people
associate with RS and anthroposophy: Steiner schools. I'm sick
of it. I'm sick and tired of having the pulpit and the pedagogy
hurled at me every time I talk about Lemuria! I'm tired of hearing
about schools! I have nothing to do with them! Even in my recent
discussion with Diana here, she talked about my clients
being Waldorf parents! Hello? Is this a damn circus or isn't
it?
I wish PLANS-WC would stick to schools and
leave us ordinary anthro's alone and stop spreading the poison
that we're brainwashed Nazis and racists and even child-abusers
because for some reason they think every anthro is after their
children.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
Well, Waldorf Education is a "daughter
movement" of Anthroposophy. So if it is proven beyond all
doubt by the standard criteria of today's awareness of cults
that Anthroposophy is NOT a cult, then, Waldorf Critics should
leave Anthroposophists and Anthroposophical discussions, per
se, alone, because there is absolutely no intention on the part
of Anthroposophists and Waldorf Teachers to try to make anyone
- adults or children - Anthroposophists. There is no mechanism
for recruitment and no incentive. There is no evidence of a high
proportion of Anthroposophists sending their children to Waldorf
Schools and no evidence of even a small proportion of Waldorf
School graduates "becoming" Anthroposophists.
So, Anthropsosophists can believe that the
earth was once made of green cheese, which is why the moon is
now made of green cheese and that when we die we will all go
to heaven where everyone is eating green cheese pizza and that
wouldn't have anything at all to do with whether or not Waldorf
Education is a good educational system.
Right?
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 12:42 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
Taz
so frankly, I don't give a damn about Waldorf
schools or their critics.
Oh, what will I do? I MUST get him back. I'll
think about that at "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" because
"tomorrow is another day."
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 12:52 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
At 21:40 08.02.2004, Christine wrote:
So, Anthropsosophists can believe that
the earth was once made of green cheese, which is why the moon
is now made of green cheese and that when we die we will all
go to heaven where everyone is eating green cheese pizza and
that wouldn't have anything at all to do with whether or not
Waldorf Education is a good educational system.
Right?
I don't understand your point.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 12:56 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
At 21:42 08.02.2004, Christine wrote:
Taz
so frankly, I don't give a damn about Waldorf
schools or their critics.
Oh, what will I do? I MUST get him back.
I'll think about that at "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" because
"tomorrow is another day."
My point is that I've been flaming with the
critics and doing circus with them regarding issues not
related to the classroom, which I don't give a damn about. But
I do believe that my Steiner-inspired philosophy is a healthy
one. It's up to the pedagogists to decide whether or not such
Steiner-inspiration is also healthy for schools. I don't meddle
in that discussion.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 1:12 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
The point is that I can understand the distinction
between Anthroposophy and it's "world view" or "belief
system" or basic ideas and Waldorf Education as a work in
itself, but obviously the WCs do not and refuse to do so when
it is pointed out because it is more politically useful to use
the more avante-garde bits from Steiner as a proof that Waldorf
Teachers must be nuts!
And it does concern you in a way, Tarjei in
a general sense - because we live in an international culture
and people borrow precedents from any country or political system
if there are points to be made within their own. Just because
Norway is cool with Steiner schools now, doesn't mean they will
always be. And I have said before that it is my personal belief
system that when the world political situation heats up in the
"Ahrimanic arena" EVERYONE who has been even peripherally
involved with Waldorf Schools may come under attack and prosecution,
whether they were a "true believer" or not. One relatively
small court case involving one charter school on the west coast
of the United States could very well have repercussions around
the globe. As you said regarding Jews trying to defend themselves
with reason:
Christine
It is my personal conviction that Waldorf
Education is inherently consistent with all the best findings
of educational psychology and can hold its own
against any challenger.
Tarjei
It may hold its own in an honest debate,
but the Jews did not hold their own against allegations of global
conspiracy. The lies were too many and too gross.
We are all in a situation where it behooves
us to insist on clarity in this situation.
You just said:
I wish PLANS-WC would stick to schools
and leave us ordinary anthro's alone and stop spreading the poison
that we're brainwashed Nazis and racists and even child-abusers
because for some reason they think every anthro is after their
children.
If the PLANS movement can get the words "racist"
"Nazi" and "cult" imbedded into their California
lawsuit, then there will be a legal record that will be very
useful in the future to those with even more violent political
agendas. They could potentially say "See, we have to destroy
Waldorf Schools and everyone associated
with them. After all, it was proven in a California court that
they are a racist, Nazi cult." Look around you on the street,
even there in liberal Norway. Do you think those people are going
to take the time to read through all of your WC posts and articles
on your website to decide for themselves if such a label is,
in fact, deserved?
We are all in this together, Tarjei, like
it or not.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 2:03 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
At 22:12 08.02.2004, Christine wrote:
The point is that I can understand the
distinction between Anthroposophy and it's "world view"
or "belief system" or basic ideas and Waldorf Education
as a work in itself, but obviously the WCs do not and refuse
to do so when it is pointed out because it is more politically
useful to use the more avante-garde bits from Steiner as a proof
that Waldorf Teachers must be nuts!
No avant-garde bit from Steiner says the moon
is made of green cheese. That's why I didn't understand your
point. The PLANS'ers dont recognize any difference between that
and Buddha's mission on Mars, just like some of them don't even
see the difference between the Easter Bunny and the Risen One.
And it does concern you in a way, Tarjei
in a general sense -
Of course it does, and I've been doing my
share. I've defended Buddha on Mars and I've discussed the seven
races of Atlantis with Peter S. I even received a token monetary
award from an anthro-fund a few years ago for "defending
Anthroposophy in the public debate."
Do you think those people are going to
take the time to read through all of your WC posts and articles
on your website to decide for themselves if such a label is,
in fact, deserved?
No, but they may notice that my anarchosophical
website is linked up all over the liberal and anarchist left,
anti-fascist and anti-racist websites and so on and ask themselves
if that looks Nazi or racist.
We are all in this together, Tarjei, like
it or not.
That doesn't mean we all have to play the
same tune. And sometimes we can have ourselves a party and be
the circus directors..
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 9:40 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
Dear Christine,
I deeply appreciate the time and effort that
you put into this post. I love your writing because it seems
to me that you are coming from the heart, along with the obvious
facts that you are well read, and have much experience with Anthroposophy,
and WE.
I agree in theory to the following:
The danger in even attempting to respond
to or refute allegations made by WC and PLANS members is that
we are all working with bits and pieces of events and situations
brought out as examples. Each "side" brings forth only
what supports its goals and intentions and rarely is a discussion
focused, level-headed and open minded enough for a real consensus
to take place. Attacking the WC/PLANS side for being "materialistic"
"atheistic" or "Ahrimanic" is meaningless
for our purposes, as is, on the other hand, their attacking WE
and Anthroposophists for being "cultish" "anti-science"
or "religious".
I love the ideal. And I hope not to lose sight
of it. There are two quotes that stick out for me right now --
"where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall
follow me afterwards" and "My time has not yet come."
I love the idea of consensus too. My little
bit of experience with the struggle to come to such, leaves doubts
in my mind about our ability to really come to this ideal in
our present day and age. Seems to me that we all have to barf
up our neurosis first, in order to really understand its potential
-- which probably doesn't amount to much (neurosis). But all
to often we pretend that it doesn't exist -- "lets all be
speerchill and start up a waldorf school."
I say that Peter S. is an atheist with a materialistic
world view, and that that is paramount in his decision to say
that Anthroposophy is racist to the core. He calls me a "clueless
character." Ping pong, ping pong, bla bla bla...
I think an even bigger danger happens when
this kind of stuff starts to become fun -- a game of sorts. That's
the kind of shit that all wars are made of.
I'm not trying to justify stupid behavior,
just maybe reluctantly accept that we all do the best that we
can and hopefully learn from our stupidity.
I've learned allot from shooting my mouth
off and then having to eat crow afterward. Unfortunately we seem
to me to be stuck with a messy process.
All the best
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 10:11 pm
Subject: R: [anthroposophy] Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf
Principles
A little remark about it.
Since my three year toddler is a Waldorf "customer"
I'm directly experiencing something about this topic. Well, here
in Rome,, as I can see, not only teachers; but the whole movement
of the schools is trying to help, the growth and the rejuvenatiomn
of the movement itself; tks also to the very peculiar history
of the Italian Anthro-Movemnet which has at his core a special
non-dogmatic spiritual stream, most of all here in my own tome.
In other words: we are working in order to avoid the double danger
towering above us: the dogmatic "parroting" of 80 years
old insights and the blind strife for the "new" in
education.
Andrea the Italian
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:22 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
Hi Mike!
The purpose in writing this was not to criticize
you or Tarjei or anyone else. I have always been the sort of
person who gets real mad and just wishes I could roar loud enough
to get the other person to back down and say I was right no matter
what. But I think I had a high school teacher who was the one
who really took time to show me how important it is to try to
reign in those feelings (imagine trying to teach that to a 16
or 17 year old Leo girl!) and to try to develop an argument based
on what the other person was actually saying.
I certainly am no great example of this, even
thirty something years later, but I have a paranoid feeling about
this WC/PLANS thing and it arises in me that we need to be able
to fight fire with fire and leave an extremely clear record of
our position and our reality. They may seem like a somewhat isolated
group of right wing fanatics, but their kind of "information"
spreads faster than truth and I am sure that Waldorf Schools
and potential school communities are having to deal with a backlash
from this mess all the time. Part of my intention in writing
little "treatises" is to possibly give someone somewhere
a response that they may not have the time to write themselves.
So, if you all think there is any value in it, please pass it
on to anyone that you think might need
it. If you think corrections are needed first, please let me
know.
As I said to Tarjei, this "mud"
sticks to us all and we might not be able to foresee down the
road how many people will turn up their noses at us if we even
mention the word "Waldorf". If Waldorf schools get
branded (wrongly and unfairly) as a "racist Nazi cult"
which the WC/PLANS group is coming perilously close
to doing, every one of us will be suspect and will have to spend
the rest of our lives trying to explain, defend and exonerate
ourselves. That is why I think we should be watching the court
cases very closely and if anyone is directly involved or knows
someone who is, try to insist that those buzz words not be allowed
into the proceedings.
In my personal opinion, this is one of the
biggest problems caused directly by the Waldorf School movement
ever allowing Waldorf Education to be brought into a public school
classroom in the first place. It was a stupid move. These are
the things I think are wrong with the idea:
1. It brings Waldorf Education under the scrutiny
and to an extent, under the control of the state government.
While there is nothing about Waldorf Schools or Waldorf Education
that needs to "hide", there are many aspects of our
methodology which are ahead of their time and require a great
deal of effort on our part to give the background and reasoning
for. There are many elements of state education that we do not
want to participate in, for example, pledging allegiance to a
national flag. In this unparalleled time of flag-waving, the
lack of the flag in the classroom is enough to raise antipathy
from any government entity. Also elements such as the Sistine
Madonna, morning verses with the word "God" in them,
candle-lighting and other "rituals" of our day all
envoke religious school practices and make state orthodoxy very
uncomfortable, to say the least. Remember, these people want
the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance
itself!
Technically, Waldorf teachers come from many
different backgrounds and from the inception of the first school,
Steiner made it clear that a good teacher did not necessarily
have to have a state teaching credential, but there were other
criteria of character and life experience that were more important.
The fact that some Waldorf teachers do not have state certification,
some not even a standard Bachelor's degree
is not something that sits well with the government, either.
2. The financial paradigm of tax funded education
is wrong and against the social principles on which the Waldorf
schools were founded.
3. The state schools as they exist today,
since the 1960s have become self-proclamed bastions of secularism.
Legal measures have been used ruthlessly to strip every religious
element out of the public school classroom. The concept behind
this (ostensibly) is to ensure that all children can feel comfortable
in a public school setting and do not have to face potential
ostracism due to their families' religious beliefs or lack of
beliefs. Considering the amount of "Christianity" active
in the public schools from around 1850 to 1950, there is a justifiable
basis for this attitude.
If I had a kindergarten age child and, for
whatever reason, had to or wanted to put him or her into a public
school, I would be appalled if it were run as a Montessori school.
The reason is that Maria Montessori's EXPRESS purpose in her
educational philosophy was to make all children good Catholics.
Whether the methods and techniques of a private school system
are "good" universally, the very existence of a "religious"
or "spiritual" background is enough to justify keeping
them out of the public school classroom.
Perhaps some day far in the future, Waldorf
Education will be so universally desirable within society at
large, that it will be mandated for all schools. But I have a
feeling that if society moves in a more "spiritualized"
direction, at least here in America, the rabid Christian fundamentalists
will pounce on it first and we will see a "Christian"
public school system the likes of which will make the early 20th
century seem positively enlightened.
I've got to run. More later.
Love,
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 9:44 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
At 14:22 09.02.2004, Christine wrote:
Hi Mike!
The purpose in writing this was not to
criticize you or Tarjei or anyone else. I have always been the
sort of person who gets real mad and just wishes I could roar
loud enough to get the other person to back down and say I was
right no matter what.
I understand. I knee-jerk sometimes when I'm
left with the impression that someone may be wishing to tell
me what to write in my own posts, just like you once reacted
to somebody else on this list in November.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 10:56 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
Dear Christine,
Thanks for your work that appeared under this
subject heading. I know a lot of effort had to go into it. For
the purpose of a little levity in dealing with PLANS and the
WClist, let me share a little story from life.
From 1964 to 1967, I attended the University
of Montana School of Law in Missoula Montana, graduating with
a J.D. (Juris Doctor) in June '67. While there we had a number
of interesting professors, of which one of the most memorable
was Professor Mason, a scholar of Constitutional Law, and Federal
Civil Procedure, the former a rather life filled and dynamic
course, but with the latter one being dry and mind numbing. Unfortunately,
it was the latter course that was the most important, but that
is another story.
Professor Mason was a very deliberate and
disciplined individual, wearing always a dark suit and a white
shirt with French cuffs. He lived near the School, and on the
weekends in the Spring he could be seen in his rose garden, tending
his flowers dressed in a starched white coverall and white gloves.
His speech was always precise and careful,
and he demanded of us an equally discipline approach to the law.
As a young lawyer, he had been on the team
that prosecuted the Nuremberg trials after WWII. This later was
used against him by a rather ambitious editor of the University's
student Newspaper, one David Rorvik. Mr. Rorvik picked a fight
with Professor Mason during our senior year ('67), for reasons
that remain obscure, during which Professor Mason was accused
of anti-semitic behaviors for certain aspects of his work on
the Nuremberg trials. It was clear the accusations were spurious,
and that Rorvik had some other agenda (his editorials at the
paper were often outrageous in one degree or another), but as
students of Professor Mason we were naturally concerned.
Professor Mason basically did nothing. He
made no reply, sent no letter to the Editor, or any other activity
other than continuing his teaching. Finally after about a week,
as we were leaving class one of us asked Professor Mason why
he did not reply to these clearly spurious charges. His reply,
below, was quite out of character with his generally formal classroom
behavior, which made it all the more memorable and which makes
it also apply to the WClist to some degree.
Here is what he said:
"Never get in a pissing contest with
a skunk."
warm regards,
joel
...................................................................................................................................
From: Linda Clemens
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 11:54 am
Subject: Re: Waldorf Principles
--- golden3000997 wrote:
Whether the methods and techniques of a
private school system are "good" universally, the very
existence of a "religious" or "spiritual"
background is enough to justify keeping them out of the public
school classroom.
Perhaps some day far in the future, Waldorf
Education will be so universally desirable within society at
large, that it will be mandated for all schools.
Could you elaborate on this idea? I understand
your point that public education today rejects the all religious
or spiritual elements, and that one day this may relax. But then
you seem to leap to suppositions about which "spiritual
elements" would win out and ultimately become mandatory
in public education.
Surely, the idea that any one particular view
could or would become "mandatory" is reason enough
to dissuade society from "moving in a more spiritualized
direction" in public education. I'm not sure I understand
why it needs follow, why making a particular view "mandatory"
would be the inevitable outcome. And speaking for myself, I wouldn't
be at all reassured about any "spiritual" mandates
in education just because they were Waldorf-brand spiritualisms.
L
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 4:05 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Waldorf Principles
I meant in a few more centuries, when (hopefully)
the entire view of the human being will have matured. I certainly
don't mean the infantile, egotistical views
of "spirituality" that many people entertain today.
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 4:11 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
Howdy Joel!
Yup! You may have missed my forwarding of
some "country quotes" from another site. One of them
was about wrestling with pigs & getting muddy. I made a snide
aside to Daniel who had made a really good response to Diana
Winters and she had treated it like dirt.
She got really offended at the intended offence
and hence removed herself from our presence!
Welcome home! How did your adventures in New
Hampshire go? Did you freeze your *** off?
: ) Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: Linda Clemens
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 4:49 pm
Subject: Re: Waldorf Principles
--- golden3000997 wrote:
I meant in a few more centuries, when (hopefully)
the entire view of the human being will have matured. I certainly
don't mean the infantile, egotistical views
of "spirituality" that many people entertain today.
I'm a little troubled at the idea that in
the future our "spirituality" may mature to the point
where society would mandate Waldorf education in public schools.
Mandating any particular public education system because it is
"perceived" to have the Best Spirituality component
seems a major step backwards to me.
Let me qualify this by saying, again, I'm
not an anthroposophist or an expert in Rudolf Steiner, but it's
my understanding that it was his view that education should be
completely free of government control (ie "mandates").
Would this view change, would he be supportive of a "mandatory"
educational system so long as the educational system mandated
was his? Waldorf?
L
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Waldorf Principles
Sorry again - to clarify - not mandated by
Government- but by the totality of the social environment. Please
try to understand I am fantasizing a very different human community
than what we live with today. You are trying to fit it
into today's world and social/ political reality.
That is not what I was trying to say. It's like French schools
teach in French because the people in their society speak French.
The government doesn't have to "mandate" it by law.
Schools in a more "spiritual" society will teach in
a more "spiritual" way because that will be the "language"
of the people in that society.
Who knows what a few hundred years may bring
about? : )
[See
also "Fwd: In Your Neck of the Woods"]
...................................................................................................................................
From: Linda Clemens
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:46 pm
Subject: Re: Waldorf Principles
--- golden3000997 wrote:
Sorry again - to clarify - not mandated
by Government- but by the totality of the social environment.
Please try to understand I am fantasizing a very different human
community than what we live with today. You are trying to fit
it into today's world and social/ political
reality. That is not what I was trying to say.
Thank you. I think I'm understanding you.
Not "mandated" in the sense of forced on anybody but
"mandated" in the sense of fulfilling the demand? Sorry,
I know my terms are clumsy, hidebound by current connotations,
but I hope I'm getting closer to your meaning. :)
It's like French schools teach in French
because the people in their society speak French. The government
doesn't have to "mandate" it by law.
Maybe not in the far and very different future,
but the French government doesn't allow for any wiggle room on
this issue today. I'm pretty sure it's mandated......... /g
Who knows what a few hundred years may
bring about?
I know this is petty, but somewhere near the
top on my wish list would be that "Beam Me Up" transportation
system they have on Star Trek. Fast, clean...no traffic jambs.
I'd REALLY love to have that.
L
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 6:04 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Waldorf Principles
Teleporting would be cool, although remember
the episode where that guy got caught in the in-between stage?
Kind of like the clock I wrote about a day or two ago. I hope
that if they learn to take apart my molecules, they can remember
how to put them back together again! Hey, but what if we wanted
to lose a few pounds quickly? Maybe they could leave those out!!
Personally, I am waiting for them to "discover"
the force of levity (as opposed to "gravity). Then we can
learn to fly! I always had flying dreams as a child. Did you
ever see the David Copperfield magic program about flying?? It
made me cry and cry. I wish I had a tape of it!
Do you remember the scene with Uncle Albert
in "Mary Poppins" where the children go with Mary Poppins
to visit him and they find him bouncing around the ceiling because he "goes UP" when he laughs?
Levity = Levity. Ha-Ha! Of course, Mary Poppins doesn' have to
laugh to do it, because she is in complete control of the forces
of the Universe. Have you read the originals?? So WONDERFUL!
Remember the chapter about Maia, the youngest of the "Seven
Sisters" - the Pleiades, who comes down to do her Christmas
shopping with Jane and Michael? What about when she goes dancing
with the Zodiac on her birthday?
Oh, when spiritual reality really sinks in,
Teleporting will only one of the many wonders we will know!
: ) Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:26 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 17:11, golden3000997
wrote:
Welcome home! How did your adventures in
New Hampshire go? Did you freeze your *** off?
Yes, it did fall off about 2 hours after I
stepped off the plane in Manchester and the temperature at the
airport was minus 14. I think the high during the two weeks I
was there was about 10 above.
I spoke in Great Barrington MA on Moral Grace,
and in Wilton NH on the Four Forms of Love, to small intimate
groups, which gave us wonderful opportunities for conversation.
I also taught a seminar (again to a small group) at Keene State
College on the relationship between the history of ideas, ordinary
event history, and the evolution of conscious as these three
interrelated streams converged in the phenomena of modern problems
in political and social existence (or as their course instructor
called it: Campaign Finance Reform, and the New Hampshire Primary).
There were other matters I attended to, but
as this place is watched by prudes on a witch hunt, I shall not
violate what could be called the rules of writing for a family
newspaper.
j.
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Waldorf Principles
You GO Joel! : )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
assimilation 2
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
