Gerard Kerkvliet
Report
Rudolf Steiner recognized as opponent of
anti-Semitism and nationalism
Zeist/Driebergen, Netherlands,
April 1, 2000: On Saturday, April 1, 2000, the Commission on
"Anthroposophy and the Question of Race" made its final
report to the Council of the Anthroposophical Society in The
Netherlands. In this final report the Commission reiterates its
prior conclusion of the interim report of February, 1998, namely,
that the work of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) contains neither
racial doctrine nor statements made for the purpose of insulting
persons or groups of people because of their race, and which
could therefore be called racist. In the opinion of the Commission,
the collected works of Rudolf Steiner do contain a number of
statements that, by today's standards, are of a discriminatory
nature or could be experienced as discriminatory.
In total the Commission
examined and evaluated 245 quotations from the 89,000 page collected
works of Rudolf Steiner, 145 of which were reported in the interim
report. This is more than twenty times as many as the approximately
one dozen statements that had been quoted in this discussion
in the media about Anthroposophy. The great difference in the
number of quotations is, by itself already, evidence of the fact
that the debate about the question whether Anthroposophy embodies
racism and racial discrimination has been conducted on the basis
of grossly incomplete information. This incompleteness has led
to a distorted picture ­ in the negative sense of both Steiner's
ideas and the reputation of the anthroposophical movement in
Holland today.
The conclusion of the Commission
is that sixteen statements, if they were in public by a person
on his or her own authority, could be a violation of the prohibition
of racial discrimination under the Criminal Code of the Netherlands.
The relevant article in the Criminal Code closely resembles article
1 of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination. These sixteen statements are
four more than the twelve that had been identified as discriminatory
in the interim report. As is described in Steiner's autobiography,
one of these had been experienced as offensive by a Jewish connection
of Steiner even in his own time.
The Commission finds again
that any suggestion that racism is an inherent part of Anthroposophy,
or that conceptually Steiner helped prepare the way for the holocaust,
has proven to be categorically wrong. As a matter of fact, the
investigation of the Commission shows that, beginning in the
year 1900, he clearly spoke and wrote against the dangers of
anti-Semitism, including in the periodical of a then existing
German association against anti-Semitism existing at that time.
Equality
The Commission emphasizes that Rudolf Steiner's
concept of man is based on the equality of all individuals, and
not on some supposed superiority of one race over another. Anthroposophy
is diametrically opposed to social Darwinism in which the idea
of survival of the fittest leads to the domination of the strongest
race. In Steiner's view of society the central idea is a cosmopolitan
striving for one humanity without distinctions as to races and
peoples. In the final report this is elaborated in a new chapter
about Steiner's views on international law and the self-determination
of peoples.
This study was done under a mandate of the
Anthroposophical Society in The Netherlands by a commission chaired
by lawyer Dr. Th. A. van Baarda. The reason for the study was
the appearance of publications in the media about a supposed
racial doctrine of Rudolf Steiner and the fear that this doctrine
might have an effect on the teaching in Waldorf schools. The
key question was whether Rudolf Steiner taught a racial doctrine,
in the terms of the Commission: "a seemingly scientific
theory on the basis of which the superiority of one race is supposed
to be legitimized at the expense of another." In addition,
the report discusses whether his work contains statements that
show racial discrimination, and the way the theme of races and
peoples has been handled through the years in Waldorf education.
The final report, which comprises 720 pages and is the result
of nearly four years of work, also pays attention to the question
whether the work of Dutch followers of Rudolf Steiner contains
elements of racial discrimination.
After the first phase of its study, the Commission
was already able to come to a conclusion as to the most important
questions. In a widely-published event, the Commission announced
on February 4, 1998, that there was no ground for accusations
that the work of Rudolf Steiner contains a racial doctrine or
any statements made with the purpose of insulting persons or
groups of people on the basis of their race.
As to Waldorf education, the Commission concluded,
in agreement with the prior judgment of Dutch Government Education
Inspectors (Onderwijsinspectie), that racism does not exist there.
The Commission did, however, acknowledge the existence until
quite recently of a custom of stereotyping in the subject of
ethnology, which could lead to discrimination and which must
be prevented. As has been previously reported, the Waldorf schools
took measures against this in 1995 and supplemented these in
1998 with their own anti-discrimination code and an independent
commission that monitors compliance.
Sixteen quotations
Given the passage of seventy to one hundred
years, the Commission was unable to test the contents of Steiner's
work against modern Dutch anti-discrimination legislation in
a direct manner. Therefore, it posed the question as to what
the results of such a test would be if someone made the statements
in question publicly today. After all, Steiner's collected works
continue to provide many people with a source of study and inspiration.
For this reason it was of interest to the Commission to examine
all passages about the subject of race in Rudolf Steiner's collected
works in their context. The principal objective of this process
was to arrive at a clear answer to the question as to whether
there are any statements there which, if someone adopted them
as his or her own standpoint by teaching or otherwise communicating
them to others, would violate the prohibition of discrimination.
For its interim report, the Commission selected
145 quotations from Rudolf Steiner's collected works about the
concept of race and, more particularly, blacks and American Indians.
For the final report another 100 quotations were added about
whites, Jews and Asians, making for a total of 245 quotations.
The new quotations are subdivided into three categories in the
same way as in the interim report. Group 1 contains those quotations
which, in the opinion of the Commission, are of a discriminatory
nature according to current Dutch law,. The content or formulation
used is such that it would show serious discrimination if a present-day
author were to publish this as his own opinion. In doing so,
he would probably commit an illegal act under the Criminal Code
of the Netherlands. There are sixteen quotations of this nature.
The Commission considered these quotations
to be either careless, problematic or seriously discriminatory.
The last of these three qualifications was applied to the statement
that by reading a novel about blacks, pregnant white women would
bear a mulatto child. Of the four newly added quotations one
relates to blacks, one to Asians and two to Jews.
The Commission recommends providing these
passages, as well as those of Group 2, with annotations in Rudolf
Steiner's collected works. This second group consists of sayings
which in the year 2000 are not necessarily discriminatory, but
without proper interpretation could easily cause misunderstandings.
They might also be experienced as mildly discriminatory, for
instance, because of a choice of words that was customary at
that time or by the use of anthroposophical terminology. In the
interim report there were 50 statements that were classified
in this way; the final report has 67. Group 3 comprises a total
of 162 quotations that do not show any discriminatory nature
and do not need interpretation.
Changes in meaning
Present-day authors and speakers who base
their own standpoint on Steiner's ideas, usually anthroposophists,
undertake a definite responsibility. They must be conscious of
the fact that certain words or phrases, even if Steiner used
them in a descriptive way, are emotionally charged today, and
may be experienced as discriminatory. This is a responsibility
toward present-day readers and listeners, including members of
ethnic minorities.
Because in the evolution of language many
words have developed a different meaning in the course of time,
the content of a statement made by Steiner may change if it is
repeated verbatim. If a dated choice of words is simply repeated,
the result may be to put Steiner in an unfavorable light. For
instance, the passage where Steiner said that Negroes are human
beings also, if said by someone today, would be a seriously discriminatory
statement. However, in Europe, at the end of the nineteenth and
beginning of the twentieth century, it was not at all self-evident
that non-European peoples and races were considered to be part
of the same humanity as Europeans. Seen in the light of its own
time, such a passage was probably evidence of an attitude of
emancipation rather than discrimination.
Jews and Zionism
One of the categories of Steiner's ideas and
statements studied by the Commission is that containing sayings
about Jews and Zionism. This part of the study shows Steiner
as an opponent of joining the concepts of "race" and
"people" into that of "nation." That is why
he opposed the foundation of ethnically homogeneous states and
turned, for reasons of principle, against nationalistic Zionism.
Rather, he emphatically supported the assimilation of the Jews
into one, be it differentiated, European culture. "Being
Jewish" was for him a matter of religion belonging to individual
and cultural freedom, but not the basis for a nation-state.
On the other hand, the study provides insight
into the way in which statements by Steiner about Jews and Zionism
have contributed to misunderstandings and criticism. In 1897,
Steiner wrote a personal and sharp polemic against Zionism and
its founders, Herzl and Nordau in the "Magazin für
Literatur." He accused them of exaggerating the rising anti-Semitism
of that time and of using it for their own political ambitions,
while in the same period pogroms in Russia had already unleashed
a flood of refugees into Germany and Austria. Since, in effect,
he used this essay to proclaim his view of assimilation, which
also speaks from some of his other works, it is the Commission,s
opinion that the essay cannot possibly be used to accuse Steiner
of anti-Semitism, even if at that time he still underestimated
the danger of this phenomenon. Nevertheless, the Commission concludes
that now, after the trauma of the holocaust, his failure to recognize
the strength of anti-Semitism in his time and the way he formulated
his views can be experienced as highly discriminatory. Hence
the placing of this passage in group 1.
This is also true for a passage in an article
from Steiner's younger years (he was 27) about the place of the
Jews in world history. In a book review in 1888 Steiner discussed
the principle of segregation and the Jews as a separate and closed
society within Europe, as part of a broader argument in which
he also pointed to the favorable influence of Judaism on European
culture. The sentence in which he spoke about Judaism having
"outlived itself" is as follows: "Judaism as such
has long outlived itself and no longer has a legitimate place
in the modern life of peoples; the fact that it has nevertheless
succeeded in maintaining itself is an aberration in world history
the consequences of which had to follow."
To Steiner's consternation, his own employer
­ the man whose children he was tutoring at the time ­
experienced this article as offensive to Jews. For this reason
the Commission considers it correct that Steiner's biographer,
Christoph Lindenberg, called this event a "jumping off the
track" (Entgleisung). The Commission itself concludes that
the phrase in question is in effect an "overly sharp"
formulation of what is really a standpoint of assimilation. The
Commission wrote: "These days, in the post-holocaust era,
this formulation can obviously no longer be justifiably used.
The Commission considers this wording, if used today, as highly
discriminatory against Jews."
Initial underestimation of anti-Semitism
At the end of the nineteenth century, Rudolf
Steiner was an keen opponent of the plans of Theodor Herzl to
give a political conceptual framework to Zionism, which he had
formulated. Later, he developed this into a consistent criticism
of the foundation of ethnically homogeneous states on the basis
of the right to self-determination of peoples. In other ways,
the Commission points out, Steiner and his contemporary Herzl,
both young intellectuals, had virtually identical views in many
respects. Both supported the emancipation of the Jews, both failed
to consider the anti-Semitism of the end of the nineteenth century
as dangerous, and both were shocked by the Dreyfus affair and
convinced of his innocence (correctly so as was proven later).
The new material in the final report shows
that, although Rudolf Steiner initially seriously underestimated
the strength of anti-Semitism, he revised his opinion around
the year 1900. Starting in 1901, he unequivocally opposed it
in the same way in which he uttered strong warnings against the
rise of nationalism throughout the rest of his life. In the years
after 1900, when Steiner formed part of a circle of artists and
intellectuals around the then just deceased Jewish author Jacobowski,
he did recognize the danger of anti-Semitism.
In a publication of this period he wrote not
to have expected the persistency of anti-Semitic feelings among
students and bourgeoisie. He thought that such feelings were
more and more being considered unjustified and had been overcome.
However, under the influence of the radical politician, Georg
von Schönerer, they proved to be anything but remnants from
a far-distant past. Repeatedly and unequivocally Steiner took
a stand against anti-Semitism, such as in a series of articles
entitled "Shameful anti-Semitism" in the newsletter
of the Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus (Association against
anti-Semitism).
In the meantime he had come to regard anti-Semitism
as "a danger for both Jews and non-Jews;" it was a
"cultural illness" coming from an attitude which could
not be opposed strongly enough. It is indicative of Steiner's
consistent rejection of anti-Semitism that in 1919 he already
identified the notorious "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
as a falsification with anti-Semitic intentions. That was two
years before the British newspaper The Times produced irrefutable
proof of this. Yet he equally consistently maintained his opinion
that the time of the Jewish diaspora was over and that the Jewish
people, just like every other people, had to be amalgamated into
a new culture in which racial hatred has no place.
Racial equality
The Commission regrets that in the debate
about racism Rudolf Steiner's view of society is always left
out. According to Steiner, the end of the nineteenth century
marked the beginning of a new era. One of the most important
characteristics of this new era is a cosmopolitan element, the
effort to overcome nationalistic tendencies and racial discrimination.
In part for these reasons, and also in reaction to World War
I, Steiner devoted himself actively to the development of a new
view of society he called the "threefold social order."
A key point in this view of society is the emphasis Steiner placed
on the freedom of each individual, who continually must throw
off old forms of group connections.
Steiner wanted to examine the differences
between races and, especially, peoples for the purpose of promoting
greater mutual understanding. In regard to races he was of the
opinion that racial differences are no longer of our time. In
his participation in the debates after World War I about the
structure of society, Steiner argued not only for cultural diversity
but also for the equality of all peoples and races as a universal
principle. He did this at a time when equality before the law
was not at all self-evident, not even among white people. As
a matter of fact, the peace conference of Versailles after World
War I rejected a proposal to include the principle of equality
of races in the Covenant of the League of Nations.
Steiner emphatically opposed every effort
to join the concepts of "race" and "people"
with the concept of "nation." In his criticisms of
the American President Woodrow Wilson, and of the concept of
self-determination of peoples, Steiner issued strong warnings
against the rise of nationalism. It is remarkable, the Commission
says, that Steiner's opposition to the merger of the concepts
of race and nation was never brought into public debate.
Steiner repeatedly argued against Wilson that
such self-determination rights would lead to xenophobia and the
rise of ethnically homogeneous nations. In addition, said Steiner,
Wilson overlooked the fact that the question of what constitutes
a "people" would inevitably end up in the political
sphere. That means that the question as to who belongs to a certain
people can become subjected to the whims of nationalistically
oriented politicians, with potentially dire consequences. Whenever
someone tries to answer the question as to who belongs to a particular
people ­ and especially who does not ­ there lurks the
danger of the aspiration after "purity of blood." In
his criticism of Wilson, Steiner used the ethnic conflicts in
the then newly formed Yugoslavia as an example.
The Commission also says that in the recent
debates about racism in Anthroposophy another factor has been
overlooked. This is that by its very nature Anthroposophy cannot
possibly be racist. It simply does not encompass any theory of
mutation and selection with regard to human races. The question
of which race is "stronger" or "superior"
is therefore irrelevant. On the other hand, Anthroposophy encompasses
an idea of reincarnation that considers the possibility that
the spiritual-moral core of the human being, in the course of
centuries, reincarnates in different bodies (woman/man, white/black,
etc.). There is, therefore, no objection against mixing of races,
and cultural exchanges among different peoples are encouraged.
Criticism examined
Besides dealing extensively with the concept
of race in the work of Rudolf Steiner, the Commission also pays
ample attention to the question of how this concept has been
treated in the debates between anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists
in recent years. In this connection a number of critical publications
on the subject were examined as well as any remarks members of
the Council of the Anthroposophical Society in the Netherlands
may have made that could have reflected incorrect insights or
seemed to have done so. One of the media products examined was
the installment called "Racism with Charisma" (1996)
of the radio program "The Benefit of the Doubt" broadcast
by the Humanistische Omroep Stichting (Humanistic Broadcasting
Foundation). Fragments of an interview of the then Vice-Chairman
of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society, C. Wiechert, broadcast
in this program, were the original motive for the current study.
In its examination of two critical publications
the Commission counters allegations to the extent they refer
to racial doctrine, racism, and to Anthroposophy as an ideology
related to national socialism. Such allegations, says the Commission,
are consistently based on an incomplete and incorrect representation
of Rudolf Steiner's ideas. It is characteristic that the concept
of race appears in at least 245 places in Steiner's collected
works, whereas these publications used no more than a dozen ­
often out of context ­ to substantiate their judgments that
Anthroposophy is supposed to be racist. And it is completely
incorrect to say that Steiner was a supporter of the kind of
social Darwinism mentioned earlier.
In this part the Commission deals with the
criticism in which Anthroposophy is accused of being related
to the ideology of National Socialism, as well as of its lack
of taking a position against the Nazis in the nineteen thirties.
Regarding the former, the Commission writes that there is no
inherent relationship between Anthroposophy and any ideologies
based on racism, fascism or anti-Semitism. Rudolf Steiner's ideas
that racial characteristics have no significance for the future,
and that racial prejudice, just as nationalism, must be overcome,
are diametrically opposed to the "blood and soil" type
of thinking of the Nazis. These differences are clearly shown
in the fact that in 1935 the Anthroposophical Society in Germany
was banned.
Besides this fundamental point, however, the
Commission recognizes the possibility of justified criticism
as to certain historical relationships between some anthroposophists
and the Nazis. As is apparent from a recent study by the historian
Uwe Werner ("Anthroposophists in the Time of National Socialism,"
1999), such relationships did exist. According to the Commission,
history shows that membership of the Anthroposophical Society
is no guarantee that someone will always be an active opponent
of racist or fascist ideas. On the other hand, anthroposophists
have also participated in the resistance, something the Commission
emphasizes merely as a fact, not an excuse.
In this connection, the Commission reminds
its readers of the fact that, when the Anthroposophical Society
was threatened with closure in 1935, there were anthroposophists
among those who made compromises, such as the official confirmation
by the Council of the General Anthroposophical Society of Rudolf
Steiner's "Aryan" descent. The Commission acknowledges
the criticism that Anthroposophy did not actively resist the
Nazis. The Council of the General Anthroposophical Society indeed
did not mount any resistance against that regime, a fact which
"naturally is most regrettable." More research is called
for in this matter, says the Commission, and all of this should
be a stimulus to be vigilant against all forms of racist and
fascist ideas, also in our time.
No real defense
The Commission cites as a clear example of
the incomplete representation of Rudolf Steiner's ideas the way
quotations were used in the radio program mentioned above. By
a mixture of incomplete, badly interpreted and even non-existing
quotations, the suggestion was made that Steiner had justified
the annihilation of the American Indians on the basis of a presumed
"cosmic necessity." The fact that these words and ideas
were wrongly attributed to him is proven by a number of statements
in which Steiner emphatically condemned the annihilation of the
Indians by the white man. These latter statements were not mentioned
in the radio program.
In connection with this radio program, it
is the opinion of the Commission that the Vice-Chairman at that
time missed an important opportunity, in his defense of Steiner
against allegations of racism, to withdraw or balance a reference
he had made to the vitality of black soccer players. The Commission
calls this reference "notably unwise." The conclusion
was that he had wished to say something positive and, even if
the words he used did not indicate discrimination in the sense
of the law, he made "an unhappy choice of words."
The Commission also criticizes the creator
of the program "Racism with Charisma." In its opinion,
the critical contributions in the broadcast were based on the
preconceived notion that Steiner's statements were objectionable;
that the respect of anthroposophists for Steiner was sectarian;
and that the anthroposophical movement and the Waldorf schools
should disavow the statements in question. Because of the unwarranted
use of the term racism and the placing of the interview in the
context of sectarianism and in the light of a justification of
genocide (of the Indians), the Commission has the impression
that the then Vice-Chairman was "incorrectly" treated.
In a more general sense, the Commission criticizes
the way the anthroposophical movement has dealt with the allegations
of racism. The fact is noted that approximately in the years
1986 to 1996, besides the former Vice-Chairman, there have been
three other anthroposophists who have been accused of serious
facts, and none of these has mounted a real defense. Because
of this, says the Commission, the public debate has exposed only
one side of the story: the accusation. It also noted that even
the Council of the Anthroposophical Society in the Netherlands
had no coordinated strategy to defend itself against the allegations
made. In consequence, the Commission feels, these allegations
have probably had a "greater harmful effect" than would
have been the case had there been an energetic defense against
them.
"Selective indignation"
In conclusion, the Commission reiterates that
it hardly ever happens in Holland that older publications such
as those of Rudolf Steiner are tested as strictly as occurred
at this time. "The number of pages with statements that
can be experienced as discriminatory today is less than .05%
of the 89,000 pages of Rudolf Steiner's collected works. Anthroposophy
and social Darwinism are diametrically opposed to each other.
Suggestions that racism is inherent in Anthroposophy, or that
conceptually Steiner helped prepare the way for the holocaust,
have been proven categorically incorrect. The Commission has
the distinct impression that, compared with other nineteenth
and pre-World War II twentieth-century authors, such as Hegel
or Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Steiner has become the victim of
"selective indignation."
Press Summary Commission
on "Anthroposophy and the Question of Race"
This is a brief summary of the 720 page report
of the Commission on "Anthroposophy and the Question of
Race." It is intended exclusively for the media. Scientific
students are referred to the original report published by the
Anthroposophical Society in the Netherlands. The original report
may be ordered by remitting US$ 85 to the Anthroposophical Society
in the Netherlands, Boslaan 15, 3701 CH Zeist, Netherlands, Postbank
account no. 9716. E-mail for further information: secretariaat@antrop-ver.nl.