 This is a continuation of the essay "Unenlightened." VII. Compassion and Its Absence Rudolf Steiner was merely one of the innumerable false prophets humanity has followed down through the ages. Perhaps there are glimmerings of truth to be found amidst all the dross in his doctrines, but the glimmerings are hard to spot. Much of what Steiner taught seems to rank among the most far-fetched, bizarre, and implausible dogmas that humans have convinced themselves to swallow — and we’ve swallowed a lot: Ancestor-worship. Moon-worship. Polytheism. Pantheism. Shamanism. Christian Science. Papal infallibility. Animism. Voodoo. Creeds requiring animal sacrifices. Creeds requiring human sacrifices. Worship of rain gods, war gods, Zeus, wind gods, thunder gods, Vishnu, Anubis, gods of fertility, gods of the hearth, Moloch, Ahura Mazda, gods of the sea, sun gods, muses, Fates, Yahweh ... All of which raises a question. Just how sapient have we Homo sapiens shown ourselves to be? By this stage, I have either convinced you or offended you. My hope is that I’ve rattled you, and my regret is that I did not speak up sooner: “Here’s what happens when we twist our children’s spirits: Here’s the boy I was, Exhibit A.” But I couldn’t speak until I had  Cicero once said he wondered why two soothsayers meeting in the street didn’t burst out laughing. [1] But self-professed mystic savants usually have their act down too well for that. And some, I’m sure, truly believe their own pronouncements. Maybe Steiner believed every word he uttered. If so, all the worse, for if he wasn’t a charlatan, then he was almost certainly a lunatic. We don’t need to split hairs, though. Whether or not he was clinically sane, it is frightening that anyone ever took him seriously, much less founded schools devoted to his doctrines. As I’ve suggested, part of the explanation must surely be that many of Steiner’s followers have read only a small — perhaps expurgated — selection of his works. They don’t know their man. But other, more committed followers surely have studied long and hard, and with a profound motive: They hope to obtain the spiritual rewards Steiner promised. This is, of course, understandable — salvation is a nearly universal human desire. For this reason alone, prophets have rarely lacked audiences. Disciples cluster around oracles — including the ones who want to hasten an apocalypse or two. We are drawn to the professed certainty of those who claim to know God’s will. We value the supposedly empowering answers they offer us — even if we actually are being led astray, step after step, doctrine after doctrine, deeper and deeper into unreality. If you’ll excuse me, I’ll now deliver a little sermon of my own. We must find another path, one that is firmly situated in reality and human decency, not in messianic preachments. Finding it doesn’t require us to deny the existence of God nor to decry the faith of the truly, humbly devout. We could do with more true reverence in this world, not less. But I suggest that an indispensable requirement for all of us, as we try to find our way, is humility. How much do any of us truly know about anything? Scientists tell us that 96% of the observable universe consists of dark energy and dark matter — but they can’t tell what these things are. Our ignorance of the physical universe is enormous. How much less sure must we be, then, about the mysteries of any spirit realms that may exist? We all stand together near the beginning of humanity’s quest for knowledge — knowledge of ourselves, and of our world, and of such powers as may preside within or beyond the cosmos. We are far, far from any final answers. To claim certain knowledge of the "divine cosmic plan," as Steiner did, is not only deceitful but cruel. How many lives has he damaged by shepherding his followers and students into mystical mazes in which they may become irretrievably lost? Surely what we need most, even beyond humility, is compassion for one another as fellow seekers of the truth. [2] Allow me to end by giving an example of the failure of compassion. And once again, I’ll draw from the cult I know best. During a conference with teachers at the first Waldorf school, Steiner analyzed the case of a little girl who had learning disabilities. He explained that the teachers probably couldn’t do much for the child because she wasn’t really a human being. The Earth’s population includes many such pseudo-humans, he said:  “Dr. Steiner: ‘That little girl L.K. in the first grade must have something really very wrong inside. There is not much we can do. Such cases are increasing in which children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings in relation to their highest I [a uniquely human nonphysical body]; instead, they are filled with beings that do not belong to the human class. Quite a number of people have been born since the nineties [1890s] without an I, that is, they are not reincarnated, but are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon.... ’ “A teacher: ‘How is that possible?’ “Dr. Steiner: ‘Cosmic error is certainly not impossible.... There are ... generations in which individuals have no desire to come into earthly existence.... In such cases, other beings that are not quite suited step in ... they are actually not human beings, but have only a human form.... It is also possible for something like an automaton could occur.... I do not like to talk about such things since we have often been attacked even without them. Imagine what people would say if they heard that we say there are people who are not human beings.” [3] These comments apparently did not outrage the teachers at the meeting any more than they did the publishers of the two-volume set in which I found them. This is the same set containing Steiner’s notorious remarks about the “terrible brutality” being committed by the French in bringing blacks to Europe. But whereas the publishers felt compelled to apologize for Steiner’s French-bashing and racism, they inserted no apology or explanation concerning Steiner’s description of fake human beings who may be robots or demons in disguise. The clear reason is that discriminating between upwardly evolving humans and lowlier, benighted sorts — some of whom aren’t really human at all — is basic to the Anthroposophical worldview. Steiner presumably meant what he said about L.K. and other people he deemed subhuman. Still, after adding that “a number of people are going around who ... have become something that is not human, but instead are demons in human form” [4] he caught himself up and cautioned Waldorf teachers not to spread word of this insight. “We do not want to shout that to the world ... We do not want to shout such things....” [5] Steiner knew that denying the humanity of others (and remember, his comments arose from the discussion of an innocent little girl) is abhorrent. So, for perhaps the only time in his life, he imparted good advice to his followers: Mum’s the word. Don’t reveal what we say or think here — people will be appalled. When you’re out in public, zip your lips. By and large, his adherents have done just that. — Roger Rawlings  From our yearbook. Discussion groups such as the one described here were confined to the senior class. However, the entire high school met once a week for an assembly, and full-blown assemblies of the entire school — kindergarten through high school — were held on special occasions. The pictures on the lower part of the page represent the art club. I've cropped them to preserve the privacy of my schoolmates. [1964 PINNACLE (Kansas City: Inter-Collegiate Press, 1964).]
One of many sky photographs I have taken in recent years. I have personal reasons for caring about the sky — my father was a pilot. But I think that, for better or worse, the sensibility Waldorf nurtured seems to be still within me — I think I see it in some of the photos and drawings I've created as an adult. But as you'll see from other work of mine from recent years, other sensibilities have also developed. My attitudes and inclinations today derive partly from my Waldorf schooling, partly from my rejection of the occultism underlying that schooling, and mostly from the many years that have passed since then. Remember, I attended a Waldordf school almost half a century ago. I am not a prototype of Waldorf's effects on young children. The relevance of my "art" to the subjects discussed on this Web site is minimal. I offer it only for whatever slight benefit it might offer in understanding my perspective as an alienated Waldorf school graduate. Mainly, though, I would urge you to ignore me. The statements I make on this site should stand or fall on their own merits. Consider what Steiner said, consider the other evidence I offer, consider the arguments I make, and draw your own conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of Waldorf schooling. This benevolent image perches atop a statue created by Rudolf Steiner, which stands now in the worldwide Anthroposophical headquarters: the Goetheanum, in Dornach, Switzerland. The statue is sometimes referred to as The Group and sometimes as The Representative of Humanity. The chief figure is Christ, the Sun God, who mediates between Lucifer and Ahriman. Here is a sketch of the entire statue: Anthroposophy is a religion, and the Goetheanum is, in effect, a cathedral. See "Is Anthroposophy a Religion?" To examine Steiner's view of Christ, whom he identified as the Sun God, please see [I did both sketches late in 2009.] This is the end of “Unenlightened.” You will find addenda and other material after the endnotes. The other essays included on this site (all of them mercifully shorter) are listed in the Table of Contents and in the Index. ◊◊◊◊ For Steiner's ideas concerning human automatons, please see "Evil Ones"
◊◊◊◊ ENDNOTES [1] Marcus Tulles Cicero, ON THE NATURE OF THE GODS, Book I, XXVI, 45 BC. [2] I have applied some harsh terms to Steiner: false prophet, charlatan, racist... I chose those words deliberatively — if they aren’t appropriate in Steiner’s case, I don’t know when they ever would be. Still, as an advocate of intellectual humility, I should acknowledge that I cannot be absolutely certain that Steiner was completely wrong about everything. There is a possibility — faint though it seems — that some of his preachments may stand up under scrutiny. But what are the odds? Floating islands held in place by the stars, astral bodies, the Akashic record, natural demons, the inferiority of certain races, Atlantis, goblins, organs of clairvoyance, the intelligence-heightening effects of blond hair and blue eyes, upward and downward karmic evolution, swarming invisible spiritual beings that are more detectable in rooms of a particular color, the magical effects of eurythmy, human beings who are not really human ... Where is the evidence for any of this? There may be order and even method in Steiner’s “spiritual science,” but there is no real application of the scientific method. Scientific thinking is antithetical to Steiner’s system. Some of Steiner’s books include instructions — sometimes vague, always difficult — on how to attain esoteric knowledge, enter higher states of being, and so on. For example, “The student must first apply himself with care and attention to certain functions of the soul, hitherto exercised by him in a careless and inattentive manner. There are eight such functions....” And so forth. [KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, p. 84.] Presumably, such directions could be “tested” by interpreting them properly and then following them step by step. But such testing would have little probative value. Any claimed positive results would necessarily be subjective: one or more people claiming supernatural visions, etc. Such claims would not constitute solid evidence — they would be anecdotal evidence or eyewitness testimony, "evidence" of the sort that often results from self-deception or deceit. On the other hand, negative results could be dismissed as mere procedural failures. Let’s take this a step farther. Is there any way we could get beyond take-it-or-leave-it subjective testimony? Perhaps demonstrations of clairvoyant powers could be arranged. Seances? Mind reading? Fortune telling? Unless the demonstrations went far beyond what is typically seen in Las Vegas magic acts — and were validated by strict scientific controls — they would be unlikely to tell us much. Remember Madame Blavatsky, who "demonstrated" her powers only to be found a fraud. In instances where Steiner’s statements can be openly tested — such as whether the Earth orbits the Sun — Steiner is often flat-out wrong. In instances involving the “supersensible world,” the “Akashic record,” nonphysical bodies, and the like — subjects that cannot be seen or examined using our normal senses, our brains, and scientific equipment — no objectively verifiable test seems possible. Rational people must acknowledge the chance that someday there will be a convincing demonstration of a Steiner claim. But until that day, deep skepticism will remain warranted. [3] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 649-650. [4] Ibid., p. 650. [5] Ibid., p. 650. This utterly revealing statement should be carefully reviewed by anyone with an interest in Waldorf education. Here is the complete passage. Among other matters, note Steiner’s contempt for nature and the natural world, which coincides with his condemnation of some people as inhuman or subhuman. (To be “only natural” is to be physical and not truly spiritual. For more about Steiner’s attitude toward nature, see “Neutered Nature” at this Web site.) Steiner rambles, describing various overlapping ways in which people may be “not really human”: they lack an “I,” they are not reincarnated, subhuman status is predetermined for them (karma), their bodies are possessed by demons, they are spiritually and mentally stunted, they are automata who have no real morality, they are entirely ruthless, and/or they spent insufficient time in the spirit realm between earthly lives. The demonic beings that inhabit some human bodies include our evil “doubles” — see my essay “Double Trouble”. When Steiner speaks of “automating” inhuman “organisms,” he alludes to his belief in dark spiritual conspiracies using scientific methods to subvert human evolution — I discuss this in the same essay. Significantly, Steiner ends his remarks, below, by lapsing into explicit racism. For him, many inhuman or subhuman individuals are members of nonwhite races. Steiner understood how his more inflammatory teachings could incite opposition to Anthroposophy and Waldorf education, so he urged his followers to hide these from the public. “The school doctor speaks about some medical cases. Dr. Steiner: ‘That little girl L.K. in the first grade must have something really very wrong inside. There is not much we can do. Such cases are increasing in which children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings in relation to their highest I; instead, they are filled with beings that do not belong to the human class. Quite a number of people have been born since the nineties [the 1890s] without an I, that is, they are not reincarnated, but are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon. There are quite a large number of older people going around who are actually not human beings, but are only natural; they are human beings only in regard to their form. We cannot, however, create a school for demons. “A teacher: ‘How is that possible?’ “‘Dr. Steiner: ‘Cosmic error is certainly not impossible. The relationships of individuals coming into earthly existence have long been [pre]determined. There are also generations in which individuals have no desire to come into earthly existence and be connected with physicality, or immediately leave at the very beginning. In such cases, other beings that are not quite suited step in. This is something that is now quite common, that human beings go around without an I; they are actually not human beings, but have only a human form. They are also quite different from human beings in regard to everything spiritual. They can, for example, never remember such things as sentences; they have a memory only for words, not for sentences. “‘The riddle of life is not so simple. When such a being dies, it returns to nature from which it came. The corpse decays, but there is no real dissolution of the etheric body, and the natural being returns to nature. “‘It is also possible for something like an automaton could occur. The entire human organism exists, and it might be possible to automate the brain and develop a kind of pseudomorality. “‘I do not like to talk about such things since we have often been attacked even without them. Imagine what people would say if they heard that we say there are people who are not human beings. Nevertheless, these are facts. Our culture would not be in such a decline if people felt more strongly that a number of people are going around who, because they are completely ruthless, have become something that is not human, but instead are demons in human form. “‘Nevertheless, we do not want to shout that to the world. Our opposition is already large enough. Such things are really shocking to people. I caused enough shock when I needed to say that a very famous university professor, after a very short period between death and rebirth, was reincarnated as a black scientist. We do not want to shout such things out into the world.’” [pp. 649-650] Remember that this appalling diatribe began with a reference to a young girl with learning disabilities. Steiner did not always speak so harshly about the disabled. He worked for several years with developmentally disabled students, and today there are Waldorf schools devoted to helping children with special needs. Nonetheless, Steiner’s words in this instance are deplorable, and they bear on the question of affinities between Anthroposophy and Nazism. It is also worth noting that Steiner’s efforts to treat developmental disabilities were essentially flawed. For instance, he used astrology to reveal the condition of children: “Now let us turn to the horoscope of the younger child. Again, here are Venus and Uranus and Mars near together ... when we examine more nearly the position of Mars, we find it is not, as before, in complete opposition to the moon. It is however very nearly so. Although the younger child does not come in for a complete opposition, there is an approximation of opposition.” [Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR SPECIAL NEEDS: The Curative Education Course (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998), p. 196.] Using astrology to guide the treatment of children with special needs is clearly a recipe for ineffective treatment at best, and disaster at worst. ADDENDA My Waldorf yearbook (which I had not looked at in decades) contains several points of interest: 1) Here is a portion of Mr. Gardner’s message to the departing class of 1964: “For some onlookers, a special star has shone over your class from its beginning many years ago. And there may be a reason for the protection afforded you by this star of destiny: as genius of your class, it may yet have demands to make of you.... “[Y]ou have not been weakened by intellectualism — heaven knows! — nor soured by cynicism.... “My hope and expectation are that, following your star, you will be able to do something to make the world environment pleasanter for those that come after you.... “Those who persevere will undoubtedly be asked in due course to use their good faith and good cheer to help overcome darkness and dreariness in the lives of their fellowmen [sic].” Mr. Gardner was writing in code, of course, since many non-Anthroposophists (including all the uninitiated but potential Anthroposophists in our class, and the uninitiated among our parents) would see his words. When I first read the message in 1964, it seemed murky (and perhaps a little insulting — what did he mean about our intellects?). But examined now in the context of Steiner’s tenets, the message is clear. Mr. Gardner and Steiner believed in the power of the stars (holding islands in place, for instance, and influencing lives), in destiny (or karma), in overcoming darkness, and in the upward march to a better world occupied by a better people. And they believed — heaven knows! — that a proper education would not lead to intellectualism, since only clairvoyance, not intellect, can produce true knowledge. All of these elements are present in Mr. Gardner’s message. He was beckoning us to the struggle against darkness and, in the long run, to a good-faith commitment to Steiner’s clairvoyant vision. 2) We dedicated the yearbook to Mrs. Gardner, for “the love, guidance and devotion she has shown us in our beginning years.” 3) My photo shows me standing behind a lectern, as I stood during various student council activities. I am not smiling. The words beside the photo, written by a kind classmate: “Roger works hard and achieves what he wants. As student council president and student leader, he offers courageous and highly respected opinions....” My own words: “I view the future with apprehension and hope: apprehension that I may not measure up to stiff competition; hope that I shall.” Today, I read the self-doubt and fear in those words, and I see that back then I had, in truth, little hope. 4) The photo of the school office staff includes my mother, Elaine Rawlings, seated at her desk. She is identified as Mr. Gardner’s secretary. The door through which she often — and I occasionally — entered Mr. Gardner's private office is just out of the frame. 5) The photo of the school’s science teachers includes Mr. Gardner and Hertha Karl. “Biology and earth science are taught by Mrs. Karl and Mr. Gardner. Mr. Gardner also teaches physiology to the 7th and 8th grades.” 6) A photo near the end of the yearbook shows the senior class sitting in a circle. Also present are a science teacher, a math teacher, an English teacher, and Mr. Gardner. The caption says, in part: “Each week the seniors and several members of the faculty meet to discuss a topic of interest ... The first part of the year has been spent in a reassessment of technology, as viewed by Friedrich Georg Juenger in his book, THE FAILURE OF TECHNOLOGY.” 7) The last text page in the yearbook includes the question “remember ... lemniscates?” DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Of the authors cited, I was personally acquainted with John Fentress Gardner, Elizabeth Gardner Lombardi, Sylvester M. Morley, and Franz E. Winkler. The degree of acquaintance varied. Of the individuals named in the NEW YORK TIMES article about the Waldorf School scandal, I did not know the “psychic” ex-student, some of the departing teachers, or the departing headmaster; I knew the former headmaster, the new (interim) headmaster, the departing high school principal, and the librarian; among those not named, I knew the new high school chairman and some other faculty and staff who remained at the school. In addition, I am aware that at least three of my former schoolmates joined the faculties at Waldorf schools — including one childhood acquaintance who eventually became faculty council chair at the Garden City Waldorf. I wrote this essay in 2005-6. I’ve subsequently added some material. More recent essays are accessible at this Web site. If you’d like to read a brief biographical statement, click on the tag “Yours Truly”, tucked inside the sidebar under "Summing Up" and "My Sad, Sad Story". CORRESPONDENCE After I posted the first version of "Unenlightened", I received first- and secondhand responses from a few old schoolmates. They ranged from “I do believe in angels, the supernatural and the constant battles between good and evil ... ” to “I loathed the specialness, secretiveness, etc., of the Waldorf Ring ... we kids knew it was a lot of hokum ... still there was a lot of damage.” Some of my former schoolmates remembered the school much as I did; others had different memories. Some — particularly, it seemed, those whose parents had been involved in the school (as had mine) — defended the school. One old friend who subsequently received Waldorf teacher training and then taught in a Waldorf school agreed with parts of my essays but challenged others. Another friend, who has subsequently become an evangelical Christian, gently chided me, saying that I must have been paying more attention than he had; but he also praised the school for fostering a sense of what he called spiritual realities. ◊◊◊◊  I was a lousy student for many years. Then, around the time of this report, I started to change. I will include a few of my report cards here just because I have them — and because almost everything else my parents saved for so long (my lesson books, paintings, and so forth) has vanished. But, these reports serve to show that indeed I was there: I went to Waldorf. |