FOUNDATIONS What They Talked About The following exploration of Waldorf schooling draws primarily from Anthroposophic Press books subtitled “Foundations of Waldorf Education.” I originally posted or announced the stages of the exploration at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/. The writing is a bit informal, but that may come as a relief. (I have revised a bit, to keep the relief to a minimum.)
Despite appearances, I do not violently disagree with absolutely everything Rudolf Steiner ever said or wrote. In preparing Steiner-critical essays, I naturally focus on Steiner statements that I find flawed. Perhaps someday I’ll pull together a little list of Steiner statements with which I agree. It will be a short list, and pretty dull, since everything on it would have to be far removed from Steiner’s mysticism, racism, sexism, astrology, arrogance, irrationality, aversion to science — the many troubling characteristics of his pronouncements. Tentatively, I'll take a whack at my this-seems-okay list right now. Steiner often spoke mildly. He knew what he should say to various audiences, and he knew what was incumbent on him as a religious leader. So he often spoke of love, kindness, gentleness, and the like: Good stuff, all. I admit it. But how many good statements are needed to offset one racist slander? How many sane statements are needed to counteract one nutty remark? How many commendable statements are needed to expunge an outpouring of hogwash? Three? Ten? 50? Mental garbage is mental garbage. Awful statements must be withdrawn, or they stand — and must be denounced. No “good” statements can offset horrific, scurrilous, and utterly nutty bilge. The question to ask is, If Steiner was able to make so many appalling statements, how much confidence do you have in him as a guide and guardian of the young? How much confidence do you have in his faithful followers? In other essays, I’ve catalogued many of Steiner’s more egregious statements. In order to play fair, let’s examine less explosive material. We’ll give Steiner the stage and allow him to explain the foundations of Waldorf education. Here’s a mild starting point: ◊ [Waldorf Teachers and the Spirit] Steiner is speaking: “First, teachers must make sure that they influence and work on their pupils, in a broader sense, by allowing the spirit to flow through their whole being as teachers, and in the details of their work: how each concept or feeling is developed.” [Rudolf Steiner, DISCUSSIONS WITH TEACHERS, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. 180.]  Saying that teachers must be attentive to the effects they have on students might, at first blush, seem uncontroversial. But knowing that we are eavesdropping on Steiner instructing Waldorf teachers, we should parse his words cautiously. In discussing “spirit,” Steiner isn’t talking about school spirit or any other sort of spirit that would make sense to rationalists. For him and his followers, the word “spirit” has literal, occult significance. Steiner established a gnostic, occultist religion called Anthroposophy (i.e., knowledge of the human). Anthroposophists believe in the omnipresence of an unseen spirit realm occupied by multiple gods, demons, and other beings. So, Steiner says that Waldorf teachers must “allow” “the spirit” to “flow through” them, meaning they will convey the spirit (i.e., spiritual “truths” or the influences of the gods) to their students. This is not what a non-Anthroposophical teacher — e.g., a public school teacher — attempts. Waldorf teachers attempt it with “their whole being.” So which approach is best? Steiner further says Waldorf teachers not only “influence” their students but “work on” them, conveying both “concepts” and “feelings.” The sort of thinking imparted by Waldorf education is not intellectual but intuitive and emotional (i.e., it is not real thinking at all but gauzy wishfulness: see my essays “Light and Dark” and “Thinking Cap”). Waldorf teachers “work on” their students in order to promote such thinking — and they generally do this without admitting it to the students or the students' parents. But Steiner, speaking to Waldorf faculty members, was less guarded. He told the teachers that Anthroposophy will be in the school: They are to convey spiritual truths, which means the doctrines of Anthroposophy; and he wanted the effects of the gods to flow through the teachers to the students. Read on, and take a gander at my essay "Serving Higher Powers". Steiner proceeds: “The teacher must be true in the depths of being [uh-oh]. Teachers must never compromise with untruth....” Mull this over. “The depths of being”: i.e., teachers’ spiritual selves. “Untruth”: What is this to Anthroposophists? Anything that is contrary to Anthroposophy. So what is Steiner saying? The effects and influences flowing through the teachers to the students will be Anthroposophical; they will convey the concepts and feelings advanced by Steiner in his occult concoction, Anthroposophy. In brief, Anthroposophy will be in the school. (Don’t believe me? See Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 495: “Anthroposophy will be in the school....” Don't think the term "occult" is fair? See Steiner's books AN OUTLINE OF OCCULT SCIENCE, OCCULT HISTORY, AN OCCULT PHYSIOLOGY, OCCULT SIGNS AND SYMBOLS, THE OCCULT SIGNIFICANCE OF BLOOD... Either Steiner or his Anthroposophical editors showed great fondness for the word.) ◊ [The Dreaming Earth] Let's look more deeply into the Anthroposophical conception of truth and how such truth is conveyed to Waldorf students. A Waldorf teacher suggests that plants may be considered the Earth’s dreams. “Dr. Steiner: ‘But plants during the high summer are not the Earth’s dreams, because the Earth is in a deep sleep in the summer.’” [DISCUSSIONS WITH TEACHERS, p. 129.] I’ve argued that Waldorf teachers tend to be Anthroposophists or Anthropop fellow travelers. You need only consider the statements that Waldorf teachers made to Steiner to see what sorts of folks he wanted to employ. (Or take Steiner’s own word for it: Waldorf’s “staff consists of anthroposophists.” [Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 60].) The teacher’s suggestion that plants may be the earth’s dreams is utterly bizarre — or would be to rational folks. But not to Steiner. He accepts the question as having meaning, but — as usual — he corrects the interrogator: Steiner always knew best, in his opinion, which was the only opinion that counted. As to when the earth is “asleep”: Anthropops believe that the Earth is an organism that is evolving, just as the beings on or under its surface are evolving. “‘Just think children, our Earth feels and experiences everything that happens within it ... it has feelings like you have, and can be angry or happy like you.’” [DISCUSSIONS WITH TEACHERS, p. 132.] There’s something attractive in this fantasy. And it can be tricked out in semi-scientific respectability. Nowadays, the “Gaia hypothesis” has proponents. Certainly we need to cherish and protect the Earth. We might even go so far, nodding to Gaia, as to agree that perhaps the Earth in some sense might be considered a single organism (depending on how one defines this word).  But is our planet an organism that feels anger and happiness? Steiner said so, so it must be true, hm? Steiner also taught that the earth breathes in and out, very, very slowly: winter, out; summer, in. As always, his doctrines are flaky, far removed from ascertainable scientific findings. (See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, THE CYCLE OF THE YEAR AS BREATHING-PROCESS OF THE EARTH (Anthroposophic Press, 1984.)) And here’s a central point: Note that Steiner is quoting what a Waldorf teacher might say to students (“Just think, children....”). Steiner is asserting that a Waldorf teacher may feed students junk science, since what is false for science can be, if Steiner says so, true for Anthroposophists. Immediately after saying that the Earth “can be angry or happy like you,” Steiner says “In this way you gradually form [i.e., in children's' minds] a view of life lived under the Earth during winter. That is the truth. And it is good to tell children these things. This is something that even materialists could not argue with....” [Ibid., p. 132.] I beg to differ. Waldorf faculty generally deny that Anthroposophical doctrines are taught to Waldorf students. Here we see what actually goes on, or should go on, according to the founder of Waldorf education. Steiner lays out an Anthroposophical tenet (that the Earth is a being that has emotions) and he says that this tenet can be explicitly conveyed to students. “It is good to tell children these things.” So, then, when will Anthroposophy be in a Waldorf school? Almost always, both covertly and, less frequently perhaps, overtly. Pity the poor student who accepts Steiner’s lesson and then mouths it (“the earth has feelings just like us”) in a college geology class. ◊ [The Four Temperaments] Steiner adopted the ancient, unscientific notion of humours. Moreover, he taught that temperament can be read in a child’s body type. “The melancholic children are as a rule tall and slender; the sanguine are the most normal; those with protruding shoulders are the phlegmatic children; and those with a short stout build so that the head almost sinks down into the body are choleric.” [DISCUSSIONS WITH TEACHERS, p. 34.] Steiner taught that all children fall into these four categories. Note that the sanguines are “the most normal.” In other words, they are not quite normal, but the members of the other three groups are even less normal. To one degree or another, then, all children are abnormal. It’s as if Waldorf schools occupy a sort of Anti-Lake Woebegone, where all the children are below average. Upshot: Every child (i.e., every human) needs correction. And who do you suppose Steiner held up as the person to give this correction? Steiner always knew best: When a teacher said that “the phlegmatic child sits with an open mouth,” Steiner rejoined “That is incorrect; the phlegmatic child will not sit with the mouth open but with a closed mouth and drooling lips.” [p. 30] Well played, sir. Ultimately, to his credit, Steiner urged the teachers at his school to get beyond the concept of temperaments. Toward the end of his life, Steiner said, “[W]e need to find our way past the temperaments.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 687.] This statement does not actually disavow the concept of the temperaments — Steiner was almost incapable of admitting that he had made an error. But, evidently realizing that the four-type categorization of students was proving to be unwieldy, he wanted Waldorf teachers to move on to deeper analysis of students’ inner natures. Sadly, for Steiner “deeper” meant nonsense such as karma, which is tied up with the level of one's spiritual evolution, which is tied up with one's race. Steiner would have done better sticking with temperaments. ◊◊◊◊
Does Rudolf Steiner matter? Are Waldorf schools important? How about Anthroposophy — is there any point in spending time thinking about a minor, cultish, gaga religion that denies it is a religion, bearing in mind that almost no one has ever heard of it, and fewer still can even pronounce its name? What are we doing? Wasting what little life we are given? Digging into this stuff is a waste of time. Except ... One could argue that Waldorf schools are important because they constitute a fast-growing “educational”/occult movement that sucks in ever-growing numbers of children, at least some of whom may be severely damaged. Absolutely, seen in this way, Waldorf schools are important. But there’s an even larger perspective in which, although they are minor, Waldorfs are major: They are one manifestation of humanity’s predilection for self-deception; one instance of our willingness to buy snake oil. Not just willingness but, indeed, desperate enthusiasm. Deliver us. Show us the way! SAVE US! Save us from what, exactly? From the wonder and beauty of life? Quarks. Muons. Galaxies. The aurora. Cheetahs. Whales. Sunrise. Wildflowers. (Okay, Cheetahs can bite. Save us from them.) Is this what we are so desperate to transcend? Life is hard, life is short, our condition is difficult, we will die. But in the meantime, here we are, alive, in the cusp of magnificent creation — it is all around us, free for the taking. Yet we desperately want to escape, to believe lies, to embrace fantasy — even though it pales in the face of reality.  We humans are the dissatisfied ones. That's why we clawed our way to the top of the heap. If at any stage of our long history we had been satisfied, we would have sat on the bank of the stream, watched the pretty fish swim by, and been happy. But that's not our way. Human history is a dreadful succession of struggles, conflicts, wars... Our hearts are seldom light. Our dissatisfaction has been built into us by evolution: The biggest and baddest guys too often have clubbed the rest into submission, gotten the most mates, and monopolized the pick of the foodstuff. The genes of these striving conquerors have been passed on to their numerous offspring, so that subsequent generations have continued their struggling, battling ways, seeking to scratch the unending itch. We are dissatisfied. So, among other consequences, we have repeatedly fallen for the offers of illusory satisfaction held out by a long, long line of false prophets. Of course, rather than bringing us to the light, these frauds have generally led us even farther into darkness. That is the very definition of false prophecy. Enter Steiner, his nutty religion, and his awful educational scheme. They are one particularly odd version of mankind’s rush into darkness. It’s a rush we must stop if we, and all the creatures of the Earth that are subject to our dispensation, are to survive. Steiner, and Anthroposophy, and Waldorf schools occupy one little corner of the loony bin we have built for ourselves. If we can disassemble this little corner, maybe we can move on to disassemble the rest, and maybe one day mankind can face the light unflinchingly, and the future will be bright. I hope so. I’m not confident that humankind will opt for sanity — our record so far isn’t very good — but I do hope. ◊◊◊◊ In the following set of passages, I’d like to concentrate on a single subject: A School Run by Anthroposophists. What is such a school like? Let’s start with a relatively innocuous statement made by Steiner. And I promise you a surprise: I will agree with part of the statement. ◊ [Better Teaching] “We [i.e., Waldorf faculty] ought to make use of the unknown or half known [sic] in order to facilitate the children’s effort at fitting the details into a totality ... As we get used to working in this way we shall ... feel the need to make ourselves ever more familiar with the nature of the human being ... [A]s out of our anthroposophical knowledge we ponder this nature, this wisdom of the human being, much will become clear to us and lead to increased teaching skills.” [Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), pp. 19-20.] As I indicated earlier, “Anthroposophy” literally means "wisdom of the human being". Urging Waldorf teachers to ponder human nature as seen in the light of Anthroposophical knowledge is effectively a prescription for deeper and deeper immersion in Anthroposophy. As for the “nature of the human being”, we must realize that the Anthroposophical conception of human nature is utterly bizarre. I’ll go into this, in detail, below. Teachers become better teachers by delving more deeply into Anthroposophy and the “knowledge” it provides, says the founder of Anthroposophy. Think of the implications. Think of the effects on Waldorf students. The point of developing teaching skills, obviously, is to use these skills on one’s students. So, subjected to the “improved” teaching skills of Anthroposophical teachers, Waldorf students may be deeply affected. Led by teachers who exude Anthroposophical attitudes and perspectives, the students may be drawn toward the same dark pathways in which their teachers wander. Now, to momentarily agree with Steiner: Making “use of the unknown or half-known” is not as fearful as it might seem, considering the source. Steiner is not saying that he wants Waldorf teachers to use the unknown and the half-known to inculcate the untrue, leading children down into mystical crapola. This is what Steiner wanted, but it’s not what he meant to say. Rather, his point is that teachers should leave the students in suspense at the end of a lesson: A subject has been raised, some information (or misinformation) has been imparted, and when the students’ interest has been piqued, stop, leave the rest for the next lesson. The kids may think about what they’ve learned, and they may then form a better sense of the “totality” of the subject. All right. Not a bad instructional strategy. But (my momentary acquiescence now behind me) should teachers disguise their underlying purposes? Should they seek to draw unwitting students into the snares of a weird, heretical, cultish religion? Drawing students into Anthroposophy is what Steiner ultimately wanted from his teachers, who he said work in “roundabout” ways. I’ll document this as we proceed. ◊ [Human Nature] “A lively interest in human nature is, of course, the condition for succeeding in this endeavor. Such interest can be developed, and anthroposophy will provide you with all the hints you need.” [EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, p. 29.] Addressing Waldorf teachers, Steiner says that Anthroposophy will show the way. You, Waldorf teachers, don’t need to look for any other source of wisdom or knowledge — just go with Anthroposophy (which, by sheerest coincidence, is Steiner's own invention).
The implications are frightening. Waldorf teachers should be guided by Steiner's conception of human nature. What is that conception? According to Steiner, all real human beings (remember that some people are not really human [1]) are reincarnated [2]; we have hearts that do not pump blood [3] and brains that do not really think (unless we are completely materialistic) [4]; we have both spirits and souls [5]; we can develop organs of clairvoyance [6]; we have twelve senses [7]; we incarnate nonphysical bodies, some of which ascend into the spirit realm every night while our physical body is asleep [8]; we each embody one of four (and only four) temperaments (melancholic, sanguine, choleric, and phlegmatic) [9]; we belong to various races, which causes significant differences between us — some races are higher than others [10]. People can be categorized in various ways, according to Steiner. Individuals who fall into negative categories may not actually be real human beings at all, or — if they are real — they may be relicts of previous evolutionary stages that should now be discarded. There are “higher” and “lower races” [11] (I’m repeating myself, but this point needs to be driven home: Steiner was a racist.). Moreover, there are “people” who are really just robots [12] or blind “moles” [13], or more generally “not really human.” [14] (I'm repeating myself again, repeatedly. But both these points need to be driven home: Steiner said that some people belong to inferior races — and he also went further into horrific nastiness by arguing that some people are so profoundly inferior, they are not human beings at all.) At the risk of sacrificing my fiercely guarded reputation for impartiality, I’d like to say that Steiner’s doctrines are atrocious, and for Waldorf teachers to bring these — in any way, to any degree — into their work with children is appalling. ◊ [Staffing] “As far as our school is concerned, the actual spiritual life can be present because its staff consists of anthroposophists.” [EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, p. 60.] The heart of this statement should be memorized: “its staff consists of anthroposophists.” Or try this one: “As Waldorf teachers, we must be true anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in our innermost feeling.” [Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 118.] I will repeatedly, repetitiously repeat these quotations elsewhere here at Waldorf Watch. They are fundamental. Short of saying that Waldorf schools are designed to brainwash children into unthinking acceptance of a very silly but harmful cult, these statements constitute a deeply incriminating admission. Anthroposophy will be in the school [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 495], and the staff will consist of Anthroposophists, in their innermost feeling, totally committed. Moral for parents of school-age children: Steer clear. Some Waldorfs today fall short of Steiner’s ideal. Not every teacher at every Waldorf or Steiner school is a died-in-the-wool Anthropop. But Steiner wanted all of his teachers to be died in his wool. Let’s consider what such teachers might bring into the classroom. They will, obviously, bring the truth — they wouldn’t twist their students’ minds with intentional lies. But for them, the truth is Anthroposophy. They may, on occasion, actually voice Anthroposophical doctrines in class. They will certainly craft their lesson plans to reflect Steiner's doctrines. (See "Curriculum" here at Waldorf Watch.) Their work will, one way or another, lead students toward Anthroposophy. Which is worse? For Anthropop teachers to state their Anthropop beliefs, or for them to keep mum about those beliefs but promote them by well-intentioned stealth? It’s a close call, but I think the second is worse. It would lead students into darkness without giving the kids and their parents a chance to understand what is going on and cry “Stop!” At Waldorf schools that are not fully staffed by Steiner devotees, Steiner’s intentions may be, to some degree, unfulfilled. Thank goodness. ◊ [“Our Lessons”] “The spiritual aspect of the human being is not recognized today [hm? churches? synagogues? temples?] ... It is exactly this consideration that Anthroposophy is to contribute toward ... It is only this that will ... make the adaptation of our lessons to the human life processes possible.” [EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, p. 46.] For whom will these lessons be adapted? To restate the obvious: Waldorf students. On their behalf, a Waldorf school will recognize the “spiritual aspect of the human being.” As a general precept, recognizing the human spirit may be a superb objective. But at true Waldorf schools, the “spiritual aspect of the human being” is conceived according to Steiner’s spiritual doctrines: Multiple gods [15], clairvoyance [16], conversing with the dead [17], reincarnation [18], people living on the Moon and Sun and outer planets [19], the “divine cosmic plan” [20], goblins [21], demons [22], higher and lower races [23], and more — a virtually endless catalog of occult tripe. Depending on your perspective, Anthroposophy is a litany of heresy and/or nonsense. If Waldorf faculties consist wholly or largely of Anthroposophists, and if those Anthroposophists bring their beliefs into the schools (as, one way or another, is inevitable), children will be led into an occult wilderness. Steiner would have done better sticking with temperaments. ◊ [Roundabout Education] Rudolf Steiner, speaking to teachers at a Waldorf school: “[W]hat you are inserting into the children in a roundabout way through the physical reality — be it through the eyes, the ears, or the comprehending intellect — everything that is thus placed into the children very soon assumes a quite different form of life [i.e., spiritual life] ... [C]hildren go home, they go to bed, they go to sleep; their egos and astral bodies are outside their etheric and physical bodies [Steiner taught that each real human being eventually possesses nonphysical “bodies” in addition to the physical body, including the “etheric body,” which is tied to the physical, and the “astral body” and the “I” or “ego,” which can transcend the physical, and do so every night while the physical body sleeps.] What you did with the children in this roundabout way through the physical body and also the etheric body continues in the astral body and the ego.” [Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), pp. 46-47.] Steiner’s words pull back a dark curtain, allowing us to peer deep into the hidden reality of Waldorf education. His statement reflects both the goal and the methodology of faithful Waldorf teachers. Their aim is not directed primarily at that physical organ called the brain. Instead, they work to influence their students’ supernatural “bodies” — in other words, their spirits. They fool with the physical body and brain only as this enables them (in their mistaken view) to get to the students’ nonphysical bodies. Of course, those bodies exist only in the imagination of Anthroposophists, which shows that — at best — Waldorf education constitutes a huge waste of time: It is focused on nonexistent entities. This loss of time can be profoundly harmful for children, because the years that should be devoted to real education are instead devoted to spiritualistic nonsense. But far worse harm may also be inflicted.  During the long, benighted years spent at Waldorf schools, children may internalize the bizarre beliefs and attitudes of their teachers. What does “inserting” spiritual influences mean, after all, except that Anthroposophists will try to insert their spiritual doctrines into their students? (Pause over the chilling words “inserting” and “placed into.”) The harm is mitigated somewhat by the nonexistence of the “etheric body,” the “astral body,” and the “I.” But the mind exists and arguably the soul exists. If Steiner’s devotees reach these innermost levels of children’s beings, they can wreak havoc. Affected kids may be drawn away from reality toward loony, occult forms of spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo. The damage can last a lifetime. Steiner repeatedly urged Waldorf teachers to disguise their intentions from non-Anthroposophists, including students’ parents. For instance, when prescribing a prayer for students to recite at the beginning of each day, Steiner told Waldorf faculty to avoid using the word “prayer” when outsiders might hear. [24] To examine the prayers Steiner wrote for Waldorf students to recite, see “Prayers” here at Waldorf Watch. The most basic of Steiner’s schoolhouse deceptions was his insistence that Waldorf schools do not propagate his weird religion. But in fact Steiner’s intention was precisely to use Waldorf schools to spread Anthroposophy. [25] ◊ [Boys and Girls] Steiner differentiated between people on the basis of race, “temperament,” degrees of subhumaness, etc. So of course he also found deep spiritual differences between males and females. “The whole of the female organism is organized toward the cosmos through the astral body. Most of what are really cosmic mysteries is unveiled and revealed through the female constitution. The female astral body is more differentiated, essentially more richly structured. than that of the male. Men’s astral bodies are ... coarser.” [EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, p. 75.] Further: “[W]e shall also educate the girls correctly by recognizing the fact that they are more inclined to the cosmos and boys more inclined to the earth. Girls incline more to the cosmic, and this means that their ideals are heroes and heroines; we should tell girls about them, about their lives and deeds ... Boys need to hear about character, about complete human beings.” [Ibid., p. 83.] Steiner’s view of the sexes is sort of sweetly Victorian — if you find the idealization and subjugation of women sweet. In a sense, females are superior, Steiner says, because they are oriented to the cosmos with all its cosmic forces. Males, on the other hand, are more gross, and they are oriented toward the earth. Girls look up, boys look down. The effect of these views on school curriculum is that girls should be fed fairy tales about two-dimensional (incompletely human) heroes and heroines while the boys, who occupy the real world, learn about “character” and “complete human beings.” Girls: fantasies. Boys: reality (to the extent that Steiner perceived reality, which was very slightly if at all). It is arguable that few children — male or female — leave Waldorf schools prepared for the real world. If girls are led farther astray from reality than boys are, then the potential damage to girls from Steiner’s precepts is all the greater. ◊ [Anthroposophy at Waldorf, Part XXII] When a teacher at the first Waldorf school expressed worries about his teaching, Steiner said the following: “The problem is that you have not always followed the directive to bring what you know anthroposophically into a form you can present to little children. You have lectured the children about anthroposophy when you told them about your subject. You did not transform anthroposophy into a child’s level.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 402-403.] This is most revealing. The teacher was lecturing his young students about Anthroposophy. Error. He should sugarcoat Anthroposophy so that little kids can ingest it: He should present Anthroposophy in a “form you can present to little children.” In other words, the teacher should “transform anthroposophy into a child’s level.” But, either way, the teacher is teaching the kids Anthroposophy. This completely contradicts Steiner’s oft-repeated denial that Anthroposophy will be fed to students. He didn’t tell the teacher to keep Anthroposophy out of the classroom. He merely told him to present it at “a child’s level.” Some teachers at the Waldorf school I attended decided to openly “bring what they knew anthroposophically” into the classroom. An enormous scandal erupted. Parents who had not known they were sending kids to an Anthropop training academy were outraged and frightened. Many yanked their kids out, and the school survived only because it cashiered the most openly spiritualistic members of the faculty. But what about the more covert spiritualists, the teachers who smuggled Anthroposophy into the classroom at “child’s level”? Good question. ◊ [Anthroposophy at Waldorf, Part XXIII] Steiner described the task of a Waldorf teacher in these terms: “[I]nsight into the cosmos must be the result of knowledge consciously developed ... This cosmic insight will so live in us that we shall be able to shape it artistically into the pictures we need [to convey to children] ... At about the tenth year the child is ripe for what the teacher can make out of this far-reaching vision. And if a teacher shows in living pictures how the whole earth is a living being, how it bears the plants as a man bears his hair [I told you so: the Earth is alive]... a kind of expansion takes place in the soul of the child ... It is not correct to say that the child is not mature enough for conceptions of this kind. A teacher in whom they live and who has this world conception at the back of him, knows how to express them in forms for which the child is ripe and in which it [sic: meaning she or he] can concur with its [sic] whole being.” [Rudolf Steiner, ESSENTIALS OF EDUCATION (Anthroposophical Publishing Company, 1926), pp. 63-64.] Steiner delivered this message to Waldorf teachers just months before his death. It was spread to the English-speaking world a few months after that. Waldorf teachers should absorb an Anthroposophical “world conception” (or, phrased more comprehensibly, “cosmic insight”), including the insight that the living earth wears plants like hair. The teachers should then bring “conceptions of this kind” into the classroom in pictorial form. A ten-year-old kid is “ripe” for such stuff and will absorb it with his/her “whole being.” Thus Anthroposophy is to be inculcated in kids. (Did you notice how I resisted the temptation to joke about the Earth’s hair? Immersing kids in Anthroposophy kills comedy.) Anthroposophy will be in the school. It will be taught to the students, one way or another. This is what Waldorf schools are all about. (But perhaps I'm repeating myself.)
◊◊◊◊
◊ [Thumbnail] If we want to create a concise summary of Steiner’s intentions for Waldorf schools, we could do worse than this: • Steiner intended Waldorf schools to spread the influence of Anthroposophy: “[W]e were in a position to make the anthroposophical movement a relatively large one....” [RUDOLF STEINER IN THE WALDORF SCHOOL, p.156.] • To this end, he arranged that “Anthroposophy will be in the school....” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 495.] • To that end, he arranged for a staff that “consists of anthroposophists.” [EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, p. 60.] • To that further end, he directed Waldorf teachers to present Anthroposophy in “forms for which the child is ripe.” [ESSENTIALS OF EDUCATION, p. 64.] • To all these ends, “As Waldorf teachers, we must be true anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in our innermost feeling.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 118.] And there you have it. (All right, I'm repeating myself. Fair warning: This won't be the last time.)
◊◊◊◊
I continue this examination of Waldorf’s foundations on the page titled “Underpinnings”
— Roger Rawlings
For additional examples of statements Steiner made to Waldorf school teachers, please see "Discussions" To examine advice Steiner gave to Waldorf teachers, please use this link: "Advice" For still more Steiner quotes about education, please see "More on Education".
Waldorf student art, courtesy of PLANS. Anthroposophists and their allies, in and around my old school, published many works offering a mild form of Anthroposophy to the public. The explicit esotericism of Steiner's teachings was rarely mentioned. (J. F. Gardner was our headmaster; F. E. Winkler was a guiding presence; H. V. Baravalle — an associate of Steiner's — taught at Adelphi; van der Post was a visitor; A. C. Harwood was, I think, a visitor, but my memory may be mistaken on this point.)  Steiner taught that the human ego (red) and astral body (yellow) separate from the etheric body (orange) and physical body (blue) at night — the travel to the spirit realm, returning in the morning. [R.R., 2009, based on sketch by Steiner.]
ENDNOTES [1] E.g., FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), pp. 649-650. [2] E.g., POLARITIES IN THE EVOLUTION OF MANKIND (Steiner Books, 1987), p. 59. [3] E.g., AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE (Steiner Books, 2000), p. 84. [4] E.g., FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 115. [5] E.g., KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944), p. 96. [6] Ibid., p. 28. [7] E.g., THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), pp. 142-145. [8] E.g., THEOSOPHY OF THE ROSICRUCIAN (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1981), pp. 22-25. [9] E.g., FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 80-81, pp. 90-91, pp. 345-346, p. 687. [10] E.g., THE UNIVERSAL HUMAN (Anthroposophic Press, 1990), p. 75. [11] E.g., COSMIC MEMORY (SteinerBooks, 1987), pp. 45-46. [12] E.g., FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 115. [13] E.g., DISCUSSIONS WITH TEACHERS, p. 92. [14] E.g., FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 649-650. [15] E.g., FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 55. [16] E.g., Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), pp. 62-3. [17] E.g., Rudolf Steiner, STAYING CONNECTED: How to Continue Your Relations with Those Who Have Died (Anthroposophic Press, 1999), in toto. [18] E.g., FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 46. [19] E.g., Rudolf Steiner, OCCULT HISTORY (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1982), p. 36. [20] E.g., FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 55. [21] E.g., NATURE SPIRITS, pp. 62-3. [22] E.g., Rudolf Steiner, THE INCARNATION OF AHRIMAN: The Embodiment of Evil on Earth (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2006), in toto. [23] E.g., Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944). p. 149. [24] “Avoid allowing anyone to hear you, as a faculty member, using the word ‘prayer.’”[Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 20. [25] “One of the most important facts about the background of the Waldorf School is that we were in a position to make the anthroposophical movement a relatively large one.”[Rudolf Steiner, RUDOLF STEINER IN THE WALDORF SCHOOL, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p.156.] Steiner was actually mistaken when he claimed that Anthroposophy had become a relatively large movement. After the ascent of National Socialism in Germany, several American scholars contributed an annotated English-language edition of MEIN KAMPF. In one footnote, they referred to Steiner, grouping him among mountebanks who thrived in the chaotic conditions prevailing throughout Germany after World War I. These educated men had heard of Steiner, yet his “large movement” was so small that they confused it with anthropology and they misspelled Steiner’s name: “Extraordinary phenomena [related to hysteria] ... were numerous during the post-War years [in Germany] — e.g., the curious 'healer' of Hamburg, Häuser, who was followed by immense crowds; the Bibelforscher (Bible Students) who raised tides of adventistic emotion in Silesia and elsewhere; and Rudolph [sic] Steiner, the anthropologist [sic], who built houses resembling trees; etc.” [Adolf Hitler, MEIN KAMPF (Reynal & Hitchcock, 1940 - copyright 1939, Houghton Mifflin, published by arrangement with Houghton Mifflin), footnote on p. 467.] Presumably Steiner would not have been happy to be mentioned anywhere in MEIN KAMPF, an particularly not in this pejorative manner. Today Anthroposophy remains a borderline cult, but its harmful potential increases as the Waldorf school movement spreads. [R.R.] |