 NON-WALDORF WALDORFS Looking for a Good One How can a Waldorf school sanitize itself — that is, rid itself of Steiner's doctrines, or at least the most noxious ones? Tossing out teachings that are obviously wrong or wicked might seem a simple matter. But in fact some of Steiner's most appalling doctrines lie near the heart of Anthroposophy and cannot be eliminated without causing the entire body of Steiner’s teachings to fall apart. Race Rudolf Steiner was devoted to Aryans and, in particular, Germans. He taught that Northern European culture was the highest yet attained, and that German folk wisdom can point the world toward spiritual truth: “Germanic mythology, from the way in which it was developed out of the native powers of the Archangel, is in its pictures closely akin to the anthroposophical conception of the world such as it shall grow to be in the course of time for all mankind.” [1] Aryans, he said, are especially adept at using their brains: “[A]t the present time it is the task of the Aryans to develop the faculty of thought and all that belongs to it.” [2] Dark-complected people are less intelligent than fair-haired whites, according to Steiner: “In the case of fair people, less nourishment is driven into the eyes and hair; it remains instead in the brain and endows it with intelligence. Brown- and dark-haired people drive the substances into their eyes and hair that the fair people retain in their brains.” [3] In setting up his first Waldorf school, in Germany, for German students, Steiner aimed to offer an education specially suited to German mental and spiritual capacities: The German “must be educated to [his] mission ... [which is] looking at the world from the most varied points of view. This is the special mission of the German people ... They shall take hold upon world culture from this side ... [C]ertain things that I shall touch upon today, for example, in the realm of knowledge, can be evolved only through the German people....” [4] All of this raises the question whether Waldorf education can be tailored to the needs of non-Germans. At the Waldorf school I attended, this was attempted, in part, by emphasizing the spiritualistic writings of the American Transcendentalists. [5] The aim was to make our education appropriate for white American kids. (Please remember: I am discussing Anthroposophical thinking about nations and races, not my own thinking.) But what about nonwhite American kids? Making Waldorf schooling appropriate for them is more challenging. Steiner repeatedly and explicitly said that the "white race" is superior to other races. "The white race is the future, the spiritually creative race." [6] Racism is almost universally deplored today. So what's a Waldorf to do? The obvious solution is to assert that Steiner was wrong in this one instance, on the solitary issue of racism. For Waldorf faculties, however, such an admission would have serious drawbacks. It would open the possibility that Steiner was also wrong about other matters, a dangerous admission. It would even raise the possibility that Steiner was not, as he claimed, a clairvoyant with access to virtually all knowledge, past and future. This claim is utterly central to the Anthroposophical faith — truly faithful Anthroposophists cannot possibly call Steiner's psychic powers into doubt. So what's a Waldorf to do? One option is to quietly renounce racism without ever admitting that Steiner made racists statements. This is a safer course, but even it entails dangers: Parents and others may do the research necessary to unearth Steiner's racism, in which case not only would Steiner be laid open to criticism, but so would the deceitful Waldorf movement. We must admit that rejecting racism, however it is done, would be meritorious. Good riddance. Unfortunately, because racism is so extensive in Steiner's teachings, at least some Anthroposophists today attempt to explain or excuse it. We've seen examples of this at the discussion forum http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/ . There, Steiner defenders have posted messages endorsing a racist view of human history and development. This leads us to the obvious, unhappy conclusion that racism remains imbedded in at least some Anthroposophical projects, most notably Waldorf schools. Postings at the PLANS Web site (http://waldorfcritics.org/ ) support this unhappy conclusion: e.g., “Woman Sees Waldorf Racism On First Visit” http://waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/WomanSeesRacism.html . Science Let's consider another basic Anthroposophical belief: Steiner's view of evolution, which is connected to his teachings on karma and reincarnation. “Evolution is the great theme of ... Steiner’s life work. It is, however, an evolution that goes far beyond anything dreamed of today in biology or geology.” [7] Steiner taught that individuals, nations, and even races evolve upward or else they degenerate (involution). The mechanism is provided by karma and reincarnation: Those who live properly in one life move upward in the next, while those who sin or err in one life move downward in the next. [8] Such teachings are alien to most Westerners who usually think that after a single life, one's "soul" will go to heaven or hell, or it will simply cease to exist (death is death: kaput). But rejecting Steiner's teachings on these matters is extremely difficult for Anthroposophists, since they are “the great theme of ... Steiner’s life work.” Hence, if Waldorf schools want to attract students — to fill the classroom seats and receive tuitions — the schools generally have little option but to hide their devotion to reincarnation, karma, and Steinerian evolution/involution.  Note that Steiner's view of evolution was at odds with Darwin's. There is no karma or reincarnation in Darwinian evolution — the key mechanism for Darwinists is random change, not the receipt of one's karmic due. This leads us to another large problem area for Waldorf schools: Science. Steiner frequently set his teachings in direct opposition to the findings of science, rejecting wholesale the discoveries of physics, astronomy, geology, medical science — in essence, all real knowledge. [9] Waldorf schools face a major predicament if they endorse Steiner’s aversion to science. Denying Steiner's many factually indefensible statements commits them to a long series of deceptions. A sensible position, I think, would be for Waldorfs to admit that Steiner made some mistakes in unimportant matters (i.e., racism, and facts about the physical universe: science), while affirming that Steiner's big doctrines (about the spirit realm: occultism) are correct. Anthroposophists rarely, if ever, take such a line, however. Steiner’s teachings are dogma, generally taken as unquestionable truths: “The facts spoke, not he.” [10] Thus, Steiner’s antiscientific teachings are generally either affirmed or kept hidden. [11] Steiner’s antiscientific attitude was founded on his disregard for clear, ascertainable facts. In Anthroposophy, the real, physical universe has almost no substance or significance. Anthroposophists try to turn their attention to "higher," spiritual realms. [12] Steiner taught that by following his doctrines, Anthroposophists could gain psychic powers similar to his own. In fact, he taught that "organs of clairvoyance" can develop within the human organism [13]. The mindset underlying true-blue Waldorf schools if fundamentally at odds with rationality and science. Art We can see Waldorf’s true agenda also reflected in the way the arts are taught at Waldorf schools. The word "imagination" is widely used in Waldorfs to indicate the mode of thought the schools encourage. [14] Such thinking is deeply irrational, but it is not the sort of fantasizing that we often associate with imagination (e.g., in animated Disney films). Imagination, at Waldorfs, is a precursor to — or even a proxy for — clairvoyance. Consider painting. Students at Waldorfs are often taught wet-on-wet watercolor painting (wet brushes spreading watery colors on wet paper). The results bear no resemblance to ordinary physical reality, and they are completely unlike the stick-figure cartoons that kids often produce. In effect, “imaginative” wet-on-wet Waldorf paintings are talismanic representations of the spirit realm: "[T]he world from which the soul descends has no spatial forms or lines, [but] it does have color intensities, color qualities. Which is to say that the world man inhabits between death and a new birth (and which I have frequently and recently described) is a soul-permeated, spirit-permeated world of light, of color, of tone; a world of qualities not quantities; a world of intensities rather than extensions." [15] In creating paintings that suggested such a spirit realm, Waldorf students are given an opportunity to rise into that realm: "[C]olours ... are windows through which we can ascend spiritually into the spiritual world...." [16] From an Anthroposophical perspective, the most important of all arts is eurythmy, a form of stylized dance invented by Steiner. Even more distinctly than painting, eurythmy is intended to enable its practitioners to make direct connection with the spiritual realm: "Eurythmy shapes and moves the human organism in a way that furnishes direct external proof of our participation in the supersensible world. In having people do eurythmy, we link them directly to the supersensible world." [17] Many people are attracted to Waldorf schools because of the emphasis the schools place on the arts. The schools are often aesthetically pleasing. But Waldorf schools do not embrace art for art's sake — in most Waldorf schools, art is employed as a vehicle leading to the occult. ◊◊◊◊ I could continue this analysis of a true-blue Waldorf curriculum (e.g., by discussing the stages of childhood growth; the etheric body, the astral body, and the "I" that each human is supposed to manifest; the various temperaments by which Waldorf faculties segregate students: phlegmatic, melancholic, etc.) [18], but there's probably no need. We can already see the following: ◊ A Waldorf school that clings to all of Steiner's teachings is a den of occultism. ◊ A Waldorf that tries to pick and choose among Steiner's teachings runs into dilemmas that have no easy resolution — which statements does the school disavow, and for what reasons, and why does the school cling to Steiner’s other teachings, and how can a consistent educational program be cobbled together out of broken, disassembled parts?
◊ A "Waldorf" that tries to completely renounce Steiner would be a Waldorf in name only. But retaining the name would always raise suspicions. If a school says it is a Waldorf — if it walks like a Waldorf, and talks like a Waldorf — then at least some remnants of Waldorf occultism are likely still imbedded there. For parents trying to find a “good” Waldorf, then, the choices may come down to this: Send your kids to an Anthroposophical school that pretends to be non-Anthroposophical, or send them to a non-Anthroposophical school that pretends the reverse. Or, obviously, you could decide to sidestep Waldorf schooling altogether. The foregoing leads us to a critical issue. How many Anthroposophists on the staff of a “Waldorf” school are too many? Half of the faculty? No, that’s far too many — kids will probably come into frequent contact with Steiner-like loopiness. What, then, if there is just one Anthropop on the faculty? This would certainly be better, yet it would still be worrisome. I’ve said that some “Waldorfs” may be free of Anthroposophy. But how is a parent to know for sure, given that many deeply Anthroposophical Waldorfs disguise their missions? If a school calls itself a Waldorf or Steiner school, then we would be well advised to assume that the school aspires to Steinerism. The sole Anthroposophist at that sort of school might be, in essence, the covert spiritual leader for the entire faculty. And realize that some teachers who are not Anthroposophists may nonetheless have received training as Waldorf teachers, so they will be following some version of Steiner’s dicta whether or not they know it.  Another possibility is that the faculty at a Waldorf school may generally disavow Steiner’s doctrines and yet remain devoted to other forms of occultism. Steiner urged his followers to develop their own powers of clairvoyance. An aspiring spiritualist or mystic may begin by following Steiner’s advice but then wander away. Mystical revelations can be of almost any sort, visions that support Steiner’s and visions that don’t. I’ve known individuals with spiritualistic yearnings who were drawn to Anthroposophy, joined Waldorf faculties, then partially or wholly split from Anthroposophy, but remained mystics. In his later years, American Anthroposophist John Fentress Gardner — headmaster at the Waldorf I attended — shifted away from his years-long adherence to Steiner. He began urging some spiritualistic faculty members to “use their own spiritual perceptions in their educational approach.” [19] If such perceptions are not tightly bounds to Steiner's doctrines, following Gardner's advice could create a sort of curricular chaos. And indeed, Gardner’s new tack contributed to the scandal that nearly ripped that Waldorf school apart. [20] After resigning in the wake of the scandal, Gardner affirmed charismatic Christianity as being at least as true Anthroposophy. [21] The important point for our present discussion is that a Waldorf school that separates itself, more or less, from Rudolf Steiner may nonetheless by an occultist institution where children are led toward mysticism of one form or another. If you don’t want this for your child, you should send her/him elsewhere. Finally, let’s consider the possibility that a “Waldorf” faculty includes no Anthroposophists or other mystics, and no teachers who have been trained in Waldorf methods. Surely that school is safe? Perhaps. But this situation could also mean that the teachers there are groping in a deeper darkness than Anthroposophical initiates do — to the extent that they try to employ Waldorf methods, they may not understand what they are attempting. Anthroposophy is a loaded gun. For people to play with this gun when they don’t know how it works is a prescription for disaster. So, zero Anthropops on the faculty? That would be best, certainly. But the concerns that attach themselves to the names “Waldorf” or “Steiner” would still potentially hover over the school. A parent should dig deep for clear, demonstrably true answers about the school’s purpose and curriculum before consigning children to that school’s care. So, my advice? Look for a school with no devotion to Steiner or any other form of covert mysticism. A real Waldorf or Steiner school is quite dangerous. An apparently false one — a school that calls itself a Waldorf or Steiner school for no discernible reason — may also be dangerous. So caveat emptor: Let the buyer (parent or student) beware. Assume that a “Waldorf” is a center of occultism until absolutely overwhelming proof convinces you otherwise. — Roger Rawlings Waldorf schools can be attractive, no doubt. Consider what it is you find attractive, and ask if it is enough. Young Waldorf students in a circle, celebrating a birthday, if I recall. For further suggestions, please see "Advice for Parents" and "Clues" here at Waldorf Watch. For an overview of the Waldorf spirit, see "Spirit" ◊◊◊◊ Image of gods from ◊◊◊◊ ENDNOTES [1] Rudolf Steiner, THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 123. [2] Rudolf Steiner, COSMIC MEMORY (SteinerBooks, 1987), p. 46. [3] Rudolf Steiner, HEALTH AND ILLNESS, Vol. 1. (Anthroposophic Press, 1981), pp. 85-86. [4] Rudolf Steiner THE CHALLENGE OF THE TIMES (SteinerBooks, 1979), pp. 207-209. I discuss these matters in “The Good Wars” at this Web site. [5] See my essay “Unenlightened” at this Web site. [6] Rudolf Steiner, VOM LEBEN DES MENSCHEN UND DER ERDE (Verlag Der Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, 1961), p. 62. For a laundry list of Steiner's racist remarks, see "Steiner's Bile" at this Web site. [7] Rudolf Steiner, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. xii, introduction by Clopper Almon. [8] See the essay “Evolution, Anyone?” with an afterword by Peter Staudenmaier, on this Web site. [9] See such books as Rudolf Steiner, AN OCCULT PHYSIOLOGY (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1983), Rudolf Steiner SCIENCE (Sophia Books, 2004), Rudolf Steiner, FROM ELEPHANTS TO EINSTEIN (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1999), and Rudolf Steiner, THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH: An Esoteric Study of the Subterranean Spheres (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2007). [10] Hermann von Baravalle, RUDOLF STEINER AS EDUCATOR (St. George Books, 1960 revised edition), p.17. [11] See the essay “Steiner's ‘Science’” at this Web site. Steiner was always sensitive to public opinion. For this reason, he urged Waldorf teachers to be cagey about revealing various of his doctrines, such as that islands and continents swim in the sea, unanchored — they are held in position by the influence of the stars. “[I]slands do not sit directly upon foundation; they swim and are held fast from outside ... Such things are the result of the cosmos, of the stars ... However, we need to avoid such things. We cannot tell them to the students ... we would acquire a terrible name. Nevertheless, that is actually what we should achieve in geography.” [Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), pp. 607-608.] [12] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944). [13] KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, p. 28. [14] See, e.g., “Essentially, people today have no inkling of how people looked out into the universe in ancient times when human beings still possessed an instinctive clairvoyance ... If we want to be fully human, however, we must struggle to regain a view of the cosmos that moves toward Imagination again....” [Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 256.] See also “To what extent will [a child’s] thinking become purely logical and colorless, unenriched by imagination, uninformed by experience? ... More than ever, therefore, should the attempt be made with our adolescents to preserve from the earlier stage of childhood those capacities which are natural to it ... [T]his means to transform thought from what it is at present — the capacity for abstract hypothesis — into the capacity for self-evident spiritual experience.” [A.C. Harwood, PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL (The Myrin Institute Inc., 1956), pp. 23-24.] [15] Rudolf Steiner, THE ARTS AND THEIR MISSION, Lectures from 1923 (Anthroposophic Press, 1964), p. 23. [16] Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF MYSTERY WISDOM (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996), pp. 111-112. [17] ART AS SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY, p. 247. [18] I discuss all of these matters in various essays on this Web site. [19] Lawrence Williams, Ed.D., THE OAK MEADOW TRILOGY (Oak Meadow, Inc., 1997). [20] John T. McQuiston, “’Psychic’ Ex-Student’s Influence Shakes Waldorf School,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, Feb. 18, 1979, p. 48. Also see my essay “Unenlightened” on this Web site. [21] See John Fentress Gardner, TWO PATHS TO THE SPIRIT: Charismatic Christianity and Anthroposophy (Golden Stone Press, 1990). |
