 WALDORF NOW Sifting the Clues by Roger Rawlings Afterword by Margaret Sachs Rudolf Steiner presided at the first Waldorf school, which opened in 1919. Long ago. I attended a Waldorf in the 1950’s and ‘60’s. Long ago. What is the Waldorf story today? Are the schools still like the one that I remember or, more to the point, like the one that Steiner oversaw? There are so many Waldorf and Steiner schools, today, scattered so far and wide — it is impossible to say for sure what goes on inside all of them. A large team of investigative reporters might be able to ferret out the truth, particularly if the schools agreed to give them access. But this seems unlikely. Here’s how Steiner himself reacted when someone asked to visit just one class at the first Waldorf School: “[T]he most that would be possible would be that we might decide to show visitors the empty school when the children and teachers are not there. There can be no question of visiting while the school is in session. That is, such a visit could only take place after weighing up carefully in consultation with those who hope to learn something by visiting the school — for instance, with people who want to see something of this school because they are trying to found a similar school elsewhere, because they themselves are doing something relevant to spread the idea of the Waldorf School ... the most that we can allow is for you to see the classrooms, and even that would be burdensome at the moment ... It does not work to have what I described in the first part, the spirit of the Waldorf School, on display for visitors.” [1] Steiner sounds like he has something to hide, doesn’t he? Short of storming the walls of all the Waldorfs, how can we learn the truth? Actually, several methods of discovery are open to us. We may not learn precisely what is happening inside every last Waldorf, but we can form a clear, general picture. Let’s start here: This is how some Anthroposophists currently present themselves. As of today, October 15, 2007, the Waldorf school that I attended still pledges allegiance to Rudolf Steiner. This is the school’s mission statement, displayed on the school Web site (note the reference to Steiner and the implications of a spiritualistic agenda): “To nurture toward compassion, to balance toward wholeness, to challenge toward excellence and achievement - these are the goals to which the Waldorf School of Garden City aspires. Based on the insights of Rudolf Steiner, and enriched by the diversity of our community, our methods of teaching reflect an understanding of the growing child and acknowledge the spiritual origins of humanity.” [2]  Other Waldorfs are equally — or even more — explicit about their devotion to Steiner (although they generally do not provide a true account of Steiner’s teachings). Moreover, today there is an institution of higher education called Rudolf Steiner College operating in the USA. The name of the college, of course, tells us that Steiner’s teachings are of paramount importance for the faculty and students. The college describes itself this way: “Rudolf Steiner College is one of America's leading Waldorf teacher education colleges. It is also a center for anthroposophical studies. Programs at the College arise out of the work of Austrian philosopher, scientist and educator Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) whose innovative ideas and discoveries have inspired a wide spectrum of practical activities worldwide — in the arts, banking, architecture, medicine, agriculture, and care of the handicapped, as well as education. “Rudolf Steiner founded the worldview known as Anthroposophy (literally, wisdom of the human being), in which the heightened capacities of thinking, feeling, and willing are seen as key to unlocking enormous human potential.” [3] In other essays on this Web site, I explain what Steiner’s teachings are. [4] Using this knowledge, we can decipher the college’s self-description. In Anthroposophical circles, statements intended for public consumption are customarily couched in obfuscating code. But peel back the new-age jargon (e.g., “human potential”) and we find at least a suggestion that the college subscribes to Steiner’s views on clairvoyance and intuition (“heightened capacities of thinking, feeling, and willing”). How could it be otherwise, at an institution that has named itself after the founder of Anthroposophy? Steiner taught that there are several ways for an individual to expand one’s capacities, including some methods that function while one is dreaming or asleep. [5] True knowledge of the spirit world — which, for Steiner, is far more important than knowledge of the physical universe — is attained through clairvoyance. This faculty is seated in nonphysical “organs” of clairvoyance: “[J]ust as natural forces build out of living matter the eyes and ears of the physical body, so will organs of clairvoyance build themselves....” [6] Bear in mind that the chief purpose of Rudolf Steiner College is to produce a new crop of Waldorf teachers every year. Thus, in understanding the nature of the college, we understand the nature of its graduates — and the nature of newly minted Waldorf teachers today. (Quite possibly, most of the graduates are not yet fully initiated Anthroposophists, but they have begun the long, irrational, psychologically damaging journey.) Am I pushing this analysis too hard? For the sake of argument, let’s say that I am. This is only the beginning of our examination of Waldorf education today. Stronger proof lies ahead. But for now, let’s go back to an intriguing part of the college’s self-description: “Rudolf Steiner founded the worldview known as Anthroposophy.” The college makes no claims, here, for Anthroposophy, nor does it overtly endorse Steiner’s “worldview.” But I submit that, for the college, its namesake’s teachings are timelessly true, and they are enacted primarily by Waldorf teachers, such as the College’s own graduates: “Steiner's detailed psychology of child development, described early in the 20th century, has been supported by modern research in education and neuropsychology. Through Waldorf education, Steiner hoped that young people would develop the capacities of soul and intellect and the strength of will that would prepare them to meet the challenges of their own time and the future.” [7] The assertion that Steiner’s teachings have been supported by science is dubious, at best (I have to stretch to phrase this so mildly). All I ask at this stage is that you pause to consider the reverberations of the word “soul” when used by this eponymous institution. Steiner’s racism [8] is the worst of his doctrines. Let’s hope that at least some Waldorfs have repudiated racism or pushed it so far into the background that their students are unaffected by it. However, as I argue elsewhere [9], it is extremely hard to subtract racism from Anthroposophy: racism lies so near the very core of that bizarre religion. Also, some parents have reported finding racism in Waldorf schools quite recently. Here is a statement made by a mother in January of 2000: “Have you seen it written somewhere that Steiner believed white people were most evolved??? This was blatantly apparent in the curriculum of the Waldorf school we visited. “My daughter is African American, and this is one of the two reasons (along with the sexist dynamics) that we decided against the school. The teacher, telling me about the history part of the curriculum, said that since 5th graders are becoming rational, and rationality ‘came in with the Greeks,’ that's what they study in 5th grade. “The whole ‘history as a developmental process paralleling children's development, with Western civilization at the pinnacle’ is inherently racist. “I saw the unit study books one class had done about Africa. At the beginning, under their identical paintings of a traditional African man hunting in silhouette, they all had the same saying copied: ‘Perhaps this life of ours which begins as the quest of the child for the adult, ends as a journey by the adult to rediscover the child ... It is in the Bushman wherein the two are finally and lovingly joined.’ (Laurens van der Post) I shudder to think of my daughter learning about her heritage in this way.” [10]  Another example: Here is a troubling message posted at the waldorfcritics discussion forum on October 24, 2001. It deals with charges that a Waldorf school in Holland was teaching racism: “The concern was originally raised by a Waldorf parent who found racist passages in her child's school notes. After the press got their hands on some of this, the Anthroposophical Society in the Netherlands eventually decided to appoint a commission to investigate the matter, in order to quell the growing public uproar ... The commission designated 16 Steiner quotes that, in their opinion, could be punishable for racial discrimination under Dutch law today. They found a further 67 quotes that they considered potentially discriminatory but not legally questionable. Aside from these two groups, they examined nearly 100 more Steiner quotes about race and declared them "unobjectionable". Examples of this last category include Steiner's claim that ‘Negroes’ are ‘decadent’ and ‘completely cut themselves off from the spiritual world’, among many other similarly ‘unobjectionable’ pronouncements....” [11] Perhaps the most compelling information in this passage is that the investigators were themselves Anthroposophists, yet they conceded that at least some of Steiner’s statements were “discriminatory.” In fact, the investigators obviously were intent on covering up, to the greatest extent possible, the racism in Waldorf education: They found that calling “Negroes” decadent and disconnected from spirit is unobjectionable. Waldorf teachers who find such a statement acceptable are clearly capable to making racist remarks that would wind up in their students’ school notes. For additional recent examples of racism in Waldorf schools, see the Addendum, written by Margaret Sachs. ◊◊◊◊ On November 13, 1999, a surprising curtain opened, allowing us to peek inside the Waldorf scene. On that day, Eugene Schwartz — who was director of Waldorf teacher-training at Sunbridge College — openly professed the religious mission of Waldorf schools, and he urged Waldorf teachers to stop denying the real purpose of Waldorf education. This was a stunner. Perhaps Schwartz was goaded into candor by the presence of Dan Dugan, whom Schwartz had invited to address a gathering of Waldorf teachers and Anthroposophists. Dugan is secretary of People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS), an organization opposed to the inclusion of Waldorf schools in public school systems. At the gathering, Schwartz made the following candid remarks (among others): "I'm glad my daughter gets to speak about God every morning: that's why I send her to a Waldorf school ... That's why I send her to a Waldorf school. She can have a religious experience. A religious experience. I'll say it again: I send my daughter to a Waldorf school so that she can have a religious experience." [12] “[W]e are trying to open up the religious font that is the child's right as a human being.” [13] “If we are really to be a movement for cultural renewal, it is our responsibility to share with the parents those elements of Anthroposophy which will help them understand their children and fathom the mysterious ways in which we work. Yes, we are giving the children a version of Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it's there. So let's at least do it the right way.” [14] “Let's face it: we're deceiving — and worst of all, we're deceiving ourselves ... There is no door. It's very fluid, it goes back and forth. Let's be open and honest about that. Let's cut our losses.” [15] “Do you realize how much Christianity there is in our school? Do you realize that we are thinking about these children in the light of reincarnation and karma? That's how a teacher's working with them.” [16] Wow. Schwartz bravely ‘fessed up to a lot that day: Waldorf schools have a religious mission; the schools teach children a form of Anthroposophy; Waldorf schools have been practicing deception in denying the real nature of their curricula; Waldorf schools are devoted to Christianity, but in an odd form, since they are also devoted to such concepts as karma and reincarnation.  I don’t want to put words in Schwartz’s mouth. His honesty was refreshing, even heroic. He acknowledged that Waldorf schools are religious institutions, and that the religion taught at Waldorfs is Anthroposophy. Thus, he overturned the typical denial — made by Anthroposophists and Waldorf faculties — that Steiner gave them a religion. [17] The results of Schwartz’s honesty were, unfortunately, hard on him. He was soon fired as director of teacher training. Here’s how Dan Dugan, Schwartz’s friendly adversary, describes what happened: “I asked Eugene Schwartz about the rumors [that he had been fired], and he kindly told me his story.
“In March, 2000, Schwartz was dismissed as Director of Teacher Training at Sunbridge College. This was a consequence of his November, 1999, ‘Schools in Transformation’ conference, at which I was invited to speak, and Schwartz challenged the Waldorf movement to ‘come out’ about its religious nature.
“After that meeting I said I hoped he would survive his next board meeting. Unfortunately, I wasn't far wrong.
“His firing in turn had the consequence of ‘a near revolt of the students,’ and ‘a serious dip in next year's enrollment.’ Schwartz feels that the resulting addition of some younger faculty and staff will have a beneficial effect on Sunbridge, though it was too late for him.” [18] We can draw a few more inferences from this. Most Waldorf schools are not willing to end their deceptive practices. They still cling to their secrets. We cannot know for sure what all those secrets are, but it is fair to infer that the great bulk of them are the doctrines of the man to whom they remain loyal: Rudolf Steiner. The secrets, in other words, generally consist of the doctrines of Anthroposophy, some of which are quite awful. [19] ◊◊◊◊ Eugene Schwartz has not been quite so candid in his books. Of particular interest, here, is his book WALDORF EDUCATION: Schools for the Twenty-First Century. [20] Some of the occult terms Schwartz used in his remarks at the Waldorf gathering are absent from the book. If Schwartz meant to be open and honest in the book, he seems to have fallen short. On the other hand, the book does have references to some of Steiner's occult concepts, such as "etheric body," "astral body," "clairvoyance," and "higher bodies." Here are a few of the statements that appear in the book: “Must teachers be clairvoyant in order to be certain that they are teaching in the proper way? We may, indeed, need only the ‘clairvoyant’ faculties that we are already using without being aware that we possess them.” [21] Asking this question would be unthinkable to rationalists and to almost all teachers in public schools. Clairvoyance! Is he kidding? No, Schwartz affirms the reality of clairvoyance, although he muddies the picture somewhat by using the word both with and without quotation marks. His point is that we all have “clairvoyant” powers, but there are also higher forms of such powers (implicitly, as exercised by Rudolf Steiner). Consider this statement: “Earlier in this book I spoke of the ‘everyday clairvoyance’ which allows us to perceive the activities of the ‘higher bodies’ of the human being without our necessarily being endowed with the degree of spiritual insight necessary to see the bodies themselves.” [22] According to Schwartz (and Steiner), there are varying degrees of spiritual insight. To Anthroposophists, it is obvious that Rudolf Steiner was blessed with extremely high psychic or clairvoyant powers — perhaps the highest ever attained. Steiner declared himself to be clairvoyant, and he said he had access to the Akashic Record, among other sources of supernatural knowledge. [23] He often spoke and wrote as if he were virtually omniscient. Schwartz writes in a more reasonable-seeming manner, but it is clear that Schwartz accepts some — and perhaps all — of Steiner’s doctrines.  “Our etheric body is active in a way that our physical body is not. We go through life in an inert, ‘cause and effect’ manner. The etheric body works to reverse those effects suffered by the physical body in the course of daily life; it is the body of renewal and regeneration.” [24] The etheric body, in Anthroposophical lore, is one of three nonphysical bodies that real human beings come to incarnate. The etheric is the lowliest of these extra bodies; it is a set of life forces. The “astral body” consists of higher spirit/soul forces. The “I” is a spark of divine selfhood or ego that separates true humans from animals and subhumans. In asserting the reality of these weird, invisible bodies, Schwartz clearly associates himself with Steiner’s doctrines — which sadly include some dreadful ones, such as the belief that some people are not human. [25] I do not charge that Schwartz subscribes to Steiner's worst doctrines, but buying into Anthroposophy at all is a strange and worrisome business. It’s also worth noting that reversing the “inert, cause and effect” phenomena of real life implies the antiscientific bias of Anthroposophy. To scientists and all rationalists, cause-and-effect phenomena are the focus of observation, our best source of true information about the universe and everything in it. And they are not necessarily inert (Anthroposophists claim that anything not wholly spiritual is, to one degree or another, dead). Cause-and-effect animals are alive. So are cause-and-effect humans. And the spirits that truly exist within humans — the spirit of decency, for instance, and the spirit of love — exist in the real, cause-and-effect world. Turning our backs on reality is the last thing we should want for ourselves and our children. “Using this everyday clairvoyance, it is possible to become aware of the third member of the young person, the astral body.” [26] I’ve said enough on this subject; but it is useful to note that Schwartz believes in the existence of this invisible body, too. “The image of the child developed by Rudolf Steiner and applied in Waldorf methodology stands like a pillar of consistency....” [27] Here, Schwartz expresses his admiration of Steiner and the concept of the child as developed by Steiner. What is this concept? Steiner taught that we all have twelve senses. [28] He taught that as we grow, we incarnate nonphysical bodies. [29] He taught that each child is a representative of one of the four (and only four) “temperaments.” [30] He taught that a truly human child has both a “spirit” and a “soul.” [31] He taught that children are born with an innate knowledge of spiritual worlds. [32] He taught other nonsense about children, but this brief summary should suffice. As to whether Steiner was monumentally consistent — he was not. I delve into this in several of the essays here at Waldorf Watch. While Schwartz may be less heroically honest in his books than he was in his speech, WALDORF EDUCATION nevertheless confirms much that we know about the nature of Steinerian pedagogy. It is based on mysticism, antipathy to science and logic, and a completely bizarre conception of human nature: in particular, the nature of growing children. As I have suggested elsewhere, any parent thinking of sending a child to a Waldorf or Steiner school should understand what the child will be subjected to there. Caveat emptor. — Roger Rawlings Waldorf schools place great emphasis on art. Visitors and parents are often delighted. The schools are indeed often very attractive, displaying much lovely art created by the students. The schools usually do not explain that art is intended to have esoteric, spiritual effects on the kids. (See "Magical Arts".) Paintings by Waldorf school students, like these, are often in a typical style — wet-on-wet watercoloring that suggests at least a hazy spirituality behind nature. [Courtesy of PLANS] The Waldorf attitude toward nature is complex, and divided. Some natural forms show up often in and around Waldorfs. The spiral, as in this nautilus, is especially meaningful to many Anthroposophists — they see in it a manifestation of the evolutionary pattern Steiner described, a pattern not just for lower beings but for humans and the spiritual beings above humans. [R.R., 2009.] Please use this link "Clairvoyance" for information about psychic phenomena For a quick review of mythical beings that Steiner said really exist, please use this link: "Beings" For an overview of the Waldorf spirit, see "Spirit"  [R.R., 2009.] AFTERWORD The son of one Waldorf parent recently came home and said that his Waldorf high school biology teacher had taught them that European blood is more evolved than African blood! Any mainstream scientist can explain why this is nonsense. When one is familiar with Steiner's racist theories, however, such stories suggest that Steiner's racism possibly lives on in today's Anthroposophy and makes its way into the classroom in the form of pseudoscience. What parent researching schools would ever imagine that a school's teachers might subscribe to racist, spiritual evolution theories, that the "science" teachers might be so incredibly ignorant of real science, or that science classes might be a conduit for racist teachings? [Note by R. Rawlings: In the Waldorf I attended, I was taught the same thing about blood types. See “Unenlightened” and/or “I Went to Waldorf” on this Web site.] Another example is the Jewish high school student at our former Waldorf school who came home and told his mother that his Waldorf history teacher had been dismissive of the Holocaust and that the teacher had said something to the effect that, in any case, the Jewish people had done it to themselves because Hitler was Jewish or half-Jewish. The possibility that this story might be the result of the student misunderstanding the teacher is somewhat undermined by the open and blatant Holocaust denial by some modern-day Anthroposophists. — Margaret Sachs FROM THE NET Here is a relevant Internet exchange; I have edited the messages slightly for inclusion here. I cannot wholly vouch for any messages except those I wrote myself. Still, the messages from others, below, are interesting and they may throw light on the subjects we have been considering. — Roger Rawlings In June, 2009, an Internet acquaintance of mine left a message on the waldorf-critics discussion list. [33] The message: I have a question. Imagining clairvoyance to be true ... isn't it fairly rare for people to be clairvoyant? Are the [Waldorf] teachers that go to sleep and ask questions about their children's souls using clairvoyance to get the answer? How do they say the answer comes to them? "What should I do about so and so?".............expel him! What if the spirit world gets the answer wrong ? It seemed to be wrong when it told Steiner about the reincarnation through the races. The spirit world can't be racist can it ? [34] ••• I posted the following answer. It revisits some of the issues I discussed in the essay, above, but perhaps it states some things more directly, and it adds some additional considerations: Hi. Yes, it is extremely rare for anyone to be clairvoyant. In fact, there is no reliable evidence than anyone is clairvoyant or could possibly be clairvoyant. The following is from one of the most widely used and reliable psychology textbooks. On the subjects of clairvoyance, ESP, and psychic powers in general, the author reports: “According to the U.S. National Research Council, ‘the best evidence does not support the contention that these phenomena exist.’” [David G. Myers, PSYCHOLOGY (Worth Publishers, 2004), p. 260.] The author also writes, “After thousands of experiments, a reproducible ESP phenomenon has never been discovered, nor has any individual convincingly demonstrated a psychic ability.” [Ibid., p. 260 — the last bit was italicized for emphasis by Myers, not by me.] And yet Waldorf teachers think they have — or should develop — clairvoyant powers. The following is from leading Waldorf educator Eugene Schwartz. He asks a question that would strike most people as totally nuts, yet he is serious: “Must teachers be clairvoyant in order to be certain that they are teaching in the proper way?" [WALDORF EDUCATION: Schools for the Twenty-First Century (Xlibris Corporation, 2000), p. 17.] Schwartz's answer: "We may, indeed, need only the ‘clairvoyant’ faculties that we are already using without being aware that we possess them.” [Ibid., p. 17] According to Schwartz, Waldorf teachers don't need to be extremely clairvoyant, but they should use whatever clairvoyant abilities they do possess, even if they don't fully realize that they possess them. Schwartz says that almost everyone has "everyday" clairvoyance (note that this is the exact opposite of what science says: that no one has clairvoyance, as far as we can tell). Schwartz writes: “Earlier in this book I spoke of the ‘everyday clairvoyance’ which allows us to perceive the activities of the ‘higher bodies’ of the human being without our necessarily being endowed with the degree of spiritual insight necessary to see the bodies themselves.” [Ibid., p. 34] Here Schwartz is saying that people can use clairvoyance to see the results produced by other peoples' invisible, spiritual "bodies", such as the "etheric" body" and the "astral body". (Steiner taught that real human beings have such bodies, but subhumans lack the highest of them, the "I".) Waldorf teachers should be able to clairvoyantly perceive the activities of their students' invisible "bodies". Schwartz is quite clear about all this: “Using this everyday clairvoyance, it is possible to become aware of the third member of the young person, the astral body.” [Ibid., p. 34] Schwartz's point is that Waldorf teachers can use clairvoyance in getting to know their students (including the students' invisible, spiritual "bodies"). And if the teachers develop higher clairvoyant powers, they will be able to actually see the invisible bodies, not just the results of the bodies' actions. The more clairvoyant the teachers become, the deeper they can peer into their students' souls... This is astonishing nonsense, and it is frightening. Imagine having your child "educated" by someone who thinks s/he is clairvoyant. It would mean that your child is in the care of someone who is deeply deluded — someone who is out of touch with reality. But things could be worse. Some Waldorf teachers also think that they can converse with the dead. There's a Steiner book that tells them how: Rudolf Steiner, STAYING CONNECTED: How to Continue Your Relations with Those Who Have Died (Anthroposophic Press, 1999). So, some poor kids are being "educated" by people who delude themselves into believing that they have magical powers of perception — clairvoyance — and magical powers of mediumism — they can contact the dead. This is extremely sad and, more importantly, extremely scary. Imagine the harm such a teacher could do to a child. — Roger [35] ••• My friend then wrote the following answer: Thanks Roger, That's what I thought I was being told at the Rudolf Steiner House open day last week, it was just a bit hard to believe. [36] Later, in an email message, she explained that she had attended an open house at which Waldorf representatives acknowledged that such matters as clairvoyance and karma are important within Waldorf schools — but the students' parents are usually not informed. I will quote her, here, by her kind permission. I will withhold the name of the individual she mentions: "[T]hey were very open about karma but [X] admitted that teachers had to be careful what they said in front of parents and it is just not talked about in the school brochure." •••
I discuss the problem of secrecy at Waldorf schools in "Secrets" here at Waldorf Watch. Steiner urged Waldorf teachers to keep mum about the inner workings of the school. For the most part, Waldorf teachers have followed this directive — but sometimes they make revealing comments, as apparently happened at the open house my friend attended. ••• Here is another interesting message posted at waldorf-critics; it is from a former Waldorf student. (The message quotes from a message I posted, then it inserts comments about my words.) > 2009/6/20 Roger Rawlings wrote > This is astonishing nonsense, and it is frightening. Imagine having your child "educated" by someone who thinks s/he is clairvoyant. It would mean that your child is in the care of someone who is deeply deluded — someone who is out of touch with reality. > Well, that is a common problem in Waldorf ... Reality isn't what they're most in touch with. > But things could be worse. Some Waldorf teachers also think that they can converse with the dead. There's a Steiner book that tells them how: Rudolf Steiner, STAYING CONNECTED: How to Continue Your Relations with Those Who Have Died (Anthroposophic Press, 1999). So, some poor kids are being "educated" by people who delude themselves into believing that they have magical powers of perception — clairvoyance — and magical powers of mediumism — they can contact the dead. > Yes, I had one such teacher. Although many teachers saw the spiritual world, elves, gnomes, etc., this lady actually told the class about her "encounters" with the dead. They communicated through butterflies somehow. > This is extremely sad and, more importantly, extremely scary. Imagine the harm such a teacher could do to a child. It can be, absolutely. However, I was never the least scared of any of these things. I did think it to be a waste of time, but that was it, for me. I grew up with a grandmother who was on medications because she had a disease. These medications had very bad side effects that had to be countered by other medications... But it was a constant battle to adjust doses, etc. Anyhow, these meds caused her to have hallucinations; for example, she saw gnomes. Once she saw a brown bear in a window on the 4th floor of the building opposite. (Very unusual in the city.) I believe she "heard" stuff, too. But, honestly, the things she experienced were sometimes not very different from what some teachers claimed they saw. She acted very irrationally, the teachers didn't. But she always regained reason and sanity in a little while, whereas they... If they were deluded, it seemed to be permanent. Grandmother didn't actually think that there were gnomes anymore when her medicines started to work. I'm not sure, but perhaps this made me more "immune" to these kinds of things. Or perhaps I would've been rational anyway. [37] The same former student later added the following: Perhaps my teachers didn't actually "claim" clairvoyance, but they talked about fairies, gnomes, elves as though these beings were real. One teacher used to see elves dancing when he walked to school in the mornings. But such things were just everyday stuff in Waldorf. They deal with everything in nature as if it is alive, has intentions, etc. Mist isn't mist, it's elves. Gnomes live everywhere. Butterflies "communicate" messages from the dead. When Waldorf teachers speak of fairies and the like, they may be, in part, speaking metaphorically. "Look at all the dancing elves, children!" They want to inspire reverence, awe, and spiritual sensitivity in the kids. But when a young child hears an important authority figure speaking of invisible beings as real, s/he is likely to take it literally. At a minimum, Waldorf teachers should not create confusion in children, requiring them to sort out metaphorical statements from statements of fact. But it is also important to realize that Waldorf teachers often mean such statements quite literally. If they accept Steiner's doctrines, then they literally believe in the existence of gnomes, giants, dwarfs, Norse gods, and so forth. And if they accept Steiner's doctrines, they know that they, as Waldorf teachers, are extremely important authority figures whose words should be accepted unquestioningly by their students. I discuss these matters in detail on this Web site. In July, 2009, the Rationalist Society of Australia (http://www.rationalist.com.au/index.php) released "Six Facts You Should Know About Steiner Education: A Guide for Prospective Students and Their Parents." Authored by Ian Robinson, it is worth reading. In brief, the six "facts" are: 1. Steiner's esoteric belief system, which determines the nature of Steiner education, is a religion. 2. The Steiner movement has some of the characteristics of a cult. 3. Steiner's religion dictates his educational doctrines 4. Steiner education is not evidence based. 5. Steiner education is not friendly to parents. 6. There are racist undertones in Steiner's writings. By Ian Robinson's kind permission, I have reprinted "Six Facts" here at Waldorf Watch: "Six Facts You Should Know About Steiner Education".
 Although created on a computer, this image evokes Waldorfish spiritualism such as we might see in a eurythmy performance. At least that's how it strikes one old Waldorf grad. As far as I know, however, the artist did not have Waldorf in mind. [Kosta Kostov.] ENDNOTES [1] Rudolf Steiner, RUDOLF STEINER IN THE WALDORF SCHOOL (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), pp. 97-99. [4] See, especially, “Unenlightened”, “Was He Christian?”, “Humouresque”, “What We’re Made Of”, “Atlantis and the Aryans”, “Evolution, Anyone?”, and “Is Anthroposophy a Religion?” [5] Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 118. [6] Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944), p. 28. See also “This science presupposes an entirely new inner sense organ or instrument, by means of which there is revealed a new world which does not exist for t ordinary man.” [Theosophy and Christianity, p. 67, quoted from Johann Fichte.] [8] See the essay “Steiner’s Racism” on this Web site. [9] See, especially, “Unenlightened”, “Steiner's Racism”, “Evolution, Anyone?”, and “Non-Waldorf Waldorfs” on this Web site. [10] waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/WomanSeesRacism.html The portrayal of Bushmen as childlike — no matter how “loving” it may be — is patronizing and racist. [11] waldorfcritics.org [12] Eugene Schwartz, “Waldorf Education — For Our Times or Against Them?”, November 13, 1999, transcript edited by Michael Kopp; waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/schwartz.html [13] Ibid. [14] Ibid. [15] Ibid. [16] Ibid. [17] See “Is Anthroposophy a Religion?” and “Unenlightened” on this Web site. [18] Dan Dugan, May 30, 2000, posted at free-speech forum associated with waldorfcritics.org. Dugan was once an enthusiastic Waldorf parent. But he gradually became disillusioned when he realized, first, that science was badly taught at the school his son attended, and later that the school sold Rudolf Steiner books containing racist passages. When the school refused to repudiate these passages, Dugan became an active opponent of Waldorf schooling. While not denying the right of Waldorfs to exist as private institutions, he opposes adoption of Waldorf schools into public school systems, which would grant the schools the financial support of the taxpayers. [19] See, especially, “Unenlightened,” “Was He Christian?” “Steiner's Racism,” and “Evolution, Anyone?” on this Web site. [20] Eugene Schwartz, WALDORF EDUCATION: Schools for the Twenty-First Century (Xlibris Corporation, 2000.) A slightly earlier book by Schwartz, MILLENNIAL CHILD: Transforming Education for the Twenty-First Century (Anthroposophic Press, 1999) is equally mum on various topics. The index contains no references to "religion," "Jesus," "Jesus Christ," "reincarnation," "karma'" or "higher worlds." There is one reference to “Christianity, child rearing and” and another to “Christian missionaries.” “Anthroposophy” is referred to three times and “Anthroposophists” once. [21] WALDORF EDUCATION, p.17. [22] Ibid., p. 34. [23] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, lecture given on October 15, 1911, quoted in ART INSPIRED BY RUDOLF STEINER, John Fletcher (Mercury Arts Publications, 1987), p. 95, and Rudolf Steiner, THE FIFTH GOSPEL: FROM THE AKASHIC RECORD (Rudolf Steiner Press). The Akashic record (some occult traditions speak of multiple records) contains information about every action, thought, emotion, etc., that has ever transpired. The record is inscribed on Akasha: astral light or ether. Akasha mediates clairvoyance. Or so some say. [24] WALDORF EDUCATION, p. 17. [25] Steiner’s delineation of man’s four bodies can be found in lecture after lecture. An early and striking example, from a lecture he gave in 1907, can be found in THEOSOPHY OF THE ROSICRUCIAN (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1981), pp. 22-25. For an informative summary of the various bodies and their significance within the context of Anthroposophy as a whole — including education at Waldorf schools — see Sharon Lombard, “Spotlight on Anthroposophy,” CULTIC STUDIES, Vol. 2, No. 2 . For Steiner’s belief that some people are not human, see, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), pp. 649-650. [26] WALDORF EDUCATION, p. 34. [27] Ibid., p. 112. [28] Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), pp. 142-145. [29] See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. 68. [30] See, e.g., Mark Grant, “Steiner and the Humours: The Survival of Ancient Greek Science,” THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Mar. 1999), pp. 56-70. [31] Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944), p. 96. [32] A.C. Harwood, PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL (The Myrin Institute Inc., 1956), pp. 15-16. [33] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/ [34] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/10997 Steiner's views did indeed include racism. I discuss this in "Steiner's Racism" on this Web site. A central element in Steiner's description of evolution is that people can rise into higher races in the future incarnations, or they may fall into lower races. [35] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/10999 [36] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/11000 [37] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/11001 [37] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/11003 xxxx
|
