BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Your Genial Host
As a boy, I attended a Waldorf school in suburban New York. (Possibly I've mentioned this before.) After graduation, I enrolled at a prestigious college — and soon dropped out. I then attended a second college, briefly, before enrolling at a third where I finally gained my academic footing. I earned a BA and an MA in English literature. Subsequently, I became a college instructor, a magazine writer, and a book editor. I am now retired. My wife and I recently celebrated our 43rd wedding anniversary.
During the last few years, I have spent considerable time researching and writing about Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, and Rudolf Steiner. When I began studying Steiner’s books and lectures, I had only a vague idea of what I might learn. Much of what I dug up startled me. In setting out the results of my research on this Web site, I quote Steiner extensively. Steiner’s own words constitute the most telling indictment of the intellectual and even spiritual barrenness of Anthroposophy and, by extension, the Waldorf school movement.
Some Anthroposophists now make ad hominem attacks against me, as if attributing real or imagined faults to me somehow refutes my arguments.1 But ad hominems are, by definition, invalid. Maybe I’m a great guy, or maybe not so much — but either way, the words I’ve written will stand or fall on their own merits. Let's put it this way: I am a flawed messenger. I am not now and never have been perfect, of course. But I am unimportant. What matters is the message, the truths I have told about Steiner and Anthroposophy and Waldorf education. Throughout, I have told the absolute truth to the best of my ability, and I have provided extensive documentation for all of my statements. Please read as many of the essays on this site as you like, and draw your own conclusions. Either my essays make a powerful, logical, well-documented case, or they do not. I am happy to leave the final decision up to you.
— Roger Rawlings
April, 2012
Self-portrait, Oct. 14, 2011. (Too cheap to visit a real photographer.)
1 In October, 2009, I was told that an Anthroposophist had written that the Web site you are now visiting — Waldorf Watch — is the number one "hate" site dealing with Waldorf schools and Anthroposophy. This surprised me, although not much. Here is a reply I posted. To see my message in its original form, as well as the messages that preceded and followed it, please use this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/12164.
The funny part is, I'm not really an enemy of Anthroposophy. The evidence seems pretty clear: Steiner’s doctrines are wacky. But, then, so are many (most? all?) other forms of occultism. I’m a skeptic, certainly. I reject Anthroposophy for myself, certainly, and I would urge great caution on anyone who feels drawn to Anthroposophy. But I’m not a sworn enemy. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who wants to be an Anthroposophist is free to do so, and I wouldn't say "boo" (or I would say it only very quietly). What I oppose is the infusion of Anthroposophy into Waldorf education, especially when this is done covertly, without informing the parents of Waldorf students.
•••
It might be worthwhile to talk briefly about hatred. Several participants here — Dan, Diana, Pete, Peter, and Zooey spring to mind — have been on the receiving end of what certainly appears to be hatred. Anthroposophists have demonized them. These days, I am being honored by such attentions.
There’s nothing surprising in this. Those of us who attempt to tell the truth about Waldorf schools naturally incur the displeasure of people who admire the schools, especially those who have devoted their lives to the schools. There should also be no surprise if displeasure sometimes leads to stronger, more intense emotions producing harsh denunciations. Lashing out at perceived enemies is, unfortunately, a very human impulse.
My own response to furious attacks and slanders aimed at me is to ignore them. This may not be the wisest course, but then again perhaps it is. In any case, I do not consider myself to be the issue, any more than I consider myself to be important in the big scheme of things. I have told my story as a former Waldorf student because it affords an inside view of Waldorf education. But I have also frequently argued that no one should base any decisions on my personal experiences. The more significant portions of my work consist of extensive, detailed documentation — quotations from Steiner and his followers, published criticisms and defenses of Waldorf schools, and so on — and extended analyses of such materials. Those documents and analyses are far more important than my personal story, and they are the sorts of evidence people should primarily consider when deciding whether to send their children to Waldorf schools.
I’m not aware that I have written anything hateful; I know that I have not been motivated by hatred. I have reached some strong, highly critical conclusions about Steiner's doctrines, but I have done so as dispassionately as I could, after long, careful study. I hate no one. If some folks hate me (without, I might add, ever having met me), there’s not much I can do about it. Ultimately, those of us who are attacked have to place reliance on the public’s ability to distinguish truth from untruth, and ad hominem smears from rational discussion. This is a tall order; humans have convincingly demonstrated — from time out of mind — their willingness to embrace lies and fantasies. Seeing the world as we wish it to be as opposed to how it actually is, is a tendency deep in the human psyche. Still, people can be rational, and in the end we have to trust in this capacity.
Most of all, we have to trust in people’s love for their children. No parent wants to send a child to a school that is likely to harm the child. Love is the ultimate antidote, the ultimate motivator for piercing lies and finding truth.
I’d add this, too. Some demonized critics of Waldorf education may have motives other than love. But some of us may be motivated mainly by love. Love of the truth, if nothing else. Love of humanity’s highest possibilities. And love of humanity’s children, whom we must protect and nurture. After all, the children are humanity’s hope — perhaps, in a sense, they are our only hope. So it is for the children that we should work, enduring whatever we must in the process.
Since Anthroposophists claim the same devotion to the welfare of children, it ought to be possible for us all to come together, reason together, and reach some sort of mutual understanding. But that would require Anthroposophists to entertain a possibility that they almost always reject out of hand: the possibility that Steiner’s critics might be right about some things. At the least, Anthroposophists would have to stop thinking of the people sitting across the table from them as demons. That would create at least the possibility of dialogue, which surely is the prerequisite for any true progress.
Throughout my life, I have attempted to have reasonable discussions with Anthroposophists. I hope I will always have the strength to make such attempts. But regardless, parents need to step back, weigh the evidence that has been assembled, and come to the important decision: What is best for our children?
- Roger
[R.R.]
|
|
