From the Waldorf Watch News page:

August 5, 2020

◊ EDITORIAL◊

IMAGINING WALDORF

FREED  OF  STEINER

The Association of Waldorf Schools in North America (AWSNA) seems to have taken a small step toward distancing themselves from Waldorf founder Rudolf Steiner. At least, they have issued a statement disassociating themselves from any racist statements Steiner may have made [1].

Devout disciples of Steiner — a cohort that includes many leaders of Waldorf schools — generally look on him as a nearly infallible sage [2]. For them, it is nearly unthinkable that Steiner could have been wrong about any important subject. Even entertaining such a possibility would, for them, open terrible prospects. If Steiner was wrong about one subject, perhaps he was wrong about other subjects, too. And in that case, the entire edifice of Anthroposophy — the spiritual system at the heart of the Waldorf movement — might come apart. For Steiner's followers, this would be a catastrophe. Their entire worldview, the teachings that give their lives meaning, could crumble to dust.

Outsiders are often surprised to learn what Steiner's followers believe. Here are a few examples. Steiner claimed to be clairvoyant [3], and he said he could teach his followers to develop their own clairvoyant capacities [4]. Steiner claimed that, due to his extremely high clairvoyant powers, he was able to probe the "higher worlds" above earthly existence [5]. He likewise claimed that he could divine much of the occult lore of the nine ranks of gods who control the operations of the cosmos [6]. Then, too, he said he could peer behind the veil of nature to understand the "nature spirits" — such as gnomes and undines — who dwell there [7]. He could explain the workings of karma [8] and reincarnation [9]. He could trace human evolution from its beginning in Old Saturn [10] to its future magnificence in Future Vulcan [11]. And so on [12].

If Steiner was wrong about the human races, could he possibly have been wrong about some of these other matters? Or could he even (oh no!) have been wrong about all of them? What, in short, if Anthroposophy is poppycock? Whither Waldorf then?

Of course, not all Waldorf schools in existence today are run by dyed-in-the-wool, true-believing Anthroposophists. Not all Waldorf teachers embrace Steiner's occult beliefs. Some Waldorf schools already function without relying absolutely on the guidance provided by Rudolf Steiner [13]. So it is possible (just barely) to image that the Waldorf movement could remain viable even if Waldorf leaders were someday to utterly renounce Steiner and all his works. (Don't hold your breath. Such a renunciation is not in the cards yet, and it may never be. But we can contemplate it, at least as a thought experiment.)

Would Waldorf education, wholly cleansed of Steiner's mysticism, be successful? Would Steiner-free Waldorf schools provide a good education?

The single greatest problem with Waldorf schools is that they tend to indoctrinate students in a soft form of Anthroposophy [14]. Indeed, luring kids toward Anthroposophy is the underlying raison d'être of the Waldorf movement [15]. Clearly, if Anthroposophy were wholly removed from Waldorf schools, then this problem would be resolved.

Mostly.

But an aftereffect of this problem would likely remain. Much of the Waldorf approach relies on hazy, feel-good methods [16]. These methods are attractive, even alluring. They may be intuitively appealing to many parents, especially those with spirit-tinged countercultural leanings. But these methods are based more on wishfulness than actual knowledge of psychology, child development, or educational principles. In the ethereal Waldorf view, children are pure, innocent spirits newly arrived from the beyond. Childhood is thought to be a sort of golden interlude between a spiritual prenatal existence and pragmatic, earthly adulthood. Kids should be given plenty of free time for unstructured play. They should be raised in a warm, hazy atmosphere of art and imagination and myth. They should be shielded from the hurly-burly modern world with its whiz-bang technologies and whirring, flashing gadgetry. Children should be relieved of the need to master academic subjects or to begin absorbing the findings of modern science and scholarship. Even the study of reading, writing, and basic arithmetic should be postponed. Children should be cosseted, swaddled in soothing fantasies, and infantilized [17].

The Waldorf vision of childhood may feel  right to many people, but whether it is  right is a different matter. Waldorf teachers rarely consult the latest research about childhood education; they are rarely even aware of it [18]. Instead, they follow a pattern of schooling set down by a mystic (who was not a professional educator) a century ago. This pattern arguably served children badly from its inception, and it almost certainly serves them worse now, in the twenty-first century. Are children raised in the Waldorf way likely to be prepared for real life in the real world? Are they likely to be ready to begin real schooling, if for any reason this became expected of them? Or are they instead starting down a path leading, at least potentially, toward woolly mysticism and otherworldly impracticality? Even those of us who share some Waldorf values (respect for nature, for instance, and love of art, and a deep concern for child welfare) might well worry for today's Waldorf students [19].

The problems with Waldorf schooling would certainly be alleviated if Steiner and Anthroposophy were wholly eliminated from Waldorf culture. Perhaps some Waldorf schools would then migrate toward the mainstream until they became essentially indistinguishable from other mildly "alternative" forms of education — arts-intensive charter schools, say. But what this means, really, is that Waldorf schools might become more or less okay if they ceased to be Waldorf schools.

And we should bring this discussion back into the realm of probability. Steiner and his doctrines are so fundamental to Waldorf schooling that in all probability they will remain present, to some degree, as long as Waldorf education exists as an identifiable movement. And this means that the otherworldly miasma within Waldorf walls will retain its Anthroposophical hues. Waldorf will remain a process that eases kids (and perhaps their parents) toward the occult faith promulgated by Rudolf Steiner.

The single greatest problem with Waldorf schools will probably remain the single greatest problem with Waldorf schools.

— Roger Rawlings

.

.

.

.

.

.

[R.R.]

.

.

.

.

.

◊

Footnotes

[1] See "Stepping Away from Steiner?", July 26, 2020.

[2] See "Guru".

[3] See "Exactly".

[4] See "Knowing the Worlds".

[5] See "Higher Worlds".

[6] See "Polytheism".

[7] See "Neutered Nature".

[8] See "Karma".

[9] See "Reincarnation".

[10] See "Old Saturn".

[11] See "Future Stages".

[12] For an overview of Anthroposophical doctrines, see "Everything". Also see "Waldorf Wisdom".

Waldorf students are rarely taught these doctrines in so many words, but they are nudged toward receptivity to such ideas, for instance in the myths they study [see "The Gods"] and the prayers they are required to recite [see "Prayers"].

[13] See "Non-Waldorf Waldorfs".

[14] See "Indoctrination".

[15] See "Here's the Answer".

[16] See "Methods".

The techniques used in Waldorf schooling are based on Anthroposophical beliefs, such as belief in the incarnation of the so-called etheric body at age seven. [See "etheric body" in the The Brief Waldorf / Steiner Encyclopedia.] If Anthroposophy were removed, the ideological justification for these techniques would melt away. Whether the techniques could be justified on other grounds is, at best, moot.

[17] See, e.g., "childhood" in The Brief Waldorf / Steiner Encyclopedia. Also see such pages as "Thinking Cap", "Incarnation", "Glory", "The Waldorf Curriculum", "Academic Standards at Waldorf", and "Play - Isn't Slow Learning Best?"

Children certainly should be protected and treated gently. But we may inflict great harm even while we try to be kind. The purpose of education is to help children learn to apprehend, and function in, reality. Children love make-believe and fantasy, and satisfying their desire for these is fine — up to a point. But we should not lead children into labyrinths of fantasy from which they may not be able to escape. The fantasies promoted in Waldorf schools tend to be reiterated and elaborated year by year until they become a full worldview: the dreamscape of Anthroposophy. Hypothetical Steiner-free Waldorf schools would no longer lead children toward Anthroposophy per se, but they might well continue to lead children into mystical and metaphysical confusions that could hamper them throughout life.

Rudolf Steiner downplayed the importance of the brain and brainwork. [See "Steiner's Specific".] The educational system he created is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, and anti-rational. [See, e.g., "Reality and Fantasy".] If future "cleansed" Waldorf schools were to continue embodying these biases, they might continue to hurt students in the same ways Waldorf schools arguably hurt them now. [See, e.g., "Who Gets Hurt?" and "Mistreating Kids Lovingly".]

[18] See "Teacher Training".

[19] For a defense of Waldorf schools — and a rebuttal — see "Into the World".

— R.R.