Waldorf Problems

So?

In some of my essays, I relate memories of my years as a Waldorf school student and, subsequently, as a recovering Waldorf alumnus. This raises a problem. I have argued that we cannot simply accept Steiner’s word for his clairvoyant visions. Where is the evidence that the universe is even vaguely like he painted it? But if I hold Steiner to this standard, then I must hold myself to it. So I cannot ask you to accept my word for what happened to me. For all you know, I may be mistaken, or I may be lying.

But consider that, unlike Steiner, I have bolstered my assertions with abundant evidence. In “Unenlightened,” for instance, I quote the NEW YORK TIMES and an Anthroposophical witness concerning the scandal that erupted at my Waldorf school. More important, I have filled my essays with a vast number of quotations from Rudolf Steiner and from many of his followers. All of these quotations are consistent with my memories, and some are directly applicable to them. This evidence makes my memories at least plausible.

But plausibility isn’t proof. So where does this leave us? For the sake of argument, let’s say that all of my memories are wrong. I’ll go even farther. Let’s say that the history of my old school is substantially different from what the NEW YORK TIMES, I, and others have indicated. Would these concessions undermine the work I present at my Web sites?

No. My essays are only marginally concerned with what happened to me or others at the school I attended; the focus of the essays is on the doctrines laid out by Rudolf Steiner and the application of those doctrines at Waldorf schools in general. Statements made by Steiner and his devotees provide the key information you need in order to draw your own conclusions. For this reason, even if we toss out all of my memories and all of the evidence supporting them, my essays will still give you plenty to go on.

Ultimately, Rudolf Steiner’s own words are the most crucial evidence. Steiner’s defenders often deny that Steiner said what he said, or that he meant what he said, or that the form of education he created is what he said it is. To get to the truth, you should turn to Steiner himself. A particularly fruitful source is FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, in which you will find Steiner explicitly discussing the goals and operations of Waldorf education. A few examples, which I have offered before:

• “Among the faculty, we must certainly carry within us the knowledge that we are ... carrying out the intentions of the gods.” [Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophical Press, 1998), p. 55] [1]

• “If you give them a slap, you should do it the way Dr. Schubert does ... I mean astral slapping. There are physical slaps and astral slaps. It doesn’t matter which one you give, but you cannot slap a child sentimentally.” [p. 323] [2]

• “With the students, we should at least try to ... make it clear that, for instance, an island like Great Britain swims in the sea and is held fast by the forces of the stars.” [p. 607] [3]

• “The little girl L.K. in the first grade must have something really very wrong inside. There is not much we can do. Such cases are increasing in which children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings ... I do not like to talk about such things since we have often been attacked even without them. Imagine what people would say if they heard that we say there are people who are not human beings.” [pp. 649-650.] [4]

• “The use of the French language quite certainly corrupts the soul ... The French are committing the terrible brutality of moving black people to Europe ....” [p. 588] [5]

• “Anthroposophy will be in the school ....” [p. 495] [6]

In sum: Disregard me and my memories, if you like. Direct your attention, instead, to the Steiner statements I have quoted; check to make sure I have not distorted them; and then decide for yourself whether schools that are guided — in whole or in part — by Steiner’s thinking are likely to be beneficial or harmful for children.

Roger Rawlings
June, 2008

---

[1] Note the plural: gods. Steiner taught that the Christian God (in a somewhat unusual form) is the highest spiritual power. But he incorporated doctrines from polytheistic faiths — such as Hinduism — in his new religion, Anthroposophy. He taught that many spiritual entities ranking higher than humanity are “gods.” Parents who believe in more than one god would presumably be most comfortable with Steiner’s teachings. But Christian, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, and atheistic parents would have cause for concern. (Secondary point: Among Steiner’s evasions and denials was his claim that Anthroposophy is a science, not a religion. But there is precious little that is scientific in Steiner’s doctrines, whereas Anthroposophy’s religious character is plain. See, for instance, the prayers Steiner wrote for Waldorf students to recite in unison.)

[2] This statement is a good example of Steiner’s troublesome manner of expressing himself. He said that if teachers are going to slap kids, they should use spiritual slaps (“astral slapping”). What should we make of this? Can we acquit Steiner by saying that he told his teachers to slap kids only spiritually and not physically? Perhaps. But note: a) For him, a spiritual slap would be far worse than a physical slap, since the spiritual level is so much more important than the physical level; b) arguably, Steiner allows for the possibility of physical slaps, since “[i]t doesn’t matter which one you give”; c) either way, he is telling Waldorf teachers that they may slap their students. The question, then, is whether it is right for teachers to inflict either physical or spiritual pain on students. Steiner’s answer is yes.

[3] Steiner’s doctrines include astrology, reincarnation, spiritual evolution, and other teachings that many parents will find alien. Also, as this quotation makes plain, Steiner frequently denied scientific truths, substituting bizarre alternatives (e.g., islands float).

[4] Steiner said that some people lack an “I,” which is the highest of humankind’s three hypothetical nonphysical bodies. He added that some people are “not reincarnated, but are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon.” [p. 649]

[5] A German nationalist (although he was born in Austria), Steiner expresses his hostility toward France. More important, here he reveals his racism. Steiner’s defenders deny that he was racist, but many of his statements indicate otherwise.

[6] Steiner often denied that Waldorf students are taught Anthroposophical doctrines, and Waldorf faculties usually repeat this denial. But at many Waldorf schools, Anthroposophy is subtly woven throughout the curriculum, and it covertly affects the students to varying degrees. Only parents who want their children to be drawn toward Anthroposophy should feel comfortable sending them to a genuine Waldorf school.