Waldorf Problems

“As Waldorf teachers,
we must be true anthroposophists.”
— Rudolf Steiner
FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 118

“We certainly may not go to the other extreme,
where people say that anthroposophy
may not be brought into the school.
Anthroposophy will be in the school...”
Ibid., p. 495

How can anyone take Rudolf Steiner seriously? It’s a puzzle. I’d like to think that most Waldorf faculty members — and, indeed, most Anthroposophists at large — have not carefully read many of Steiner’s books and lectures. Their devotion to his teachings, then, would be easy to comprehend. But I know that at least some Steiner devotees are thoroughly conversant with his doctrines, even the most far-out. They have studied, they have considered, and yet they believe. How can this be?

The puzzle is sadly easy to solve. A choice is presented: the mundane, or the miraculous.: the ordinary, or the extraordinary. It’s not surprising that many individuals prefer the the miraculous and extraordinary, dazzling stuff that seems to hold out an immense promise. Vast numbers of humans seek this promise. Few of them join Steiner’s small sect; they find other, larger movements to satisfy their mystic yearnings. But our focus here is on Steinerism, which is dangerous in itself, and which provides a case study in the spurious satisfaction of a profound human desire.

The nub is faith. What Steiner taught is utterly implausible, to rational minds. But he wasn’t addressing our rationality — he was addressing our dreams, our longings, our fears. Like innumerable other self-appointed seers, he spoke precisely to our irrational nature, which unfortunately is far closer to the core of our being than is our thin, upper layer of logic. He struck deep, boring in on our immemorial, urgent rebellion against the limitations and sorrows of mortality.

A distinction must be made between true faiths and false, true efforts to address mankind’s ills as opposed to gaudily packaged bottles of psychic hootch. Sincere, humble reverence for the divine deserves profound respect. But what of heretical, heterodox, or fabulist creeds? The latter are often more beguiling, but they provide nothing beyond a woozy placebo effect. The promptings of both reverence and reason should lead us to reject false prophets, among whom I would place Steiner.

Let’s consider several of Steiner’s spiritualistic assertions that have particular relevance to Waldorf education. Steiner claimed to revere Christ. He claimed that Anthroposophy is a science, not a religion. He claimed that Waldorfs are not religious institutions. We’ve looked at these matters before, but because they are so central, they deserve further examination. As in “Foundations,” in the following discussion I will draw heavily from books issued by the Anthroposophic Press in the series “Foundations of Waldorf Education.”

◊ [Golgotha] “During the first Christian period, that is, since the time the Mystery of Golgotha took effect upon the Earth’s evolution and gave it meaning, much that existed of the old ways had to recede and wait for humanity to later win them back.” [Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION AS A FORCE FOR SOCIAL CHANGE, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. 37]

Anthroposophists often assure us that Waldorf or Steiner schools are not religious institutions. Yet here we see Steiner speaking in Christian terms when delivering a series of lectures “that made it possible, two days later, to lay the spiritual foundations of the [first] Waldorf school.” [Ibid., p. xvii] Golgotha is Cavalry, where Jesus died. In Steiner's teachings, the “mystery” is how Jesus could be both human and a god; how He could unite with "earth forces;" and how he could change human consciousness to facilitate human evolution. [See http://homepage.mac.com/nonlevitating/25.html.] This is not a subject that would be essential to laying the foundations of a secular school; Steiner is signaling that Waldorf will be a religious institution. (And  careful reading indicates that the religion in the school will be heretical: It will be Anthroposophy.)

Notice that Steiner gives an odd twist to Christ’s ministry: He says that the mystery of Golgotha gave the “Earth’s evolution” “meaning.” His approach is deeply unorthodox. As I have argued elsewhere, Steiner was not truly a Christian, despite his professed interest in Christ. Evolution is the central subject of Anthroposophy. See, for example, the introduction of AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE: “Evolution is the great theme of this book and, indeed, of Steiner’s life work. It is, however, an evolution that goes far beyond anything dreamed of today in biology or geology.” [Rudolf Steiner, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. xii, introduction by Clopper Almon.]

Steiner did not follow established church teachings; but he did not accept the findings of science, either. His “evolution” is entirely different from the scientific, Darwinian account of the past: Steiner’s “evolution” is a spiritualistic process leading toward spiritual perfection. Anthroposophists often reiterate Steiner’s declaration that Anthroposophy is scientific, which is what distinguishes it from other spiritual disciplines. There’s something to be said for this notion, but not much. Steiner generally disparaged the work of scientists, even while claiming membership in their ranks. He told his followers how to check the accuracy of his statements, but this boiled down to directions on becoming clairvoyant (more about this in a moment). In brief, while rejecting the findings and even methodology of science, Steiner posited invisible phenomena that can be checked only by a nonexistent form of cognition. Which was a run-around. Steiner’s claims for his doctrines are essentially no different from those made by virtually all faiths: Here is the Truth and how you can get it. Methodism, for instance, began as a movement promoting methodical Bible study, yielding reliable spiritual knowledge. Anthroposophy suffers by this comparison: The Bible unarguably exists; clairvoyance does not.

Returning to the Steiner quotation, above: What are the “old ways” that mankind has lost but will regain? First and foremost, clairvoyance: “The content of the ancient atavistic, instinctive view .... ” [EDUCATION AS A FORCE FOR SOCIAL CHANGE, p. 37]: “In the time of ancient clairvoyance human beings were far less illiterate in the spirit.” [Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF MYSTERY WISDOM (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996), pp. 111-112]. Imagination, intuition, and clairvoyance are always interconnected in Steiner’s teachings. Clairvoyance is real thinking, according to Steiner. His basic take on clairvoyance, as it applies to Waldorf schools, runs along these lines: • People used to have a natural clairvoyance. [1] • We need to become clairvoyant again. [2] • Waldorf teachers, in particular, need to develop their clairvoyant powers, both as Anthroposophists and as educators. [3] • The way to become really clairvoyant is to follow Steiner’s directions, that is, accept Anthroposophical dogma. [4] (It is quite remarkable how the answer to every issue Steiner raises is Steiner himself. Christians think that Christ has the answers. Steiner modestly admits that actually he, Rudolf Steiner, has the answers.)

There is a religion in Waldorf schools, and it is called Anthroposophy, which should not be confused with orthodox Christianity. From a Christian perspective, Anthroposophy is a Gnostic heresy.

◊ [God] “What do most modern people mean when they say ‘God’? What kind of being do they refer to when they speak of God? What they mean is an Angel, their own Angel, which they call God!” [EDUCATION AS A FORCE FOR SOCIAL CHANGE, p. 91] You see, even on the subject of God’s identity, R. Steiner was right and most other people are wrong, according to R. Steiner. Modern people are especially wrong: They have God confused with a subordinate divinity. If you have this problem, there is fortunately an easy solution: Come to R. Steiner for the real lowdown.

Steiner can hardly keep from laughing at the foolish error most moderns make (“their own Angel, which they call God!” — notice the exclamation mark — how could moderns be so dumb?) Ordinary Christian denominations, full of people making this dumb mistake, are in the dark, if we are to believe Steiner. Should modern-day Christians feel comfortable sending their kids to Waldorf schools? Only if they think that Biblical and church teachings are, in important ways, wrong. Jewish parents and all others parents aside from hardcore Anthropops should have similar misgivings. Confusing an angel with God is bad enough, but even worse is the mistaken belief that there is only one true God. According to Steiner, there are many gods. Monotheism, he taught, cannot give an accurate picture of reality. [5] Oh, ye of little faith. You think your God is God! R. Steiner would lead your children in another direction.

◊ [What Steiner Offers] “In teaching, we bring the child the natural world, on the one side, and on the other, the spiritual world. As human beings, we have a relationship with the natural world, on the one hand, and the spiritual world on the other, insofar as we are earthly creatures and exist physically between birth and death.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 63] Waldorf schooling offers the whole ball of wax, the natural world and the supernatural world. Let’s take this in order.

• The natural world, according to Steiner, contains such things as gnomes or goblins. [6] Nature also contains other surprises: The earth doesn’t orbit the Sun [7]; Great Britain floats [8]; cancer can be treated with mistletoe [9]; most of the higher animals evolved downward from human beings [10]; astrology is for real [11]; when you look at the Sun, you are seeing the place where Jesus is walking around [12]; when you look at the Moon, you are seeing where Jehovah went [13]; dragons used to walk the Earth [14]; and so forth (the list is almost endless, but this is more than enough for now).

• The spiritual world: Although Waldorf schools are presumably secular, somehow they manage to “bring the child ... the spiritual world.” But it’s not your father’s spiritual world. Steiner’s version is inhabited my countless immaterial beings including Zeitgeists, Spirits of Form, Kyriotetes, and other oddities. [15] The spirits that clairvoyants can detect in a red room are different from the ones they can detect in a blue room. [16] Some spiritual entities say to us such things as “I must dissolve you, suck you up and break you to pieces” — and these are the ones who like us! [17] People of different races have different spiritual capabilities. [18] Before we are born, we live in the spirit realm, and we return there after death, but further along we will be reborn again on Earth: In fact, we have had many earthly lives before and we will have many more to come. This is not exactly what the Bible teaches; but reincarnation and karma are big for R. Steiner:

◊ [Education as an Extension of Life Before Birth] “We [Waldorf teachers] want to be aware that physical existence is a continuation of the spiritual, and that what we have to do in education is a continuation of what higher beings have done without our assistance. Our form of educating can have the correct attitude only when we are aware that our work with young people is a continuation of what higher beings have done before birth.” [THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, p. 37] As we have just seen, “higher beings,” for R. Steiner, include multiple “gods” as well as the sorts of friendly spirits who want to break us to pieces (for our own good, of course). So, Waldorf teachers must be aware that various higher beings have worked over their students before birth, and the teachers must now continue that good work. How do they know who the higher beings are and what they were doing to the kids? R. Steiner can tell them.

Like their students, Waldorf teachers experienced a lot before birth: “When we teach, in a certain sense we take up again the activities we experienced before birth. We must see that thinking is a pictorial activity which is based on the activities we experienced before birth.” [Ibid., p. 62] What exactly did the teachers experience before emerging from their most recent mothers’ wombs? If they can’t remember, R. Steiner will tell them. As for “pictorial activity,” this harkens back to clairvoyance, imagination, and intuition. The right way to think clearly is to imagine pictures of spiritual stuff. If you develop actual organs of clairvoyance, you will imagine really true spiritual stuff, just as R. Steiner did. Waldorf teachers should help children move toward clairvoyance, starting with imagination and maybe some wet-on-wet painting and eurythmy. If this is what you want for your child, Waldorf may be a good choice. If not, not.

◊ [Education as Evolutionary Preparation] “[W]e wish to lay the foundation for a good pedagogy ... We should be very clear about which human tendencies are present for a distant human future.” [Ibid., p. 80] The work of Waldorf teachers is quite demanding. Not only must they bear in mind what happened before they and their students were born, but they must know where future human evolution is heading. Only then will they be able to foster those tendencies in their students that will lead toward that glorious tomorrow. How can they know the future course of human evolution? R. Steiner knew, and I can give you a preview: Please visit http://www.steiner-predicts.com.

Steiner not only laid out a vision of future history, but he ranked various human capabilities that can contribute to the attainment of his vision. He knew what makes some human beings better than others: “A race or nation stands so much the higher, the more perfectly its members express the pure, ideal human type.” [Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944), p. 149.] Horrors lurk in these words. The words are racist. Equally severe, they suggest a grotesque form of spiritual eugenics. Waldorf teachers should strengthen in their students qualities that have evolutionary value. All teachers, of course, try to promote good qualities in kids. But when the identification of “good” qualities depends on a fantastical, occult vision, serious problems may arise. Students may be pushed in various directions for no sensible reason, if their teachers are guided by a spiritualistic fantasy. Some kids may benefit, if they seem to embody tendencies the teachers are looking for. These model students will feel pretty good about themselves. But what of the other children, those who do not seem to be headed for “the pure, ideal human type”? Dark-skinned kids, short kids, fat kids, kids without artistic ability, melancholics, left-handed kids, kids with learning disabilities, phlegmatics, kids who may not be really human ... [19] Woe unto them.

As I said at the start of this essay, it is possible (probable, really) that many teachers at many Waldorf schools do not subscribe to Steiner’s weirder pronouncements. Some may not even know what Steiner wanted them to accomplish as Waldorf teachers. But it is also probable that at least some teachers at most Waldorf schools do subscribe. True believers probably constitute the inner core of the faculty and administration at some Waldorfs; elsewhere, subscribers may not have official authority. But in all cases, informed Anthroposophical true believers necessarily aim for the objectives Steiner laid out, and the official or unofficial influence of these believers within Waldorf schools is, to put it mildly, worrisome.

---

For the sake of argument, let’s momentarily take a dim view of everything: The universe is immense, dark, and — for the most part — empty. Within it, we lead short, arguably meaningless lives. And, many fear, we may be alone in the universe, the only “intelligent” species, friendless in the vast, dark emptiness.

Steiner offered an attractive alternative. He described a universe in which almost everything — including the Earth — is alive. Spiritual entities are omnipresent, he taught: within our bodies, within and surrounding the Earth, within and transcending all of the populous cosmos. We have friends at every hand — and, it must be added, some enemies, which just goes to show how important we are. We are participants in spiritual hierarchies; our lives have a profound evolutionary significance; the future of the entire universe is bound up in our aspirations and fate.

Many prophets before Steiner offered similar ideas. We humans find such visions so comforting, we often prefer them to reality. Preference, however, is not the same as knowledge. Myths, occult teachings, and even fairy tales may feel intuitively “right” to us, but they do not show us the universe as our reasoning minds have found it to be. Substituting dreams for reality requires us to disregard the testimony of our rational brains — as Steiner repeatedly urged us to do.

Of course, Steiner was not always wrong. His cosmology may belong in comic books, but sprinkled through it are grains of good sense. When he advocated love and kindness, for instance, he was onto something. “In everything we do out of love, we pay off debts! Seen esoterically, what is done out of love brings no reward, but compensates for value already expended. The only actions from which we gain nothing in future are those we perform out of true, genuine love ... that is why deeds of love are done so unwillingly, why there is so little love in the world ... An advanced stage of development must have been reached before the soul can enjoy performing deeds of love ... To spread love over the Earth to the greatest degree possible, to promote love — that alone is wisdom.” [20]

If we can look past Steiner’s characteristically turgid style, a passage like that is okay. More or less. Genuine love is selfless, and spreading love is the proper ideal. I commend RS for these propositions. But, as always, Steiner didn’t know when to leave well enough alone. • Love is a form of debt payment. • Seen esoterically (which may or may not mean anything), love brings no reward. • Our souls don’t enjoy performing acts of love, but evolution will get us there ... Many of us would quibble about these notions, or reject them outright. But let’s give credit where it is due (if only to pay off old debts): Steiner did advocate love. [21]

However, we need to balance Steiner’s kindly remarks against his forecast of a historically necessary showdown between higher races and lower races [22], his assertion that some people aren’t human but demons in disguise [23], and other less-loving doctrines. Darkness haunts Steiner’s words and works. We’ve seen multiple examples, and we’ll see more. Steiner’s followers may be able to grasp after the tidbits of love Steiner tossed around and ignore the dire implications of his invidious occultism, but those of us who aspire to objectivity — or who are considering sending kids to Waldorf schools — can’t afford that luxury.

Let’s continue documenting warning flags in Steiner’s statements, especially with reference to Waldorf education. The flags flap over Steiner’s cloudy generalities, but they are also discernible above his specific, down-to-earth assertions. Consider one of the latter, a mild remark Steiner made about an apparently innocuous, morally neutral topic: linguistics:

◊ [Awesome] “If you try to find a vowel by letting a, o, and u sound together, this expresses at first a feeling of fear, and then an identification with what is feared. This sound expresses the most profound awe. It is found in Asian languages and shows that Asians are able to develop tremendous awe and veneration, whereas in Western languages this sound is missing, since awe and veneration are not the strongest traits of Europeans.” [Rudolf Steiner, PRACTICAL ADVICE TO TEACHERS, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 2000), pp. 20-21]

A linguist might debate Steiner on the question of universal significance in vowel sounds, but we can let that go. Other portions of this quotation merit more attention, and alarm. Notice that Steiner lumps all Asians together and all Europeans together. Asians all have certain tendencies, as shown by their languages, while Europeans all have other traits. Sometimes Steiner distinguished between members of racial subgroups, as when he eulogized Germans [24] and anathematized the French [25]. But here he speaks in very broad terms, lumping all members of various races together: All Asians are this, all Europeans are that. This is racism.

Anthroposophists sometimes defend Steiner by saying that he didn’t hate any races; he advocated love. But racism is not synonymous with hatred or bigotry. The central error in racism is intellectual, not emotional. A racist assigns all individuals to racial categories and then makes judgmental generalizations about those categories, asserting that members of different races have different mental, physical, and even spiritual characteristics. In the USA, it was long perfectly acceptable to assert that blacks are childlike, hence they are suited for slavery or at least menial submission to whites. A racist denies people’s human dignity and rights, seeing them not as individuals but as essentially indistinguishable representatives of a pack. Remember Martin Luther King’s dream: that people be judged not according to the color of their skin but according to the content of their characters.

Returning to Steiner’s statement, above, note that the differences he lays out between races are matters of spiritual capacity or inclination. Asians, as a race, are “able to develop tremendous awe and veneration,” while Europeans, as a race, have other, contrasting traits. This is racism of a particularly nasty sort.

Undeniably, there really are some minor, statistically verifiable differences between people of differing extraction. American Afro-Americans are more prone to sickle cell anemia than American Caucasians are, as a rule. Pointing this out is not racist. But making an unsubstantiated assertion that American blacks are less intelligent than American whites is clearly racism. And making an equivalent assertion in matters of spirit (blacks or Jews or Asians are deficient in spiritual aptitude) is aggravated racism, the sort of smear that can be almost impossible to remove because it deals with matters that cannot be measured. That’s what we find here in Steiner’s words: Asians have different spiritual characteristics from Europeans. The races are different in profound, invisible but very important, ways.

But, one might ask, don’t Steiner’s words reflect well on Asians? Aren’t awe and veneration good? Sure, in some situations. Standing in awe of God is surely wise, as is venerating God. But what attitude should we take to military dictators? If a nation stands in awe of a dictator, it will probably never rise up in rebellion — the dictator will remain in power. Venerating a dictator is even worse — is can make a people complicit in tyranny, as was arguably the case for Germans under Hitler.

Ask yourself what portrait Steiner draws of Asians and Europeans. Which race seems more childish, and which more mature, according to Steiner? Which, according to Steiner, seems lower on the spiritual evolutionary scale, and which stands higher? Sadly, we know the answer. Europeans (especially northern Europeans, doubly especially Germanic northern Europeans) are tops, Steiner often said. It makes no difference whether he said such things with a beatific smile on his face and a song in his heart. His assertions reveal appalling racism.

◊ [Physics, Schmysics] “Over there is a bench and on it is, let us say, a ball ... [T]he ball falls to the ground ... Saying that the ball is subject to the force of gravity is really meaningless ... But we cannot avoid speaking of gravity; we must mention it. Otherwise, when our students enter life they may some day [sic] be asked to explain gravity ... Just imagine what would happen if a fifteen-year-old boy knew nothing of gravity; there would be a terrible fuss. So we must explain gravity to children; we must not be foolish enough to close our eyes to the demands of the world as it is today. But by working on their subconscious, we can awaken beautiful concepts in children.” [PRACTICAL ADVICE TO TEACHERS, Foundations of Waldorf Education, pp. 116-117]

Steiner frequently dismissed the hard sciences: physics, chemistry, etc. Sometimes he explicitly stated that scientists are wrong about this or that — as in “[T]he heart is ... not a pump as physicists claim.” [26] Sometimes he partially masked his disdain for scientists by extending backhanded compliments, as in “I have already spoken to you of the ingenious description of the sun given by astrophysicists.” [27] Scientists can cook up clever false descriptions of reality, Steiner says, but only spiritual seers such as modest Rudolf Steiner himself can tell us what is really what.

In my essay, “Unenlightened” (http://homepage.mac.com/nonlevitating/one.html), I quote Steiner advising Waldorf teachers to treat gravity as merely a word. [28] In our present example, giving “practical advice to teachers,” Steiner goes even farther. Gravity is “really meaningless,” he says. But, unfortunately, Waldorf must cover the subject of gravity — people would kick up “a terrible fuss” if Waldorf students were ignorant of the such a basic, widely recognized physical force, and Steiner was avid to avoid public ridicule. (Odd, when you think of it: He insisted on pushing ridiculous doctrines, which naturally invite ridicule, but he did not want to seem ridiculous.) [29]

Steiner then says something very revealing. Waldorf teachers are to work on students’ subconsciouses, awakening “beautiful concepts” in the kids. What beautiful concepts? Not the beautiful concepts of physics, with its superb hypotheses and laws. Not the aesthetic beauty of art, either. Steiner explicitly taught that art is a tool for occult revelations, a medium for spiritual entities to enter the physical realm. Aesthetics divorced from esotericism is worthless. (See, e.g., my essay, “Magical Arts” http://homepage.mac.com/nonlevitating/eight.html)

The beauty Steiner wants Waldorf teachers to convey to the subconscious minds of their students is provided by the only thing that is truly true and beautiful: Anthroposophy. Waldorf teachers are to work on their students’ subconscious minds, quietly, leading them toward an unspoken mindset that understands, deep down, that gravity doesn’t really exist, that hearts don’t really pump blood, that the Earth doesn’t really orbit the Sun, etc., even if the teachers have to pretend otherwise, for PR purposes.

Think about these teachers’ students. The poor kids.

◊ [Postponing Knowledge] “Mineralogy, physics, and chemistry should not be introduced before ... the twelfth year. The only intellectual occupation not harmful during the earlier ages is arithmetic.” [Rudolf Steiner, WALDORF EDUCATION AND ANTHROPOSOPHY, Foundations of Waldorf Education, Vol. 1 (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 186]

Postponing the acquisition of knowledge about the real world is a basic goal for Waldorf education, as conceived by Steiner. If possible, such knowledge should be postponed forever, i.e., excluded (because it is wrong, as in the case of gravity). But since this is not practical (due to the intrusive demands of parents and society at large), various subjects must be taught, eventually, but as late as possible. No reading before age seven. No physics before age twelve. And so on.

Steiner taught that young children have intuitions of the spirit realm. Waldorf teachers should help their students to prolong those intuitions, which requires keeping the students’ critical faculties dormant and shielding them from the damaging effects of intellectual occupations. What this boils down to is that one major purpose of Waldorf “education” is to keep the kids from being educated.

According to Steiner, science (intellect, reason: truth) should not enter the Waldorf curriculum until the sixth or seventh grade, when kids are 12. By then, of course, the minds of longtime students at genuine Waldorf schools may be so well shielded against real-world information that the findings of science will bounce off. (A student who begins schooling in a Waldorf kindergarten will have had eight years of Waldorfery by the end of the sixth grade.) Even after sciences begin to be presented in a Waldorf curriculum, they are likely to be dumbed down. The astronomy course often provided in Waldorf sixth grades contains scant real information about the real constituents of the sky. (See my essay, “Oh My Stars” http://homepage.mac.com/nonlevitating/17.html ) My teachers began injecting mild does of science at about the sixth grade, but by high school they were also assigning and recommending such books as THE FAILURE OF TECHNOLOGY and SCIENCE IS A SACRED COW. [30]

Steiner’s claim that real thinking does not occur in the brain is a corollary to his assertion that true cognition is clairvoyance. [31] “Physical thinking” is for materialists only, he said. [32] “Spiritual thinking” is the real stuff. Some forms of spiritual thinking occur when one is unconscious or at least asleep, [33] but they assuredly do not occur when one employs logic. (See my essays, “Thinking Cap,” “His ‘Science,’” and “Steiner’s Logic” listed at http://homepage.mac.com/nonlevitating/36.html ) When Waldorf teachers speak of developing children’s intuitive or imaginative faculties, they are aiming at Steiner’s non-rational modes of thought. Here’s how the Anthroposophist headmaster at my old Waldorf school put it: “The task of a truly liberal education ... must be to revive and train intuitive faculties, in a modern way, to take their place beside the intellectual.” [34] This soft-pedals Steiner’s teachings: For Steiner and his followers, thinking such as intellection, occurring in the brain, are not true forms of cognition.

Remember that at Waldorf schools, imagination, intuition, and inspiration are intimately linked to clairvoyance. “Trained” intuitive faculties become a stepping stone toward — or they actually become — clairvoyance. Steiner gives elaborate step-by-step instructions in how to attain clairvoyance in such books as KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944). The efficacy of the instructions is highly questionable, given that clairvoyance is almost certainly a fantasy. But if you want to become psychic, then you should stop relying on your brain and develop organs of clairvoyance instead. [35] Give it a try.

Anthroposophist A. C. Harwood summarized much of the Anthroposophical perspective by writing “Childhood is commonly regarded as a time of steadily expanding consciousness .... Yet in Steiner’s view, the very opposite is the case: childhood is a time of contracting consciousness .... [The child] loses his dream-like perception of the creative world of spiritual powers which is hidden behind the phenomena of the senses .... [paragraph break] In mastering the world of physical perception the child encounters difficulties in that he first has to overcome a dream-like yet intensely real awareness of spiritual worlds. This awareness fades quickly in early childhood, but fragments of it live on in the child for a much longer time than most people imagine .... [paragraph break] In a Waldorf school, therefore, one of the tasks of the teachers is to keep the children young.” [36]

Such an “educational” philosophy should give us pause (if not send us screaming for the exits). Is it really best to keep children from growing up? Are unproven intimations of spirit realms really preferable to a sensible comprehension of the real world? Contemplate whether an education aiming at intuitive/imaginative/clairvoyant “thought” is likely to equip individuals for life in the real world. Contemplate whether an educational method that fails to equip children for their real lives is in any conceivable sense desirable. If you ask me, a former Waldorf student, my answer is ... But I’ll leave my answer to your imagination.

◊ [Healthy Debate] “No person is held qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded ....” [Prefatory note, Rudolf Steiner, CHRIST IMPULSE AND DEVELOPMENT OF EGO-CONSCIOUSNESS; Rudolf Steiner, SECRETS OF THE THRESHOLD; Rudolf Steiner, COSMIC AND HUMAN METAMORPHOSES; Rudolf Steiner, WONDERS OF THE WORLD; Rudolf Steiner, THOUGHTS ON EASTER; Rudolf Steiner, INNER NATURE OF MAN AND LIFE BETWEEN DEATH AND REBIRTH ... ] [37]

This is a crucial point. You should always remember that everything I say is inadmissible, since I am not an Anthroposophist. The only people who are qualified to comment on Steiner’s doctrines are people who accept Steiner’s doctrines. If that seems like circular reasoning to you, maybe this will help: To understand Steiner, you need to start at the end, by accepting Steiner’s teachings; this will enable to you go back to the beginning and decide whether to accept Steiner’s teachings.

The prefatory note I’ve quoted, above, tells us a great deal about the value Anthroposophists place on free and open discussion, rational inquiry, and evidence. The value they put on it is nada. They claim that, like Steiner, they are “spiritual scientists” who investigate the universe in a thoroughly scientific manner, although they aren’t prepared to engage in reasoned debate. Imagine a physicist announcing that he has discovered cold fusion, but he will only show you his work if you agree beforehand that his work is correct. The scientific method consists of careful observation and measurement followed by testable hypotheses that lead to the development of explanatory theories. The key word is “testable.” If you have discovered cold fusion, science requires you to say what steps you followed so that others can take the same steps to confirm or challenge your results. If, checking up on your cold fusion claim, I follow your steps and do not get the same results, you cannot say that my test is inadmissible because only people who believe in cold fusion can get the right results. People who don’t believe that hearts pump blood are just as prone to heart attacks as the rest of humanity (or maybe more so). Beliefs do not change facts. Sensible beliefs must be consistent with facts.

◊ [Healthy Humor] Steiner’s work is notably devoid of humor, as is the work of many Steiner acolytes. I was taught by followers of Steiner for many years. I can honestly report that I can recall almost no humor entering our classes, with one notable exception. One of our science teachers (physics and chemistry) did crack jokes at science’s expense. I remember enjoying his classes not because I learned much about science but because science was presented as vaguely goofy. (This teacher is the one who promoted the book SCIENCE IS A SACRED COW.)

The absence of humor in Waldorf classrooms is a problem Steiner himself noted and tried to correct: “[H]umor is missing in the classroom ... You must have humor. Humor is the soul’s exhaling.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Foundations of Waldorf Education, (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 364.]

I could say a lot about this subject, but — much to your relief — I’ll restrain myself. I invite you to read FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER. You’ll find almost 800 pages of Steiner’s humorlessness. (One might almost say that in requiring Waldorf teachers to “have humor,” Steiner was acknowledging a fault of his own. But surely not. In any case, requiring people to have humor is like requiring them to be happy: One, two, three: Happy!)

I often employ humor, but I am always serious about my analyses of Anthroposophical tenets. Steiner was always serious, but — seen from a certain inadmissible perspective — everything he said was a joke.

 

---

 

 

Let’s circle back to the subject of religion (i.e., Anthroposophy) as found/hidden at Waldorf schools.

◊ [Fate, Human Destiny, and Reincarnation] “[In] the upper four grades, we need to discuss the concepts of fate and human destiny with the children ... You will need to speak with the children about all kinds of fates, perhaps in stories where the question of fate plays a role .... I also want you to understand what is really religious in the anthroposophical sense. In the sense of anthroposophy, what is religious is connected with feeling ... [W]orldview itself is something for the head, but religion always arises out of the entire human being. For that reason, religion connected with a specific church is not actually religious ... Following the questions of destiny, you will need to discuss the differences between what we inherit from our parents and what we bring into our lives from previous earthly lives.” [Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1998) pp. 44-46] Here, once again, we see Steiner telling Waldorf teachers how to present Anthroposophy in the school. Steiner’s doctrines of “fate,” and “human destiny,” and reincarnation (“previous earthly lives”) are part of the subject matter. Steiner also clarifies what Waldorf teachers so often hide: From the perspective of Anthroposophy, religions associated with churches are “not actually religious.” To get real religion, one must attend to Steiner's doctrines. And to understand ourselves, we need to realize that the ties between parents and their kids are less important than is often thought: Kids are more the product of their past lives (karma, reincarnation) than the product of their parents. So churches and parents decline in importance while Steiner, his dogma, and his followers — in particular, Waldorf teachers — inflate.

A tangent: Note that as so often, Steiner downplays intelligence (“the head”) in favor of subjectivity and emotion (“feeling”). This is certainly a questionable approach for education, but even in the field of religion, it is largely bogus. Children preparing for full entry into a church, temple, or synagogue are given intellectual instruction: They learn the central doctrines of their faith. Certainly emotion is involved, especially in reception of spiritual inspiration. But downplaying the role of the head in religious faith makes sense only in an anti-intellectual context, which Anthroposophy generally is.

◊ [Reincarnation II, the Sequel, or What Goes Around ... ] “For the seventh, eighth, and ninth grade independent religious instruction we could move into a freer form and give a theoretical explanation about such things as life before birth and after death.” [Ibid., p. 184] We should pause to consider what a belief in reincarnation and karma entails. In India, where the caste system is entrenched, members of higher castes are believed to merit their privileged status: They enjoy the rewards for their virtuous behavior in previous lives. Members of lower castes similarly are reaping the consequences of their past lives, which in their cases are dire. Lowly individuals receive their karmic due; the suffer the penalty for errors or outright sins committed in past lives. What makes this especially cruel, of course, is that these past lives are entirely fictitious. But according to the doctrine of reincarnation, the effects of (imaginary) past lives are paramount. Thus, upper-caste individuals must not “help” those below them, for that would hinder the lowly from working out the consequences of their former (imaginary) mistakes. In other words, the doctrine of reincarnation institutionalizes discrimination and oppression. Just ask India’s “untouchables.”

Anthroposophy’s devotion to reincarnation/karma can cause similar damage for Waldorf students, especially those who suffer from disease or difficulties of temperament. In Anthroposophy, helping or curing these sufferers is often considered an error — the karma of past lives must be carried through, without hindrance, if a soul is to purge itself, pay its penalty, and then advance. You may ask whether Anthroposophy can possibly be this wrongheaded. In a word: Yes.

Whether or not Waldorf teachers instruct their students about reincarnation, the teachers’ belief in this doctrine should shape their classroom work. No conscientious teacher would want to consign students to lower evolutionary levels in their coming lives. So Waldorf teachers should accept each student’s current state of evolutionary development and help him/her to move through it, with the hope that s/he will climb higher in the lives to come. Contemplate what this amounts to in practice. A kid is alive now — this (to speak sensibly for a moment) is her or his only earthly life. This is it. Shouldn’t we help a child to make the most of it? Shouldn’t we help the child to recover from any disease, ease his/her pains, and lighten the load borne by small shoulders? So it would seem —and in some cases, indeed, Anthroposophists would agree. But in many other cases, no, they disagree. (We’ll return to this point in a moment. We are touching, here, on one of the many inconsistencies in Anthroposophical belief.) To the extent that reincarnation is the overriding principle in Waldorf schooling, karma must be allowed to run its course.

Piling sadness upon sadness, I must report that belief in reincarnation is evidently becoming more widespread in the USA. See, e.g.,. NEWSWEEK, Jan. 28, 2008: “[R]eincarnation is an increasingly mainstream belief. Madonna has said she’s a believer. So has Kate Hudson.” Hm. Could Madonna and Kate possibly be wrong? Surely not — they make so much money (reaping their karmic rewards), they must be right. No?

For more on the harm arising from the doctrine of reincarnation, see my essay, “Steiner’s Quackery” at http://homepage.mac.com/nonlevitating/four.html) — I pay particular attention to the failure of Anthroposophists to provide sensible medical treatment to suffering children.

---

 

 

◊ [True and False] Let’s briefly step away from the “Foundations of Waldorf Education” series to consider three lectures Steiner delivered to the teachers at the first Waldorf school: They appear in DEEPER INSIGHTS INTO EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 1983). Steiner’s goal in these talks was to urge Waldorf teachers to see beyond the concept of temperaments. (See my essays “Humouresque” and “Not So Humouresque” at http://homepage.mac.com/nonlevitating/21.html.)

According to Steiner, the task of Waldorf teachers is primarily spiritual and/or messianic: “[W]e should neglect no single opportunity of quickening the inner life of soul and spirit.” [p. 17] To do this, Waldorf teachers need to develop “the Waldorf teacher’s consciousness,” which is “hardly present anywhere else in the world” [p. 21]. This unique consciousness will restore “what humanity has lost in the last three or four centuries.” [p. 21] What has been lost? As Steiner often explained, modern humankind lost the old, intuitive clairvoyance that our ancestors once enjoyed. Or put it this way: “The goal of all our educational thinking must be to transform [educational] thinking so as to rise fruitfully from the level of physical thinking to spiritual thinking.” [p. 29]

Steiner was not saying that Waldorf teachers should simply be more aware of spiritual truths. Rather, he asserted that the teachers must think in a completely different way: They must transcend “physical” thinking (which occurs in the physical organ, the brain, and at best is prosaically logical) in order to embrace “spiritual” thinking (which does not occur in the brain but in nonphysical organs of clairvoyance, or in the spirit or soul, and is not confined by logic). Moving to “spiritual” thinking makes such things as reason and even truth irrelevant. “The concepts of ‘true’ and ‘false’ are dreadfully barren, prosaic, and formal. The moment we rise to the truths of the spiritual world, we can no longer speak of ‘true’ and ‘false’ ....” [p. 29]

Jettisoning basic logical categories is, obviously, desirable for one who traffics in nonsense, as Steiner did. If we agree that nothing is really right or wrong, then Steiner cannot be shown to be wrong. This is another of Steiner’s clever efforts to shield himself from attack. But notice the self-contradiction in his statement. Nothing in the spiritual world is true, a truth that becomes obvious to us when we recognize what is true in the spiritual world: “The moment we rise to the truths [emphasis added] of the spiritual world, we can no longer speak of ‘true’ ....” Steiner was often his own worst enemy.

Anthroposophists will rush to Steiner’s defense, arguing that Steiner preferred the terms “healthy” and “ill” instead of “true” and “false” for spiritual matters. This is perfectly true (or “healthy”) but it changes nothing. Steiner taught Waldorf teachers that they should not so much teach their students as minister to them, leading them to “health.” This runs contrary to the notion of allowing karma to run its course, so Waldorf teachers must walk a fine line, patching up their students sometimes and leaving them to their fates in other instances. Deciding when to do which is tricky — it can only be achieved by teachers who develop powers of clairvoyance. Steiner did offer some guidelines, however: Minimize rational thought, minimize carbonic acid, and save the world: “If a human being is occupied only with intellectual work, the process of the formation of carbonic acid is strongly stimulated in him; the upper organism [mainly the head] is saturated with carbonic acid [sic] ... Processes of illness and health are continually taking place in the human organism, and everything a person does or is guided to do has its effect upon these processes. From this knowledge must be created a feeling of responsibility and a true consciousness of one’s purpose as teacher [sic] ... In fact, as teachers we are co-workers [with spiritual powers] in the actual guidance of the world.” [p. 41]

Parents should consider Waldorf schools for their children only if they approve of teachers who are (or think they are, or think they should be) clairvoyant, and who believe their mission is not primarily educational but messianic.

 

ENDNOTES

[1] “[T]he old clairvoyant forces which everyone once possessed.” [Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS, Lectures from 1908-1924 (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), p. 63.]

[2] “[W]e must struggle to regain a view of the cosmos that moves toward Imagination again .... ” [Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 256.] In Anthroposophy, imagination is akin to clairvoyance.

[3] “As teachers in the Waldorf School, you will need to find your way more deeply into the insight of the spirit and to find a way of putting all compromises aside ... As Waldorf teachers, we must be true anthroposophists in the deepest sense of the word in our innermost feeling.” [Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 118.] “Insight of the spirit” “true anthroposophists,” “innermost feeling”: Steiner’s ontology hinges on non-rational, non-brain cognition: felt knowledge, intuitively self-evident: clairvoyance. No other mode of comprehension would allow Waldorf teachers to attain the insight Steiner prescribes.

[4] Steiner’s career as founder and sage of Anthroposophy was built on his contention that he possessed deep clairvoyant powers. In KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944), and elsewhere, he gave instructions on how to attain initiation/clairvoyance. Steiner did not claim omniscience, nor did he claim that Anthroposophy is a complete explanation of all phenomena — he held out the possibility that further spiritual discoveries might be made — but he certainly asserted that his path is correct (as when, for instance, he praised the teachings of Helena Blavatsky but also “corrected” them: “It is true that Blavatsky has in her books put forward important truths concerning spiritual worlds, but mixed with so much error .... ” Rudolf Steiner, APPROACHES TO ANTHROPOSOPHY, (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1992), p. 7). Steiner knew where Blavatsky was right and where she was wrong because his clairvoyance enabled him to acquire correct information about spiritual worlds, information not obtainable by other means.

[5] “Monotheism ... could never lead to a real understanding of the world .... ” [Rudolf Steiner, THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p.115.] “[W]e [Waldorf faculty] are actually carrying out the intentions of the gods .... ” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 55.] Steiner’s teachings derive, in part, from Gnosticism and Rosicrucianism. See my essays “Unenlightened,” “Was He Christian?” and “Neutered Nature.”  http://homepage.mac.com/nonlevitating/36.html

[6] “... goblins, gnomes and so forth ....” [Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS. Lectures from 1908-1924 (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), p. 63.]

[7] “... it is not that the planets move around the Sun ....” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 31.]

[8] “Mistletoe is a remedy that counteracts .... ” (Rudolf Steiner, MEDICINE: An Introductory Reader (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2004), p. 152. “Steiner presents a dynamic picture of cancer in terms of the supersensible bodies, and explains why the mistletoe plant could act as an effective remedy.” p. 145.]

[9] “Human beings ... needed to rid their nature ... of the higher animals .... ” [Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), pp. 69-70.]

[10] “[A]n island like Great Britain swims in the sea and is held fast by the forces of the stars.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 607.]

[11] “Let us turn to the horoscope of the younger child .... ” [Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR SPECIAL NEEDS: The Curative Education Course (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998), p. 196.]

[12] “[T]he physical sun [is] where Christ’s physical body is walking around.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE UNIVERSAL HUMAN: The Evolution of Individuality (Anthroposophic Press, 1990), p. 65.]

[13] “... Yahweh resides on the Moon.” [Rudolf Steiner, SLEEP AND DREAMS (SteinerBooks, 2003), p. 43.]

[14] “[T]hose beasts did breathe fire.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 26.]

[15] “Above [man] are the angels ... archai ... Kyriotetes .... ” etc. [Rudolf Steiner, THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), pp. 83-85.]

[16] “In a red room, other beings become visible than in a blue room .... ” [Rudolf Steiner quoted by John Fletcher, ART INSPIRED BY RUDOLF STEINER (Mercury Arts Publications, 1987), p. 95.]

[17] “‘Well! so you were weak ... I must dissolve you .... ’” [Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF MYSTERY WISDOM (Rudolf Steiner Press, second revised edition 1996), p.105.]

[18] E.g., “The Jews have a great gift for materialism, but not .... ” [Rudolf Steiner, FROM BEETROOT TO BUDDHISM Rudolf Steiner Press, 1999), p. 59.]

[19] Steiner affirmed the superiority of Aryans; he said that fair people have more capable brains than dark people; he classified students by “temperament;” he said left-handedness should almost always be corrected; etc. He further stated that some people are not really human; some are demons in disguise, some are automatons; etc. For a discussion of the qualities prized by Steiner, see my essays “Unenlightened,” “Race,” “Not So Humouresque,” and others. http://homepage.mac.com/nonlevitating/36.html