UNENLIGHTENED
The Inside Story of an Occult Education
by Roger Rawlings
A previous version of this essay, under a different title,
was posted early in 2006 at www.waldorfcritics.org.
This draft was posted in 2007, and some new material was added in 2008.
I. The Waldorf Scandal
Can American democracy survive the tide of religious fervor that has risen in the nation? Large numbers of Americans today profess fundamentalist religious zeal, and many seek to enforce their beliefs through the political process. Americans who do not share this evangelical enthusiasm — including churchgoers whose religious practices may be more temperate — are concerned for the nation’s future. Author Garry Wills affirms religious values in his works; nonetheless, he worries that the essential nature of the United States is being undermined:
“America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values — critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed ‘a candid world,’ as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of ‘a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.’ Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more...we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity....It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.” [1]
A particularly troubling element in the “fear of and hatred for modernity” involves education. While there are undoubtedly some fine religious schools at which children can receive genuine educations, think about the many other religious schools where children are subjected to indoctrination rather than receiving what was once proudly termed a liberal education. Think how many children far below the age of reason are being trained in attitudes and beliefs that they are expected to live and die by. How many of America’s religious schools produce graduates who are enlightened, open-minded, rational, and humane? Surely rational, humane citizens are precisely what we, and all nations, need. What might our society become in their absence?
To my embarrassment, I have a pertinent story to tell about my own education. From ages seven to eighteen, I attended an occultist school that was devoted to a radical variant of Christianity. The curriculum of the school was based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner, a European mystic who, among other astonishing pronouncements, prophesied a worldwide racial apocalypse. Being a student at such a school was a weird experience, far out on (or beyond) the fringe of normality. Few people, I suspect, would see a connection between my life on the fringe and the experiences that many American children undergo in their own schools. Moreover, my tale may seem dated: I was a schoolboy long ago, in the 1950s and ‘60s. But the weirdness of what I have to report, and the time that has passed since my schooling, are actually helpful for the discussion that I propose to open here: They throw the issues into sharp relief and add the clarity of perspective. My tale is relevant today in at least one narrow sense: Any school that operates in accordance with the teachings of Rudolf Steiner (and there are many) will necessarily be, in many ways, similar to my old school. I believe I can offer a more general relevance, as well. In the largest sense, my focus is not on the school I attended or even on the strange religion it espoused. My topic is the penalty being paid by many thousands of American students today who are receiving educations that oppose the Enlightenment principles on which our nation was founded.
I was a student at the Waldorf School in Garden City, New York. It was a lovely place, with caring teachers, and pleasant, carefully selected classmates. I enrolled as a second grader in 1953 and graduated from the twelfth grade in 1964. For the most part, I enjoyed those years. The school was small: twenty or so students at each grade level. The ambiance was close and comfortable. As Rudolf Steiner would have wanted, Waldorf was a religious school, but with a twist: It hid its faith. Waldorf projected the image of a nonsectarian, arts-intensive preparatory school with a progressive curriculum. This appearance undoubtedly led many parents to enroll their children at Waldorf without realizing what they were letting them in for. Even after enrollment, families found Waldorf’s disguise hard to penetrate. We students memorized no passages from holy books, we sang from no hymnals. Yet a strange aura hung about the school. There was a pervasive but unspoken spiritualistic vibe in almost every lesson, in almost every activity. If it was hard for most parents to detect, we students all felt the vibe to one degree or another. It was in the air we breathed, it defined the tenor and subtext of our days. Ultimately, it shaped and colored our educations at least as effectively as if priests were delivering sermons to us.
Waldorf was an unusual school, but it was not completely alone in its esoteric beliefs. A number of other, similar school were scattered around North America and Europe. The first of these schools was established by Rudolf Steiner himself in 1919, in Germany: It was commissioned by the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory for the children of its employees. Other schools followed, at first slowly, then with increasing momentum. Today there are over 800 schools that draw their inspiration from Rudolf Steiner’s teachings. Many of these schools, like mine, have adopted the name of Steiner’s prototype: Waldorf. But some have chosen to be called Steiner schools, while others have selected different names altogether. [2] Whatever they are called today, all 800+ are generally considered to be part of the Waldorf School movement (which by some reports is one of the fastest-growing independent school movements in the world). Most of these schools are small, and they generally attract little notice. Yet when they have come to the public’s attention, they have often gotten good press. They typically enjoy excellent student/teacher ratios; their walls are hung with striking examples of student art; their teaching methods aim to develop students’ various faculties, not just the intellect; and most important, the schools almost never make loud, public professions of Steiner’s mystic doctrines.
The mystical core of my Waldorf School was kept well hidden. Only rarely did anyone get a clear glimpse of it. But on a single, dramatic occasion, the core was startlingly exposed. This occurred several years after I graduated — and long before I’d fully grasped what had been done to me at the school. In early 1979, THE NEW YORK TIMES ran an article about my alma mater: “‘Psychic' Ex-Student's Influence Shakes Waldorf School.” [3] Coming upon the article in a library, I was galvanized. The TIMES revealed that a former Waldorf student had started claiming that he had paranormal powers — he could converse with spirits. And, shockingly, several teachers — including the headmaster, the former headmaster, and the high school principal — accepted his story and began making use of him as a clairvoyant sage. The result was that they ceded control of the school to the young man and his spiritual contacts, turning to them for supernatural decisions in matters large and small, ranging from curricular decisions to the selection of records played at school dances. When word of this remarkable administrative arrangement inevitably leaked, the occult beliefs of the school’s leaders emerged, fleetingly, into plain view.
The scandal nearly ripped Waldorf apart. Scores of parents, appalled to learn what had been going on, yanked their kids out. The school seemed doomed. Nevertheless, after considerable tumult leading to the firings and/or resignations of those who were most deeply implicated in the scandal, Waldorf survived. It is still in business today, graduating class after class. And rather than renouncing Rudolf Steiner or disavowing an interest in the spiritual realm, it today says operates under the following mission statement: “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.” [4]
Rudolf Steiner was a charismatic, spiritualistic lecturer. He was intelligent and articulate (although not always easy to follow), possessing an impressively retentive memory and a compelling public persona. With a strong academic background, he had numerous talents and interests. But his great interest lay in what he called the “supersensible” world, the spiritual realm that cannot be perceived using our ordinary senses — clairvoyance is required, and Steiner claimed to be clairvoyant. Having served for some time as leader of the German Theosophical movement, in 1912 Steiner established his own religious system, which he dubbed Anthroposophy (meaning, literally, “human wisdom”). This amalgam of mystic doctrines is the bedrock faith upon which Steiner-inspired schools function.
Adherents of gnostic faiths often find it unwise to profess their beliefs too openly, knowing that they risk inciting opposition from those who would find their views heretical or dangerous. (Steiner was acutely aware of this — see the quotation at the end of this essay; also see endnote 52.) Prudence may lead the followers of such faiths to erect a barrier of silence and denial around their inner circle. Waldorfers usually keep quiet about Steiner’s otherworldly interests, going no further than innocuous-seeming references to man’s spiritual nature. They almost always deny that the schools are tightly bound to Anthroposophy; they generally claim that Anthroposophy is not a religion; and they consistently assert that Waldorf schools have no religious purposes. At the Web site of the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America (AWSNA), the following answer is given to the question whether Waldorf are schools religious:
“Waldorf schools are non-sectarian and non-denominational. They educate all children, regardless of their cultural or religious backgrounds. The pedagogical method is comprehensive, and, as part of its task, seeks to bring about recognition and understanding of all the world cultures and religions. Waldorf schools are not part of any church. They espouse no particular religious doctrine but are based on a belief that there is a spiritual dimension to the human being and to all of life. Waldorf families come from a broad spectrum of religious traditions and interest.” [5]
Aiming at “understanding of all...religions” suggests that quite a bit of time will be spent studying religion, while recognizing a “spiritual dimension to the human being” suggests that such study may not be unbiased. (In fact, Anthroposophy draws from religious and spiritualistic traditions from around the world, so studying multiple faiths may serve as preparation for conversion to Anthroposophy.) Despite these two chinks, however, the AWSNA denial seems nearly categorical.
Revealing the heterodox religious program that actually guides Waldorf schools will occupy a large portion of this essay. But we can establish certain basic facts by starting with a simple matter: the morning prayer. Consider the following words uttered by Rudolf Steiner. He was addressing the teachers at his first Waldorf school, telling them how each school day should begin. Notice that Steiner wanted to disguise the religious activities at the school: “We also need to speak about a prayer. I ask only one thing of you. You see, in such things everything depends upon the external appearances. Never call a verse a prayer, call it an opening verse before school. Avoid allowing anyone to hear you, as a faculty member, using the word ‘prayer.’” [6] Later, in a comment that clearly endorses Christianity, Steiner said, “It would be nice to begin instruction with the Lord’s Prayer and then go on to the verses I will give you.” [7] The verse Steiner then prescribed for use by students at his school is this:
The Sun with loving light
Makes bright for me each day;
The soul with spirit power
Gives strength unto my limbs;
In sunlight shining clear
I reverence, O God,
The strength of humankind,
That Thou so graciously
Hast planted in my soul,
That I with all my might
May love to work and learn.
From Thee come light and strength,
To Thee rise love and thanks. [8]
With his concern for external appearances, Steiner hesitated to order recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and he enjoined his teachers from using the word “prayer.” Yet his prescribed “verse” uses Bible-like language (“I reverence, O God,” “To Thee rise love and thanks”) to address and honor God. It is undeniably a prayer. (Indeed, it is included in the book, PRAYERS FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN, which consists of numerous prayers Steiner wrote.) Thus, Steiner had his students begin their day with a religious act.
In the modern era, students at many Waldorfs have continued reciting Steiner’s “verse” or variations of it. “A Sense of Ethics,” (THE ATLANTIC ONLINE, September 1999 [www.theatlantic.com]) reports “The verse for the first through fourth grades, for example, says in part, ‘I revere, Oh God, the strength of humankind, which Thou so graciously has planted in my soul....’” Also of interest: Although Steiner refrained from prescribing general use of the Lord’s Prayer, in 1923 he told at least one Waldorf teacher to supplement the “verse” with the Prayer. [9] Anyone reading this brief historical record must, I think, begin to suspect that Waldorf schools have a religious leaning, probably in the direction of some version of Christianity. This suspicion can only be heightened by the following reference to Anthroposophy in the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION: “Anthroposophy is continuous with the Rosicrucian stream of the Christian esoteric tradition.” [10]
In discussing the morning prayer and citing one reference book, we have only scratched the Waldorf surface. But already we can see the pattern of denial surrounding Waldorf schools start to break down. In fact, considering how small Anthroposophy is compared to major religions, how odd many of its beliefs (when they are revealed) seem to outsiders, and how much it is centered on the pronouncements of a single inspirational leader, Anthroposophy can most accurately be classified as a cult. And to the extent that various Waldorfs embrace Anthroposophy, to precisely that extent they associate themselves with the cult.
Ours was a school of secrets. To explain how it operated, I have to risk repeating myself somewhat. Our teachers — most of whom I admired — did not spell out their spiritualistic goals for us. They rarely mentioned Anthroposophy, and — except for a few rare occasions — they did not explicitly teach us any of its doctrines. Nonetheless, Waldorf’s curriculum persistently, artfully sought to shape us in conformity with Anthroposophy’s mystic beliefs. It is only now, in long retrospect and after considerable research, that I can give a clear account of how and why it was done. (Of course, I might have tried to inform myself about Anthroposophy when I was still in high school. Steiner’s books were not displayed in ordinary bookstores, as far as I remember, but they could have been ordered from Anthroposophical presses. I should have found those presses and ordered their publications. The parents of the students in the school should have done the same. If anyone who gets involved with a Waldorf school winds up feeling deceived, s/he must accept part of the responsibility.)
At one level, Waldorf operated very nearly in the open. Our teachers tried to augment each student’s mental, emotional, and physical capacities. This is the purpose Waldorf schools usually ascribe to themselves. Check, for instance, another statement from the AWSNA Web site: “Waldorf teachers strive to transform education in to [sic] an art that educates the whole child — the heart and the hands, as well as the head.” [11] The schools aim to help students to better themselves. Very good.
But much lies behind that aim. It is important to realize that an Anthropological definition of “the whole child” covers several special tenets, which range from the slightly to the extremely unusual. Let’s start with this: Anthroposophy concerns itself with the child’s “spirit” and the child’s “soul.” These terms are usually interchangeable, but Steiner drew distinctions between them. Sometimes he connected the terms, referring to the “spirit-soul” (or occasionally the “soul-spirit”), but more commonly in his books “soul” refers to the essence of an individual passing through various physical incarnations, while “spirit” implies a higher member representing the authority of the spiritual realm: “The soul must not be impelled, through the body, to lusts and passions...The spirit, however, must not stand as a slave-driver over the soul, dominating it with laws and commandments....” [12] So children have spirits and souls.
A related Anthroposophical belief is that during life on earth, every true human being manifests several nonphysical bodies (the “etheric body,” the “astral body,” and the “I”). I will discuss these bodies later. The factor to contemplate now is that each “whole child” is involved in the process of these manifestations, and a Steiner-inspired education will take these manifestations into account.
The concept of a “whole child” also includes all of the child’s senses, naturally. Steiner taught that human beings have twelve senses: “First, we have the four senses of touch, life, movement and balance. These senses are primarily permeated by will...The next group of senses, namely smell, taste, sight and temperature are primarily senses of feeling...I need to add that the sense of I and the senses of thought, hearing and speech are more cognitive senses....” [13] Some parts of that quotation probably need clarification. The “sense of the I” is one’s sense of spiritual self-knowledge: “the spiritual sense of our Self.” [14] As for “cognitive senses,” Steiner said that there are several ways for an individual to gain knowledge, including some that function while one is dreaming or asleep. [15] Deep knowledge of the spirit world becomes available when one develops the necessary “organs” for 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....” [16]
To quote one of Steiner’s adherents on a related matter: Teachers can lead children along the correct developmental path by helping them to preserve, as much as possible, the “dream-like yet intensely real awareness of spiritual worlds” that children innately possess. [17] This nearly unconscious psychic power is also a component of the “whole child.”
Steiner set forth other interesting tenets concerning children’s faculties, their growth (e.g., the three seven-year-long stages of childhood development), and their temperaments (phlegmatic, melancholic, etc.: the ancient concept of humours [18]). But we’ve already covered enough ground to make the point: A child attending a full-fledged Waldorf school will be educated in accordance with Steiner’s dubious theory of human nature. The effects on the child may be profound.
This leads us to a more fundamental subject. True-believing Anthroposophists know that Steiner had loftier intentions than simply trying to improve each child — he aimed to improve all of humanity, and his conception of human improvement was stupendous. Steiner claimed that he could peer far into the times to come and that he had seen the future course of humanity’s development. Here is the heart of the Waldorf mission as laid out by Steiner: Teachers should conduct children’s education in conformity with the gods’ (note the plural: gods) benevolent intentions. They should train students to climb the evolutionary ladder, assisting them to develop into ever-more-perfected beings. Preserving the children from becoming automatons, the teachers should direct them toward the supersensible realm. Eventually, students who are correctly led will pass through numerous upward-evolving reincarnations until they become pure spirits, liberated from physical embodiment.
The educational mission I have just now described is hard to reconcile with a normal sense of reality. And because, by implication, I am attributing that mission to teachers of mine who were silent on the subject, I incur a strong moral obligation to present a detailed, coherent explanation of my assertions. I will do my best to give such an explanation now.
I should start by saying that I want to be scrupulously fair. Probably some of my teachers took jobs at Waldorf simply because they needed work. Others may have chosen the school intentionally but without having made an extensive study of Steiner’s works. Teachers in these categories almost surely had no deep spiritualistic designs on their students. They participated in a mystic/gnostic system that has significant potential to harm children, but — to varying degrees — they did so unwittingly. Surely some thought that Steiner’s doctrines involved, at most, interesting “insights” into the stages of childhood development, leading to educational approaches intended to help each child fulfill his or her potential. Nothing more than that — nothing about reincarnation, spiritual evolution, the “gods” (plural) and their “divine cosmic plan” (which Steiner was not loath to admit he understood), organs of clairvoyance, the demon Ahriman, and other occult mysteries. (He spoke of humans who have moved other planets, goblins inhabiting the bowels of the earth, Jesus walking around in what we see as the Sun, and so on. I catalogue some of these bizarre beliefs, below; I also discuss them in other essays on my three Web sites.) I freely stipulate that everyone at my Waldorf school had the best of intentions. However, I think it is essential for us to realize what Rudolf Steiner meant Waldorf education to accomplish and what his doctrines truly entail.
While some of our teachers may have known little about Steiner’s occult secrets, others — true devotees of Anthroposophy — would have accepted Steiner’s assertion that a Waldorf faculty works in the service of “spiritual powers.” Here are remarks Steiner made to the first Waldorf teachers in August, 1919:
“We can accomplish our work only if we do not see it as simply a matter of intellect or feeling, but, in the highest sense, as a moral spiritual task. Therefore, you will understand why, as we begin this work today, we first reflect on the connection we wish to create from the very beginning between our activity and the spiritual worlds....Thus, we wish to begin our preparation by first reflecting upon how we connect with the spiritual powers in whose service and in whose name each one of us must work.” [19]
Many people would appreciate an educational plan that emphasizes spirituality. If you are one, please consider the nature of Steiner’s spiritualism. He does not speak of service to God, for instance — he refers to “spiritual powers,” plural. As we will see in a moment, he often referred to “gods,” plural. His philosophy entails reincarnation, among other tenets derived from eastern religions. His views, thus, were heretical by the standards of devout Christianity, and they were deeply mistaken by the standards of the other major monotheistic faiths, Judaism and Islam.
Addressing his teachers, Steiner initially made the spiritual goal of Waldorf schooling seem innocuous (if vague): “The task of education is to bring the soul-spirit into harmony with the temporal body...because when the child is born into the physical world they [i.e., soul-spirit and body] do not yet properly fit each other.” [20] So the goal is to accommodate the very young child to its new life, bringing its physical and spiritual components into harmony with one another. But Steiner later revealed a broader vision that extends beyond the very young. Addressing his teachers in September, 1919, Steiner said, “Among the faculty, we must certainly carry within us the knowledge that we are not here for our own sakes, but to carry out the divine cosmic plan. We should always remember that when we do something, we are actually carrying out the intentions of the gods, that we are, in a certain sense, the means by which that streaming down from above will go out into the world.” [21] The goal for teachers at Waldorf schools, then — “in a certain sense” — is messianic: to save the world by serving as conduits of the gods’ benevolent intentions.
Defenders of Waldorf education sometimes argue that Steiner’s Anthroposophical preachments have no bearing on his educational principles. Unfortunately, the argument doesn’t hold water. In July, 1920, Steiner explicitly linked Waldorf education to the objectives of Anthroposophy:
“The task of Anthroposophy is not simply to replace a false view of the world with a correct one. That is a purely theoretical requirement. The nature of Anthroposophy is to strive not only toward another idea, but toward other deeds, namely, to tear the spirit and soul from the physical body. The task is to raise the spirit-soul into the realm of the spiritual, so that the human being is no longer a thinking and feeling automaton. I will say more about this tomorrow in my lecture, but human beings are in danger of losing their spirit-soul. What exists today in the physical [realm] as an impression of the spirit-soul, exists because so many people think that way [i.e., like automatons], because the spirit-soul is asleep. The human being is thus in danger of drifting into the Ahrimanic world [a realm ruled by a demonic enemy of human evolution], in which case the spirit-soul will evaporate into the cosmos. We live in a time when people face the danger of losing their souls to materialistic impulses. This is a very serious matter. We now stand confronted with that fact. That fact is actually the secret that will become increasingly apparent, and out of which we can act fruitfully. Such things as the pedagogy of the Waldorf School can arise from a recognition that humanity must turn toward spiritual activity, and not simply from a change in theory. We should work out of that spirit.” [22]
Steiner was speaking to his teachers, specifying the spirit in which they should approach their work, and he could hardly have put his case more forcefully. (Granted, he might have put parts of it more clearly.) Mankind stands at a crisis point, in danger of losing its spirit-soul. Already the spirit-soul is asleep, so there is almost no impression of the spirit-soul to be found in our material world. And worse may lie ahead: We may drift into the clutches of Ahriman, a demonic partner/rival of Lucifer. We are threatened, in other words, with descent into soulless materialism. We must act to avert this catastrophe. The task of Anthroposophy — and, by extension, of Waldorf pedagogy — is to free mankind from bondage in the material realm, which turns people into automatons. To put this a bit differently, the task is to “raise” individuals toward greater spirituality. Hence “the pedagogy of the Waldorf School” becomes possible, and Steiner tells his teachers how they can “act fruitfully,” helping to save humanity by assisting it to “turn toward spiritual activity.” Taking Steiner at his word, the goals of Anthroposophy and Waldorf pedagogy are spiritualistic and closely related if not identical. (I will return to the question of human automatons — one of Steiner’s more deplorable concepts. And we will meet Ahriman again as we proceed through Steiner’s dogmas.)
Steiner’s spiritualistic intentions for his school were never far from the surface. A believer in reincarnation, he taught that “[P]eople live repeated earthly lives.” [23] In September, 1920, he considered giving older students guarded instruction about reincarnation, to show them how their conduct in one life can raise them to higher levels in the next life:
“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. We could give them examples. We could show them how to look at the major cultural connections and about the mission of the human being on Earth. You need only look at Goethe and Jean Paul [i.e., Johann Paul Friedrich Richter, a German author] to see it. You can show everywhere that their capacities come from a life before birth.” [24]
The gist of such instruction would be that those who live properly in one life advance in the next — they progress — while those who live improperly suffer the karmic penalty — they regress. Advancing humans carry with them humanity’s evolutionary future. (It is worth considering what effects a belief in reincarnation entails. In India, where the caste system is entrenched, members of higher castes are believed to merit their privileges, while members of lower castes must accept their lowly status as their karmic due. One must not attempt to raise members of lower castes because that would be defeating the purpose of their lowly status, which is to work out the consequences of errors they committed in previous lives. Thus, discrimination and oppression are the result. Anthroposophy’s devotion to reincarnation can cause similar damage for sufferers of disease or temperament, including children in Waldorf schools. Helping or curing these sufferers may be a grave error, for they must be left to endure their karmic fates. See my essay, available on this Web site, “Steiner’s Quackery.”)
Whether or not Waldorf teachers instruct their students about reincarnation or Steiner’s theory of evolution, these key beliefs should shape their intentions for the students. No conscientious teacher would want to consign students to lower evolutionary levels in their coming lives. So they accept each student’s current state of evolution and try to assist her/him to climb higher in the lives to come. At the Garden City Waldorf, I heard only a few tangential references to reincarnation, but our teachers did sometimes inform us about a distinctly non-Darwinian theory of evolution. It was one of the very few Anthroposophical doctrines that was openly revealed (although the teachers did not identify it as a piece of Anthroposophy). I will relate what Waldorf’s headmaster had to say about evolution, below.
The importance Steiner placed on evolution is stated in the introduction to 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.” [25] Among the remarkable statements Steiner makes on the subject of evolution is the following:
“Souls whose development has been delayed will have accumulated so much error, ugliness, and evil in their karma that they temporarily form a distinct union of evil and aberrant human beings who vehemently oppose the community of good human beings.
“In the course of its development, the good portion of humankind will learn to use the Moon forces to transform the evil part [of mankind] so that it can participate in further evolution as a distinct earthly kingdom.” [26]
To summarize: For Anthroposophists, spiritual advancement is the goal, and it entails reincarnation and the karmic consequences of one’s behavior in each life: determining whether one advances or degenerates. Steiner’s professed hope was to promote human evolution to the highest possible degree of spirituality. This was the “divine cosmic plan” for humanity's advancement. Waldorf pedagogy is bound up in Steiner’s vision of this advancement; indeed, it is a key element, since Waldorf teachers are “the means by which that streaming down from above will go out into the world.” Waldorf teachers would fail in their “moral spiritual task” if they did not move their students in the direction Steiner specified: toward “spiritual activity.” Few tasks could be more important. As Steiner said, delaying the development of a human soul can have the most awful consequences. Of course, teachers can only assist children to make the modest gains possible in a single incarnation, which may help explain why Waldorfers often describe their goals in modest terms. Still, if Waldorf students are guided in the proper direction, then during subsequent incarnations they may be led even farther upward by other, higher mentors — and the process of humanity’s evolutionary perfection will advance.
Steiner revealed his intentions for Waldorf schools during discussions at the first Waldorf. The following quotations come from books published by the Anthroposophic Press in a series called “Foundations of Waldorf Education.” • Steiner wanted Waldorf schools to spread Anthroposophy: “One of the most important facts about the background of the Waldorf School is that we were in a position to make the anthroposophical movement a relatively large one. The anthroposophical movement has become a large one.” [RUDOLF STEINER IN THE WALDORF SCHOOL, p.156.]• To this end, Steiner arranged that “[We] need to make the children aware that they are receiving the objective truth, and...anthroposophy has something to say about objective truth...Anthroposophy will be in the school.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 495.] • To that end, the “staff consists of anthroposophists.” [EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, p. 60]. • Waldorf’s extraordinary pedagogical program calls for deft handling, so Steiner urged Waldorf teachers to work “in a roundabout way.” [Ibid., pp. 46-47.]
The educational process at the Waldorf school I attended was both circumspect and subtle. Instead of teaching us explicit doctrines, the Anthroposophists on the faculty — those teachers who understood what Waldorf was really about — typically tried to lead us by indirection. They sensitized us to the supernatural, and then they worked, quietly, to nurture in us a feeling of intuitive connection to the spirit realm. [27] Their conception of that realm was largely determined by visions Rudolf Steiner claimed to have attained through clairvoyance.
Our school days were pleasant — mellow and tranquil. There was scarcely any unruliness or rude behavior at Waldorf. Pranks and mild rebelliousness were not completely unknown, but they were rare. (Incorrigible troublemakers were weeded out during the application process or they were expelled.) Arriving at the school each day was like entering a refuge from worldly turmoil. The morning began with a prayer, although no one called it that. [28] In the lower grades, we would then have classes about myths or Bible stories (Steiner believed that many myths and legends contained at least kernels of literal truth, as well as serving as markers along the route of mankind’s spiritual development, recapitulating mankind’s evolution). [29] Interspersed with these supernatural lessons we had classes in math and geography and history: regular subjects. We had no textbooks — we copied lessons written on the blackboards for us by our teachers. Reading was not emphasized in the lower grades. We had no “Weekly Reader,” no “Dick and Jane.” We laid our heads on our desks and listened as our teachers recited or read to us — often tales of the magical or mystical.
At other times of the day, we knitted, and crocheted, and played simple woodwind instruments en masse. Sometimes we merely gazed about us while our teachers spoke. The teachers urged us to imaginatively identify with whatever we studied or saw — to feel the life-force coursing through a tree, or absorb an eagle’s noble spirit, or experience the meaning of a boulder. In art classes, we were taught to produce misty watercolor paintings with no straight lines or clear definitions. There was something otherworldly about the images we created, bearing no resemblance to ordinary physical reality, yet completely unlike the stick-figure cartoons kids often produce. The teachers didn’t say so, but our paintings were in effect talismanic representations of the spirit realm. [30]
In dance classes, we performed “eurythmy,” a form of bodily movement that looks a bit like slow-motion modern dance, but that was actually intended to teach us the proper stances to manifest spiritual states of being — calling upon influences from our past lives and preparing the basis for our future lives. [31] We did eurythmy while manipulating therapeutic copper rods and holding our pelvises strictly still. We were made to feel that eurythmy had an especially strong spiritual component. Our teachers didn’t need to articulate their beliefs about such matters; their tone of voice and facial expressions conveyed the seriousness of the tasks they set us. The eurythmy instructors made a particularly powerful impression in this regard — an impression they underscored when they arranged student performances for school assemblies. These performances were almost invariably solemn, and often they were freighted with spiritual significance. In one of my class’s first public eurythmic displays (coming in about the third or fourth grade), we enacted the creation of the world — the emergence of light, the separation of light from darkness, the separation of dry land from the waters, and so on. We portrayed angels and archangels and the fulfillment of God’s commands. I played the role of God Almighty.
By the time we reached the upper grades, our spiritual conditioning was fairly well advanced and our curriculum began to seem somewhat more conventional. We had a few textbooks now — although sometimes these were simple collections of primary texts: important historical documents from the US revolution, for instance, or from European history, with little editorial commentary. Our teachers told us what to make of the texts. In art classes, realism was increasingly permitted; and our dancing now included some ballroom instruction.
But Waldorf’s essential nature remained. Throughout most of each day, throughout most of the curriculum, the spiritualistic vibe persisted. Eurythmy persisted. Misty watercoloring persisted. We sat through lessons on the shortcomings of science and the failings of modern technology. Our math classes were infused with Platonic idealism: The numbers, operators, and geometric figures we worked with were, we learned, rude shadows of their true, perfect counterparts residing in an ideal, supersensory region. In literature classes, we read ordinary novels [32] interspersed with works of supernatural and even theological content: THE ODYSSEY, THE DIVINE COMEDY, PARADISE LOST. These are literary classics, and as such they are perfectly defensible as high school reading matter. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with these works. My point is that my teachers were astute in choosing class materials that would support Anthroposophy, if only tangentially, without raising parents’ suspicions.
Intimations of the great beyond were subtly, recurrently present in all our studies — and Jesus became increasingly central. Our headmaster guided us in reading spiritualistic essays: Ralph Waldo Emerson’s SELECTED WRITINGS, for instance, and Thomas Carlyle’s ON HEROES AND HERO-WORSHIP. I still have my copies of these books, in which I see that I dutifully underlined passages honoring Jesus [33] and praising “Christianism.” [34] Our teachers rarely acknowledged their interest in Jesus, but His overwhelming significance was hard to miss. [35] We were encouraged to read disguised Christian parables by J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, who were members of a coterie known as the Oxford Christians. [36] We sang in a chorus comprising the entire high school — during my senior year, our biggest number was Handel’s “Messiah.” The central event of each “nonsectarian” year was the Carol Sing on a December evening. Students, parents, faculty, and alumni filled the candlelit auditorium, which for the evening became a kind of chapel. The Sing was our community bonding experience. It was unmistakably Christian (all the carols were traditional birth-of-Jesus songs — no secular ditties about Santa Clause or reindeer or snowmen), and it always culminated in “Silent Night” — which most of us sang in English but some sang in contrapuntal German.
The effects of Waldorf’s educational program gradually accumulated in our heads and hearts. After I had been at the school only a few years, the notion of trying to see the world clearly had lost almost all meaning for me. Everything seemed to me symbolic rather than concrete — although what the symbols stood for was vague. Everything had its hidden deeps. It’s hard to remember now precisely how I was led to adopt this attitude. But a booklet written by our headmaster, John Fentress Gardner, throws light on the world view that Waldorf encouraged. [37] In the booklet, Mr. Gardner discusses “the art of education developed in Waldorf Schools.” [38] The booklet includes such statements as the following: “Is not the contrast between mountain and sea a cause as well as an image of deep contrasts in the moral experience of mankind? Mountains define, but by the same act they also divide. They teach integrity, but may go further to instill antipathy.” [39] The language is more elevated than any that our teachers would have used with us, but the message is very familiar to me: Nothing is what it is, it is always something else, something higher, or lower. Accordingly, it is foolish to think that a mountain is merely a towering mass of rock and earth — it is a manifestation, a lesson, an image bearing on our moral experience. Later in the booklet, Mr. Gardner writes, “Understandably, many teachers today [at conventional secular schools] do not recognize that the world-content has something to give, through completely experienced thought, to every power of the human soul. Their training has not led them to appreciate that within each of its facts the apparent world conceals many levels of truth....” [40] Properly trained teachers at Waldorf schools don’t make that mistake: They always direct attention away from the “apparent world” to the many concealed “levels of truth” in order to empower the human soul. They have their eyes on what lies beyond — real or otherwise.
We should pause over the phrase “completely experienced thought.” It returns us to a pivotal issue, this time from a different angle. For Steiner and his followers, the truest thinking is not rational cognition or brainwork, which they deem dry and un-heartfelt. An “experienced” thought is felt — it is thought tempered by imagination — it is more akin to emotion than to cool, rational conceptualizing, and it often leads to complication or even mystification rather than to clarity. This is the sort of thinking promoted by Anthroposophy. Ask yourself whether it is what you want for your children. Nothing in the physical world is as it seems. What we see around us isn’t what it is, exactly — there are layers upon layers of hidden deeps. The Anthroposophical solution is to feel one’s way past appearances by opening outwards through imagination or clairvoyance (in Anthroposophy, these terms are sometimes synonymous). According to Steiner: “Essentially, people today have no inkling of how people looked out into the universe in ancient times when human beings still possessed an instinctive clairvoyance....If we want to be fully human, however, we must struggle to regain a view of the cosmos that moves toward Imagination again....” [41]
One implication of the foregoing is that Waldorf schools would find little benefit in teaching their students Anthroposophical doctrines, even if the students were old enough to comprehend them and there were no other incentives for the faculty to keep mum. Memorizing doctrines is brainwork, which does not help us (and possibly may hinder us) in our efforts to become “fully human.” [42]
I should stress again that not everyone at our Waldorf was an occultist. Most of the students, lots of the parents, and even a fair number of the teachers seemed to be regular folks. And there were a few apparent fence-sitters, teachers and parents who seemed to sense something spiritually alluring about Waldorf without fully committing themselves to it. But among the faculty, undeniably, there were also the others, the true believers: individuals who always seemed to be trying to peer through the thin tissue separating the physical realm from the spiritual (as they might have put it). [43] They were serious individuals, mainly, who sometimes got faraway looks in their eyes — yet they also had a sort of steel in them, a sense of sureness. They possessed holy secrets, keys to cosmic truth.
Sometimes some of the secrets were partially revealed. Surprisingly, at least a few of the secrets seemed to involve race. During twelfth grade, my class was taught biology by our headmaster, Mr. Gardner. I don’t know what credentials he had in biology, if any [44], but because he was headmaster, his authority was unquestioned. I respected him greatly — he was tall, dignified, articulate — just what a dominant male should be. Still, I remember being troubled by a lecture he delivered one morning. Mr. Gardner laid out for us the overarching structure of the family of man. He explained that the various races stood at different levels of moral development — each was forging its own destiny. He said these things sympathetically, with no hint of condescension. Yet the vibe was in the room that morning: The terms he used were more metaphysical than biological. The Oriental races, he said, are ancient, wise, but vitiated. The African races are youthful, unformed, childlike, he said. Standing near the center of humanity’s family are the currently most advanced races, the whites, he said.
I also remember a lesson our class received in a related subject: botany. The teacher in this instance was Hertha Karl, who taught both German and “earth science.” Her background is, to me, a closed book — but of all the Waldorf faculty, she made the least effort to disguise her devotion to Steiner. She drew figures-of-eight on the blackboard and lectured us about “lemniscates”: the mystic interaction of the “telluric” and “etheric” forces, which is the basic structure of nature, she said. During one day's main lesson, she veered off topic to warn us never to receive blood transfusions from members of other races. Blacks and Orientals have blood types that are physically different from ours, she taught us: Receiving such inferior blood would diminish our “Aryan” qualities. The moral once again seemed to be that for Anthroposophists racial identity has great significance.
There is no way for me to prove that Mr. Gardner and Mrs. Karl made the remarks I have attributed to them. All I can do is offer my solemn oath that I have carried clear, consistent memories of those remarks throughout my life. If my memory has grown dim or betrayed me in any particulars, nonetheless I am confident that my account of these two lessons is, in all essentials, accurate. (Years after leaving Waldorf, I learned that the things Mr. Gardner and Mrs. Karl said were largely consistent with Steiner’s doctrines. If I had known this at the time, perhaps my teachers’ remarks would not have startled me enough to burn such lasting memories.)
All the students in my class were white, which would have freed Mr. Gardner and Mrs. Karl to speak openly. Today, Waldorf schools seem to be fairly well integrated — and I trust the faculties are free of racial bigotry. But I wonder how those faculties reconcile integration with the racism that infects Anthroposophy. I hope that teachers as Waldorf schools no longer engage in open discussions of superior/inferior races, and I doubt that the word “Aryan” is often used now. The task of downplaying Steiner's racism may be made easier, in English-speaking countries, because some translations of Steiner’s books from German apparently omit certain “difficult” passages. Anthroposophists who rely on expurgated texts may understand Steiner’s basic teachings about race, but they are shielded from Steiner’s most bigoted assertions.
One of Steiner’s basic racial tenets is that the division of mankind into races was a crime committed by two disruptive spirits. Lucifer and Ahriman interfered with the harmonious evolution of humanity by causing older forms of mankind to survive even while other segments of humanity evolved to higher levels.
“Lucifer and Ahriman...fought against this harmonious tendency of development in the evolution of humanity, and they managed to change the whole process so that various developments were shifted and displaced. While there should have been basically only one form of human being...Lucifer and Ahriman preserved [earlier human types]...even into the time after the Atlantean flood. Thus, forms that should have disappeared remained. Instead of racial diversities developing consecutively, older racial forms remained unchanged and newer ones began to evolve at the same time. Instead of the intended consecutive development of races, there was a coexistence of races. That is how it came about that physically different races inhabited the earth and are still there in our time although evolution should really have proceeded [unimpeded].” [45]
I had been at Waldorf virtually my entire life, which meant that what I saw and heard there generally seemed normal to me. And I believe my allegiance to the school deepened with each passing year. Nonetheless, around the time I became a senior, certain things started to strike me as a bit odd. Certainly, those biology and botany lessons bothered me (the mid-1960s was the civil rights era, after all — weren’t we supposed to know better than to talk about “inferior” races?) And I started paying attention to other, harder-to-pinpoint oddities. Occasionally our teachers would casually refer to angels or other supernatural beings as if they were objective, verifiable phenomena, as real as trees or planets or electrons. What to make of that? Having put in so many years at Waldorf, I was strongly disposed to believe in the supernatural — but how could our teachers sound so sure? And then there was this: From time to time, faculty members would reverently utter the name of Rudolf Steiner — always reverently. I knew that in some undefined way Steiner was the font of wisdom at Waldorf, but beyond that things were indeterminate. Imagine being educated by a group of dedicated Catholics or Communists or Mormons or Fascists — or members of any ideological group: For year after year, you are taught to think and speak and act in accordance with the group's ideology, but you are never told precisely what that ideology is, and you are never shown any of its central texts. That's what going to Waldorf was like.
Actually, information of all kinds was kept from us, not just the ideological sort. Waldorf’s curriculum wasn’t primarily meant to educate us, as that term is usually understood [you may want to look again at endnote 11]. We did homework, and took tests, and wrote papers. We picked up some knowledge of standard academic subjects. Yet all of that was, in a sense, incidental. No one could have mistaken Waldorf for a hotbed of intellectual excellence. Our teachers had different, overriding concerns.
The problem of low academic standards at Waldorfs goes way back. The teachers at the first Waldorf worried that they were not preparing their students adequately for standard final examinations in the 12th grade. Asked what subjects should be dropped to make time for lessons with more academic content, Steiner answered, “Sadly, technology and shop, as well as gymnastics and singing. We cannot drop eurythmy or drawing. Religion will have to be limited to one hour....” [47] Later, Steiner added, “The question of final examinations is purely a question of opportunity. It is a question of whether we dare tell those who come to us that we will not prepare them for the final examination at all, that it is a private decision of the student whether to take the final examination or not.” [48] Weeks after that, when the exam results were in, he said, “We should have no illusions: The results gave a very unfavorable impression of our school to people outside.” [49]
Academic standards at my Waldorf were below par. I took math classes every year, and I always passed, but I never developed even the rudiments of mathematical literacy. Accept my assurance, please: This wasn’t a result of native stupidity. Waldorf came close to practicing social promotion. Although occasionally a student was held back, ordinarily we didn’t need to master much subject matter in order to proceed from grade to grade. The resulting harm to our intellects is hard to gauge. Waldorf was a private school, with selective admissions. Most of us were bright, and some of us were distinctly privileged, coming from homes bristling with encyclopedias, home libraries, magazines, newspapers, and parents who pressed us to excel. We had advantages. How much did Waldorf set us back? I know some Waldorf graduates who found themselves almost completely unprepared for college; others, like myself, made several false starts at higher education before getting traction; and some marched straight through. The question is ultimately unanswerable: How well would we have done if we had gone to a different school? What would our lives have been like if they had been different?
But a Waldorf school should not be judged primarily by the academic success (or failure) of its graduates. (Remember Steiner’s words: “[W]e will not prepare them for the final examination at all.”) The key issue is what effects a Steiner-inspired education has on the students’ emotional and psychological well-being. Waldorf’s priority was to quietly condition our souls and hearts to receive spiritual influences. To that end, our teachers subtly encouraged us always to move toward the light and away from the dark (in all its meanings). Those of us who were most susceptible to this silent manipulation were powerfully affected. I won’t violate the privacy of my former schoolmates, so I’ll speak only for myself. To my ultimate regret, I was a dutiful and studious schoolboy, not wholly credulous, but nearly so. For me, Waldorf’s impact was thrilling. I developed esoteric yearnings — I was eager for revelation — I longed for things transcendent, for supernal beauty and grandeur. The expectation of these blessings grew in me for years and sustained me. But then, gradually, a reaction set in. It became increasingly pronounced as I progressed through high school. I was pained that the world, and I, fell so far short — always, it seemed, so far short. Dreams of the transcendent remained just that — vague, alluring dreams, perpetually out of reach. Longing for the unobtainable is a prescription for frustration, or desperation. I continued to long — perhaps more than ever — but I came to feel that my longings were a burden.
I was a member of the student council. During my junior year, the council urged Mr. Gardner to tell the student body more about Rudolf Steiner and his philosophy. There was a growing suspicion among us that our teachers had a clandestine agenda rooted in Steiner’s tenets. Despite beings such a square — I ultimately was student council president and a graduation speaker — I shared the suspicions, with some reason. You see, I had a couple of private peepholes onto events behind the scenes. My mother was Mr. Gardner’s secretary. [50] Although she never intentionally betrayed any of Mr. Gardner's confidences to me, my mother inevitably dropped a few tidbits about the man and his beliefs — not very informative, but enough to pique my curiosity. I had another source of inside information, also. Mr. Gardner took a special interest in me. We had several private conversations. Once he gave me what amounted to a fatherly sex talk: Love should always come before sex, he counseled (no surprises there). Once he asked me whether he should fire the school’s Latin teacher, and he quickly added “Don’t think about it with your brain” — I should give an instinctive response, not a considered reply. (Which raises the question, what organ should be used for thinking, if not the brain?) Once he questioned me about evolution and then conducted an hour-long private colloquy with me on the subject. [51] He explained that some contemporary peoples and animals had not evolved upwards but are actually the degenerate remnants of earlier, higher life-forms. Earth’s evolutionary scheme is complex, he informed me, with some species, races, and individuals rising, and others receding. I came away from our discussion feeling reasonably confident that he and I were among the upward-movers.
The student council asked Mr. Gardner to address the high school: to tell us about Steiner and then take our questions. He did so, reluctantly, and most circumspectly. [52] He told the assembled students that Steiner had been a wise teacher, a spiritualist with extraordinary insight. He said Steiner’s insights into the arts helped lay the foundation for our arts curriculum, and that Steiner’s scientific insights had, among other things, led to the development of a particularly productive form of organic gardening. He said Steiner was enormously perceptive and aware. Then somehow he let slip that Steiner could see angels with his naked eye — which caused a few gasps and giggles from the students, but only a few. (I now suspect this “slip” was intentional: Mr. Gardner was hinting at the talent we all should cultivate when sufficiently evolved: clairvoyance: the basis of Steiner’s insights and wisdom.) Beyond that, he told us little. He said Waldorf’s purpose was obvious: to educate and improve us. Steiner’s educational principles were certainly invaluable, he said, but then he added that it would do us no good to delve into Steiner’s doctrines at our age — we were too young to grasp them. The right way to learn about Steiner, he told us, was to form study groups when we were older, and then with like-minded seekers we should read and discuss as many of Steiner’s books as caught our interest.
The scandal of the ‘psychic’ ex-student broke in the late 1970s, more than a decade after I graduated. But as I read and reread the TIMES article, I thought of people I had known during my Waldorf years — classmates and teachers. Mr. Gardner was named in the article: He had resigned. [53] Also named were my class advisor/math teacher, my history teacher/soccer coach, and a librarian I remembered. One person tangentially involved in the scandal went unmentioned in the article. My class’s homeroom teacher during grades two through five was Carol Hemingway Gardner [54], John Gardner’s wife. She was a tender, motherly woman — I think every kid in the class loved her. I was sorry to think of her following her husband into disgraced retreat. I still remember her fondly, although I now realize that she — in the gentlest manner possible, and I’m sure with pure motives — began my introduction to the supernatural. The class history printed in our 1964 yearbook includes the following: “In the third grade we began our study of the Bible, and put on a play about Joseph’s coat of many colors....Besides the three R’s, the fourth grade was occupied with the study of Norse myths. The high point of the year was the building of Yggdrasil, the Norse tree of life, out of paper. The fifth grade, where we learned about Greek and Egyptian myths, was our last with Mrs. Gardner.” [1964 PINNACLE, The Waldorf School of Adelphi University (Kansas City: Inter-Collegiate Press, 1964).]
Well, such was my youth, long ago. But, as I asserted earlier, I think my story remains relevant today. After all, Anthroposophy is just one, relatively small movement devoted to mystical dogmas. There are many other, wider-spread spiritualistic movements. Most of them are more overt in their educational and evangelical efforts than Waldorf was — most of them proclaim their doctrines openly and drill their students in them. Yet the final effect of all these movements, including Anthroposophy, is much the same: By hook or by crook, children are directed to otherworldly aspirations and beliefs, and they are often diverted from a realistic comprehension of the actual, physical world. Think of our far-flung network of Catholic schools (The Virgin and saints and martyrs). Think of the Mormon Church (golden plates and the angel Moroni and the Pearl of Great Price). Think of Bob Jones University, and Oral Roberts University, and Heritage Christian University. Think of the fundamentalist Christian academies springing up throughout America. Think of the effort to raise creationism to equality with Darwinian evolution in school curricula. Think of the effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to promote prayer in public schools. There are certainly schools of varying quality — some better than others — in both the religious and secular camps. But it seems undeniable that, as a general trend, what happened within Waldorf’s walls decades ago is being replayed now, in different forms, throughout the nation: Various versions of the spirit realm are exalted, while in the terrestrial realm the humane, secular center shrinks, much to our detriment.
Rudolf Steiner was both typical of messianic cult leaders and an exceptional case. He laid out a densely detailed description of a universe almost completely unknown to science, but then he insisted that this description was scientifically accurate. For those who embrace his vision, he turns the world upside-down and inside-out, creating the risk that his followers may waste their lives searching for phantasms.
Steiner wove a tapestry of preexisting spiritualistic and racialist notions interlaced with his own mystic “observations.” He said his aim was to formulate a more Christian form of Theosophy or a corrected form of Rosicrucianism. The result is a truly complex body of doctrines. Steiner spoke of Christ Jesus, astral bodies, Vulcan, karma, Atlantis, reincarnation, the Akashic record, multiple gods, Lemuria, the supersensible world, Ahriman, group souls, etheric bodies, nation souls, Lucifer... The complexity and arcane nature of his teachings persuades some that he must have had access to profound, hidden truths. One can easily feel the allure of attempting to follow him through his labyrinthine expositions. But Steiner was at best a most unreliable sage. His basic technique — adapted from Theosophy — was to ransack spiritualistic doctrines from around the world, and then to stitch them together in a more or less coherent whole. This inevitably led to contradictions, as when Steiner simultaneously embraced monotheism and polytheism. [55] Thus, many of his assertions are absurd — and some are distinctly pernicious.
Let’s back off for a moment, however, and emphasize the positive. Not all of Steiner’s teachings are self-evidently repellent. He often spoke with benevolence and optimism. He taught that human beings have great capacities and potential. Even on the subject of race, he could occasionally seem liberal-minded. He emphasized human progress, spiritual advancement, and the reconciliation of man’s inner nature with exterior universal truth. For his followers, there is a bright, persuasive appeal in his doctrines. His intricate cosmic vision, with its assurances that man is not alone and that life is not meaningless, offers a remedy for the emptiness so many individuals find at the core of existence. Steiner taught that humans once possessed the ability to participate in the spiritual realm — and he said that the power to perceive spiritual truths could be revived through Anthroposophy. This power includes the ability to communicate with departed loved ones. [56] Thus, for his adherents, Steiner held out a glorious promise: transcendent fulfillment.
Seen in its largest context, the appeal of Anthroposophy is the same as that of any spiritualistic system. All such systems attempt to address basic human longings. We all want to find meaning in life; we all want to evade death; we all want God (or the gods, or karma) to smile on us; we all wish life were more romantic, or magical, or at least satisfying; we all want surcease of sorrow. [57] Our desire for these things is so intense that most of us are strongly impelled to find a belief system that promises them. Usually people adopt whatever system their parents espouse (Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, what have you), but some shop around, shifting from one system to another, and a few wind up wandering along the pastel-shaded corridors of Anthroposophy. In any case, the intrinsic requirement for adopting spiritualistic beliefs is just that: belief, faith. [58] Nothing that Steiner or Jesus or Moses or Mary Baker Eddy or Billy Graham taught is provable or knowable in rational terms. The very existence of God is debatable. Thoughtful believers, even the most devout, must acknowledge the possibility of doctrinal error: They have their dark nights of the soul, and wrestling with their doubts leads them to reexamine — and perhaps then to reaffirm — their faith. Such deliberative, humble piety is worthy of profound respect. Danger arises, however, when faith is not leavened with humility. Unsophisticated believers — “true” believers, whose beliefs can be quite different from what other true believers truly believe — often wind up at each others’ throats: Protestants vs. Catholics, Christians vs. Jews, Hindus vs. Muslims...
Steiner claimed that his followers do not need belief — they can use the “spiritual science” of Anthroposophy to objectively investigate physical and spiritual phenomena. He taught that Anthroposophy uses the trained, clairvoyant mind in the same way that physicists, for example, use their trained biological brains and senses. But whereas physicists are restricted to that thin slice of reality called the physical universe, Anthroposophists can accurately investigate all of creation, including the spirit realm. Therefore, Anthroposophists know the truth, and potentially they can know all the truth.
The case Steiner made for his “spiritual science” is appealing. But then he unwittingly undercut it by telling some of what he knew. Here are just a few of Steiner’s “scientific” observations:
◊ Thinking does not occur in the brain, except among people who are totally materialistic: A thoroughgoing materialist is a mere “thinking automaton.” [59]
◊ The Earth does not orbit the Sun. Rather, Earth, Venus, and Mercury follow the Sun on its semi-serpentine, lemniscate-inscribing course through the heavens. (And, as I related earlier, humans have moved to various planets including Saturn and Jupiter.) [60]
◊ The British Isles, like other islands, are not anchored to the ocean floor. Instead, they float and are held in position by the influence of the stars. [61]
◊ The heart does not pump blood. Instead, it is a sense organ. [62]
It is apparent that in order to ensnare his followers, Steiner used the classic brainwashing technique of convincing them that all of their previous opinions were utterly wrong. The universe is vastly different from what they thought. To learn the truth, they had to turn to him. And when he told them a “truth” (for instance, that islands float), they had to accept it on faith.
Steiner’s appropriation of the term “science” does not mean that he had high regard for true science (physics, chemistry, astronomy...) or for the rigorous discipline of the scientific method. In fact, Anthroposophy is fundamentally antithetical to science: It attributes everything in the universe to supersensible spiritual agencies than cannot be measured or recorded, while it dismisses physical phenomena as having virtually no intrinsic value or meaning. Ponder, for instance, Steiner’s comments about the physical phenomenon of gravity. Steiner thought gravity meaningless precisely because it is phenomenological (i.e., in and of the physical realm): “It would be wonderful if you could stop speaking about gravity. You can certainly achieve speaking of it only as a phenomenon. The best would be if you considered gravity only as a word.” [63]
At my Waldorf, the study of science occurred in the context of a pervasive antiscientific bias. The shortcomings of science were conveyed to us in many ways, in discussion groups and even in what were nominally our science classes. Our physics/chemistry teacher recommended the book SCIENCE IS A SACRED COW, which aims to debunk science and the scientific method. [64] I read it and reread it. Our headmaster assigned us the book THE FAILURE OF TECHNOLOGY, which became the subject of our senior discussion group for several weeks [see addendum 6]. The book’s subtitle is “PERFECTION WITHOUT PURPOSE”; the thesis is that a technologist’s “preoccupation with facts...blocks his approach to that more spiritual wisdom which cannot be reduced to mechanics.” [65] Our discussion reiterated several lessons we had already absorbed deeply: to doubt “facts” (i.e., physical phenomena), to distrust science and its practical applications, and to seek instead “spiritual wisdom.”
All in all, science meant little to us. Mythology lay much closer to the heart of our curriculum, especially in the lower grades. And in the upper grades, “truth” tended to be a metaphysical rather than an empirical concept.
Let’s return to what Steiner knew and how his adherents have responded to his knowledge. Steiner hardly ever revealed a “truth” that caused dissension or disbelief among the ranks of Anthroposophists. Virtually every pronouncement he made seems to have been accepted. But here is an exceptional case in which he apparently went too far. In 1923, answering a question about the teaching of the French language, Steiner said:
“The use of the French language quite certainly corrupts the soul. The soul acquires nothing more than the possibility of clichés. Those who enthusiastically speak French transfer that to other languages. The French are also ruining what maintains their dead language, namely, their blood. The French are committing the terrible brutality of moving black people to Europe, but it works, in an even worse way, back on France. It has an enormous effect on the blood and the race and contributes considerably toward French decadence. The French as a race are reverting.” [66]
The Anthroposophical publishers of the volume in which these words appear were so shocked by them — especially by Steiner’s blatant racism — that they appended a lengthy apology and explanation. Their faith, in this uncommon instance, wavered, which is surely to their credit. Yet this rare wavering emphasizes Anthroposophists’ ability to accept Steiner’s other tenets, many of which are equally dubious.
For anyone who does not subscribe to Anthroposophy, Steiner’s blunders must seriously weaken the plausibility of “spiritual science.” His errors are hard to overlook or excuse. From today’s perspective, Steiner’s racism was a particularly grave error. Perhaps we might explain it away by saying that Steiner was a man of his times, sharing the prevailing views and attitudes (including prejudices) of his times. The trouble with such a defense is that it undermines the indispensable premise that Steiner, a professed clairvoyant, could see ultimate truth. The whole point of being a soothsayer, after all, is to say sooth: speak truth. Yet Steiner repeatedly failed this paramount test of his “profession.” Once the French card, and the race card, and the function-of-the-brain card, and the floating-Britain card, and the Earth-doesn’t-orbit-the-Sun card, and the like, are pulled out, the entire castle of cards threatens to come crashing down.
Some students at my Waldorf did not succumb to the school’s agenda. Those with thick skins, or high innate levels of skepticism — or who attended for only a few years — came through relatively unscathed. Other students were affected to varying degrees. Most of my schoolmates seemed to enjoy the school. It was, for many, a cozy place. Those who did not suspect covert manipulations by the faculty had no reason to rebel, beyond ordinary childhood motives. Certainly teachers at all Waldorfs must attempt to create a pleasant environment, or else their schools — dependent on voluntary enrollments — would close. Because Steiner’s Anthroposophical doctrines are usually kept in the background, different children necessarily come away with different (but almost uniformly vague) understandings of those doctrines. I’d guess that at my school, only a small but not insignificant minority of the students were essentially won over: Waldorf gave them what their souls seemed to need, and they entered into a long-term commitment. Thereafter they came back for reunions and Carol Sings and special events, they contributed to annual fund-raising appeals, and they did what they could to further the school’s mission. Some eventually became dedicated, Steiner-studying Anthroposophists.
I escaped that fate, but it was a near thing. During my eleven years at Waldorf, I stood quite close to the fire, and I was drawn to its warmth — yet I pulled back. My nearest approach to full allegiance came during the excitement and nostalgia of graduation day. On that June morning, I considered myself profoundly religious (although I could not list the Ten Commandments nor quote more than a few short Bible verses). I thrilled to the knowledge that the world is more spirit than physics, more ideal than actual. I was vain, moralistic, priggish, innocent, shy, racially bigoted, and (confusingly, for a head-honcho student) utterly lacking in self-confidence. I was judgmental yet uncertain. I had no patience with science and its shallow half-truths. I prized imagination over intellect, sensibility over sense. I was right about everything, always — don’t even ask. (Please, don’t ask.) I had only superficial knowledge of the US economy and the major political issues in the wide world — and I didn’t care. Everything that I saw outside the school seemed to be beneath me. I was directionless. I had no career ambitions, no academic focus, no marketable skills. I had precious few social skills. I longed for a beauteous, buxom Aryan mate. (Few real girls approximated my fantasy. Marilyn, where are you? I never dated much.) I half-yearned for easeful death, or better yet a crusade, or salvation. I dreamed of writing a book titled GOD that would reconcile all the world’s religions. I dreamed of becoming President of the United States. I dreamed of performing — I wasn’t sure what — something — a titanic, stupendous something. But I had no intention of lifting a finger. I was on hold, waiting... In other words, I had been brainwashed, with a thoroughness and intensity I could not fathom. (Call me the Manchurian Schoolboy.) And, I should add, I was — without quite realizing it — deeply unhappy. Thank God, I was deeply unhappy. As the realization of my dejection slowly dawned on me during the following years, I became motivated to try to comprehend my condition and then to repair it. Even so, only gradually was I able to fight my way down from the fog in which (metaphorically speaking: only a metaphor) I levitated and at long last find my footing in reality. It took me more than twenty years to fully deprogram myself.
I would not want others to undergo that long, wearisome, needless struggle. If you contemplate sending your sons or daughters to a religious school (or to a “nonsectarian” school whose true nature you question), work hard to learn precisely what the school’s curriculum and goals are. How much of the curriculum is pure memorization? Is discussion allowed? Is dissent allowed? Are prayers mandatory? What sorts of books are in (or banned from) the library? Are science courses taught straight, or with a religious bent?
If the school is a Waldorf, also ask what role myths and legends play in the curriculum. Ask who Rudolf Steiner was. Ask for his views on evolution. Ask about clairvoyance. Pass around copies of Steiner quotations that raise questions for you, then ask those questions. Try to learn how deeply committed the school is to Steiner’s doctrines. Not all Waldorfs are alike. Some may distance themselves from Steiner’s racism, for instance. The problem, however, is that Steiner’s entire system is built on his clairvoyant, mystical “insights” (which include his racist “insights”). A Waldorf school cannot wholly rid itself of mysticism unless it wholly renounces Steiner — in which case it ceases to be a real Waldorf school. Halfway measures may be possible — affirming some of Steiner’s mystical teachings while rejecting others — but mysticism would necessarily remain entrenched in the curriculum, while some of the “truths” that gave that mysticism its justification would be absent. The resulting pedagogy, tacking among an expurgated set of Steiner’s teachings, would inevitably lose much of its coherence and rationale.
Jewish parents may want to take special precautions. Think carefully about Steiner’s racism, the emphasis he placed on Jesus, and the evidently anti-Semitic comments he made, such as the following: “The Jews have a great gift for materialism, but little for recognition of the spiritual world.” [67] You also may want to investigate the debate over possible ties between some Anthroposophists and Nazis. [68]
All parents of all backgrounds who consider religious schools for their children should press persistently for honest answers about the schools’ policies and underlying theologies. If you mistrust any answers you receive, send your kids elsewhere. Their lives are in your hands.
Soon after leaving the Garden City Waldorf, I joined a small study group dedicated to investigating Steiner’s works. I didn’t stick with it long, though. I think I was still too disoriented, too unfocused. And maybe Mr. Gardner had been right: Maybe I was still too young.
Recently I picked up Steiner’s works again, and for the first time I plowed through their dense paragraphs. In my explorations, I came upon many passages that are undeniably troubling. Waldorfers who have never read these passages are usually shocked when exposed to them. Often they deny that Steiner could have said such awful things. Yet the quotations I give in this essay come from books published by Anthroposophical presses — as nearly as possible, these are words straight from Steiner’s mouth.
One roadblock interfered with my research. Finding some of Steiner’s works in English translation proved to be nearly impossible. In the end, I ordered a few untranslated books from Germany — and in them I came upon some particularly shocking statements. It is in one of these German-language texts that the following passage appears, dealing with the process by which humanity will proceed to its next evolutionary stage. The process will not be peaceful. Before humankind can make its intended progress, vigorous measures must be taken to deal with the less-evolved peoples. Racial struggle is an historical necessity. For those who remember Fascism, this will ring a few bells:
“[T]hese things cannot happen in the world without the most violent struggle. White mankind is still on the path of absorbing spirit more deeply into its essence. Yellow mankind is on the path of preserving the period when the spirit is kept away from the body, when the spirit can only be sought outside of the human-physical organization. But the result will have to be that the transition from the fifth cultural epoch to the sixth cultural epoch cannot happen differently than as a violent fight between white mankind and colored mankind in the most varied areas. And world history will consist of that which will lead to these battles between white and colored mankind until the great fight between white and colored mankind has been delivered. Future events are frequently reflected in previous events. You see, we stand before something so colossal that, if we regard it through the diverse perceptions of spiritual science, we will in the future recognize it as a necessary occurrence.” [68]
Several parts of the passage merit examination. Whites are progressing as humanity should, becoming increasingly spiritual. “Yellow” humanity is retarding human progress by preserving an earlier period, when spirit had not been absorbed. A mighty clash is inevitable: One strain of humanity or another must prevail, the white or the “colored”. (In a passage I quote, below — from another book I ordered from Germany — Steiner characterizes black as well as yellow races, again in contrast with white.) The “cultural epochs” referred to are extended time periods since the sinking of Atlantis. Steiner traced human history back to Atlantis and beyond. We currently live in the fifth epoch since Atlantis went under. Such mythology need not detain us except to note that Steiner frequently asked his followers to accept legends and speculations as firm historical facts. The essential lesson Steiner sought to convey here is that whites must prevail if humanity is to proceed to its next stage of evolution, the sixth cultural epoch. Thereafter mankind can continue its ascent through additional, ever-higher epochs.
Because I have made such a point of Steiner’s racism (a point that Anthroposophists strenuously challenge), I should stay with the topic a short while longer. Steiner taught that the external physical characteristics of the various races reflect and even cause those races’ inner qualities. Hair- and eye-color, for instance, have great significance: “If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will become increasingly dense....Blond hair actually bestows intelligence. In the case of fair people, less nourishment is driven into the eyes and hair; it remains instead in the brain and endows it with intelligence. Brown- and dark-haired people drive the substances into their eyes and hair that the fair people retain in their brains.” [69] Racial differences, according to Steiner, are much more than skin deep. He taught that whites are humanity’s vanguard: “On one side we find the black race, which is earthly at most. If it moves to the West, it becomes extinct. We also have the yellow race, which is in the middle between earth and the cosmos. If it moves to the East, it becomes brown, attaches itself too much to the cosmos, and becomes extinct. The white race is the future, the race that is creating spirit.” [70] (As for races moving and therefore becoming extinct: Steiner had an orderly mind, and his universe was orderly. Everything physical is a manifestation of something supersensory. Changes in any realm reverberate in the others, and changes that originate in error can have severe consequences.)
Steiner had dark hair and dark eyes, but in his case this was unimportant, because he relied on his organs of clairvoyance rather than on the synapses of a flesh-and-blood brain. He claimed he could clairvoyantly perceive innumerable spirits of all types and descriptions, vast numbers of spiritual “beings” and “facts” and “figures” scattered throughout the heavens and the Earth. When he spoke of such things and left aside questions of superior/inferior human types, his preachments could be inoffensive, even entertaining. Here is a particularly vivid account of clairvoyance at work. The passage shows the rhetorical skill that occasionally enlivened Steiner’s discourses. Although he offers no evidence for any of his assertions, he provides a detailed description and an almost cinematic narrative. Logicians would not be swayed, but some other individuals apparently find such passages persuasive.
“If the person devoting himself to the color which covers these physically dense walls were one who had made certain occult progress, it would come about that after a period of this complete devotion the walls would disappear from his clairvoyant vision; the consciousness that the walls shut off the outer world would vanish. Now, what appears first is not merely that he sees the neighboring houses outside, that the walls become like glass, but in the sphere which opens up there is a world of purely spiritual phenomena; spiritual facts and spiritual figures become visible. We need only reflect that behind everything around us physically there are spiritual beings and facts. That which lies at the foundation of the physical objects outside becomes in a certain way visible....The worlds which surround us spiritually are of many kinds, many different kinds of elementary beings are around us. These are not enclosed in boxes or in such a state that they live in various houses. The law of impenetrability applies only to the physical world....But they cannot all be seen in the same way; according to the capacity of clairvoyant vision, there may be visible and invisible beings in the same space. What spiritual beings become visible in any particular instance depends on the colour to which we devote ourselves. In a red room, other beings become visible than in a blue room....” [71]
Clairvoyance was the greatest gift Steiner claimed, setting him apart as an oracle. His other claimed skills were less exclusive. For instance, he said he frequently rose above the physical plain, returning to the spirit realm to he renew his powers. But he said that almost everyone possesses this capacity. To understand what he meant, we need to fill in some background. As I mentioned earlier, Steiner taught that true humans manifest several nonphysical bodies: an “etheric” body (a set of life forces), an “astral” body (higher spirit/soul forces), and an “I” (a spark of divine selfhood or ego that separates true humans from animals and subhumans). [72] Steiner and all other true humans can revisit the spirit realm because two components of our fourfold nature are able to slip the bonds of earthly existence. The physical body is trapped in the physical realm, and the etheric body stays with the physical body; but the astral body and the “I” are not similarly restricted. Here is one of Steiner’s descriptions of the excursions made by astral bodies:
“During sleep our astral bodies return to the harmony of the universe again. When we awaken, we bring enough strength with us out of the cosmic harmony into our bodies so that we can go without being in that state for a while. The astral body returns home during sleep and brings renewed forces back into our life when we awaken....[O]ur astral bodies are part of a world that embraces additional heavenly bodies. During sleep, therefore, we enter a world that encompasses other worlds in addition to our Earth.” [73]
Note that Steiner is talking about a “real” event, not a dream: “As you know, when we are asleep we are outside the physical and ether bodies with our astral body and ego. The physical and ether body are lying on the couch; with our astral body and ego we are outside them.” [74]
Steiner could pierce the mysteries of the universe, which meant that virtually all knowledge was directly accessible to him. He impressed his listeners, for instance, by appearing to know everything that could possibly be known about Jesus, including much information that is not found in the Bible. Steiner said he possessed this information because he had access to the Akashic record — a supersensible storehouse, imprinted on astral light, of all events, knowledge, memories, feelings, etc., since the beginning of the universe. [75] Various occult traditions refer to the Akashic record (or records: sometimes they are said to be multiple). Individuals aside from Steiner who claim to have consulted the record(s) include Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce. [76] As you might expect, information gleaned from astral light contains many surprises. Steiner’s special knowledge of Jesus, for instance, is surprisingly intertwined with paganism and magic:
“It is...important that the deeds of Christ Jesus are always seen in relation to the physical sun, which is the external expression of the spiritual world that is received at the point where Christ’s physical body is walking around. When Christ Jesus heals, for instance, it is the sun force that heals. However, the sun must be in the right place in the heavens: ‘That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons.’ It is important to indicate that this healing power can flow down only when the external sun has set but still works spiritually.” [77]
Steiner’s utterances can have the effect of phantasmagoria: Our minds make strange leaps — appearances shift and shatter — normal reality fades away. But isn’t that the aim? For many deeply religious people — certainly including Steiner and his devotees — the objective physical universe is virtually without substance, while the invisible spirit realm (which may just possibly be a fantasy) is their idea of reality. Pause for a moment and contemplate what can happen to the minds of young children when they are educated by adults who distrust objective reality and scientific truth. Suggesting to kids that the real is unreal and the unreal is real is potentially a severe form of psychological abuse. It can unfit children for real life, making them dissatisfied with everything that is possible in the real world, while encouraging them to form impossible yearnings for the otherworldly.
Steiner claimed that his lectures and books were based on his direct personal clairvoyant observations. [78] Certainly he was the author of some of his doctrines. But in fact much of his lore is derivative. He reworked Theosophy, Rosicrucianism, myths, fables, fairy tales — Anthroposophy is largely a systematized compendium of dubious revelations and supernatural conjectures gleaned from around the world. [79] Steiner was particularly influenced by Madame Helena Blavatsky (1831-91), a Russian mystic who was a cofounder of the Theosophical Society. The doctrines of Theosophy are a blend of Eastern and Western religious thought, a blend that found its way into Steiner’s teachings. Even after breaking away from Theosophy, Steiner continued to express his admiration for Blavatsky and much of her theology: “One thing can be said of the writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Only one who does not understand them can underestimate them. Anyone who finds the key to what is great in these works will come to admire her more and more.” [80] Blavatsky claimed to possess psychic powers, which she frequently demonstrated. Eventually, she was attacked in the press for rigging these demonstrations. Following an investigation, in 1885 the London Society for Psychical Research pronounced her a fraud. [81]
Like Theosophy, Anthroposophy incorporates many older forms of mysticism. The creatures described in these mythologies range from the most august to the most base. A single example should be sufficient: goblins:
“There are beings that can be seen with clairvoyant vision at many spots in the depths of the earth, especially places little touched by living growths, places, for instance, in a mine which have always been of a mineral nature. If you dig into the metallic or stony ground you find beings which manifest at first in remarkable fashion — it is as if something were to scatter us. They seem able to crouch close together in vast numbers, and when the earth is laid open they appear to burst asunder...The enlightened man knows nothing of them. People, however, who have preserved a certain nature-sense, i.e. the old clairvoyant forces which everyone once possessed...could tell you all sorts of things about such beings. Many names have been given to them, such as goblins, gnomes and so forth...Their nature prompts them to play all sorts of tricks on man....” [82]
In this passage, as in so many others, Steiner asks us to believe in folk tales, legends, or myths. If you want to simplify the process of evaluating Steiner and his works, you’ll go far by asking yourself a simple question: Can you believe in goblins? This is what Steiner asks of you, to accept as truth what the rational mind dismisses as fantasy, to accept the implausible as solid scientific fact.
For us at the Garden City Waldorf, Anthroposophy’s devotion to pseudo-information meant that the line between verifiable truth and woolly speculation became blurred. Our school’s small library found space in its scanty collection for books on flying saucers, dragons, yetis, and other undocumented phenomena, generally presented as if they were not merely plausible but almost certainly true. One of our science teachers directed me to ON THE TRACK OF UNKNOWN ANIMALS by crypto-zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans. The author argues that numerous fabulous beasts — including various types of ape men — may well roam the Earth. Heuvelmans chastises scientists for failing to credit anecdotal reports about such creatures. [83] To my young mind — and presumably the minds of other students — such books were persuasive. And for at least some of us, they reinforced the effect created by all the myths we heard and studied in class: We were led farther and farther from a rational appreciation of reality.
VII. Compassion and Its Absence
Rudolf Steiner was merely one of the innumerable false prophets humanity has followed down through the ages. Perhaps there are glimmerings of truth to be found amidst all the dross in his doctrines. But the glimmerings are hard to spot. Much of what Steiner taught seems to rank among the most far-fetched dogmas that humans have convinced themselves to swallow — and we’ve swallowed a lot: Ancestor-worship. Moon-worship. Polytheism. Monotheism. Pantheism. Shamanism. Christian Science. Papal infallibility. Animism. Voodoo. Creeds requiring animal sacrifices. Creeds requiring human sacrifices. Worship of rain gods, war gods, Zeus, wind gods, thunder gods, Vishnu, Anubis, gods of fertility, gods of the hearth, Moloch, Ahura Mazda, gods of the sea, sun gods, muses, Fates, Yahweh... All of which raises a question. Just how sapient have we Homo sapiens shown ourselves to be?
By this stage, I have either convinced you or offended you. My hope is that I’ve rattled you, and my regret is that I did not speak up sooner: “Here’s what happens when we twist our children’s spirits: Here’s the boy I was, Exhibit A.” But I couldn’t speak until I had finished my deprogramming — until then, I had nothing clear-eyed or clear-minded to say. I was delayed by another consideration, also. As I’ve mentioned, my mother was Mr. Gardner’s secretary. Until the moment of her death, she believed he was a great man, and she genuinely believed that she had done the right thing in sending all three of her children to the Waldorf School. I could not have published this essay during her lifetime could not have inflicted such a wound. But she is dead now, and I hope she is at peace — and now I can speak truth.
Cicero once said he wondered why two soothsayers meeting in the street didn’t burst out laughing. [84] But mystics usually have their act down too well for that. And some, I’m sure, truly believe their own pronouncements. Maybe Steiner believed every word he uttered. If so, all the worse, for if he wasn’t a charlatan, then he was almost certainly a lunatic. We don’t need to split hairs, though. Whether or not he was clinically sane, it is frightening that anyone ever took him seriously, much less founded schools devoted to his doctrines. As I’ve suggested, part of the explanation must surely be that many of Steiner’s followers have read only a small — perhaps expurgated — selection of his works. They don’t know their man. But other, more committed followers surely have a profound motive: They hope to obtain the spiritual rewards Steiner promised. This is, of course, understandable — salvation is a nearly universal human desire. For this reason alone, prophets have rarely lacked audiences. Disciples cluster around oracles — including the ones who want to hasten the Apocalypse. We are drawn to the professed certainty of those who claim to know God’s will. We value the supposedly empowering answers they offer us — even if, in truth, we are being led astray, step after step, doctrine after doctrine.
If you’ll excuse me, I’ll now deliver a little sermon of my own. We must find another path, one that is firmly situated in reality and human decency, not in messianic preachments. Finding it doesn’t require us to deny the existence of God nor to decry the faith of the truly, humbly devout. We could do with more true reverence in this world, not less. But I suggest that an indispensable requirement for all of us, as we try to find our way, is humility. How much do any of us truly know about anything? Scientists tell us that 96% of the observable universe consists of dark energy and dark matter — but they can’t tell what these things are. Our ignorance of the physical universe is enormous. How much less sure must we be, then, about the mysteries of any spirit realms that may exist? We all stand together near the beginning of humanity’s quest for knowledge — knowledge of ourselves, and of our world, and of such powers as may preside within or beyond the cosmos. We are far, far from any final answers. To claim certain knowledge of the “divine cosmic plan,” as Steiner did, is not only deceitful but cruel. How many lives has he damaged by shepherding his followers and students into mystical mazes in which they may become irretrievably lost? Surely what we need most, even beyond humility, is compassion for one another as fellow seekers of the truth. [85]
Allow me to end by giving an example of the failure of compassion. And once again, I’ll draw from the cult I know best. During a conference with teachers at the first Waldorf school, Steiner analyzed the case of a little girl who had learning disabilities. He explained that the teachers probably couldn’t do much for the child because she wasn’t really a human being. The Earth’s population includes many such pseudo-humans, he said:
“Dr. Steiner: Such cases are increasing in which children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings in relation to their highest I [the highest of the nonphysical bodies]; instead, they are filled with beings that do not belong to the human class. Quite a number of people have been born since the [1890s] without an I, that is, they are not reincarnated, but are human forms filled with a sort of natural demon....
“A teacher: How is that possible?
“Dr. Steiner: Cosmic error is certainly not impossible...There are...generations in which individuals have no desire to come into earthly existence...In such cases, other beings that are not quite suited step in...they are actually not human beings, but have only a human form....
“It is also possible for something like an automaton could occur....
“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. Nevertheless, these are facts.” [86]
These comments apparently did not outrage the teachers at the meeting any more than they did the publishers of the two-volume set in which I found them. This is the same set containing Steiner’s notorious remarks about the “terrible brutality” being committed by the French. But whereas the publishers felt compelled to apologize for Steiner’s French-bashing and racism, they inserted no apology or explanation concerning Steiner’s description of fake human beings who are actually robots or demons in disguise. The clear reason is that discriminating between upwardly evolving humans and all the lesser sorts — the “colored” mankind against whom whites may be doomed to fight, and humans who aren’t human (including those who are automatons), and demons — is basic to the Anthroposophical world view.
Steiner presumably meant what he said. Still, after explaining that “[A] number of people are going around who...have become something that is not human, but instead are demons in human form” [87] he caught himself up and cautioned his teachers not to spread word of this insight. “We do not want to shout that to the world....We do not want to shout such things....” [88] Steiner clearly knew that denying the humanity of others (and remember, his comments arose from the discussion of an innocent little girl) is abhorrent. So, for perhaps the only time in his life, he imparted good advice to his followers: Mum’s the word. Don’t reveal what we say or think here — people will be appalled. Zip your lips.
By and large, his adherents have done just that.
[1] Garry Wills, “The Day the Enlightenment Went Out,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, Nov. 4, 2004, p. 25.
Wills’ books include WHAT JESUS MEANT, WHAT PAUL MEANT, WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, and SAINT AUGUSTINE.
See endnote 82 for an indication of Steiner’s attitude toward enlightenment.
[2] In this essay, when I refer to “Waldorf,” I usually mean the school I attended. When I use such terms as “Waldorfs” or “Waldorf schools,” I’m referring to the entire set of Steiner-inspired schools, whatever their individual names may be and however strictly they adhere to Steiner’s doctrines. Finally, when I refer to “Waldorfers,” I’m referring to teachers and students at these various schools, especially those who are most attuned to Rudolf Steiner’s teachings (i.e., those who are Anthroposophists or who feel deep affinities with the schools’ curriculums and methods). I have attempted to make my meaning clear in each instance.
To confirm that many Waldorf schools today function much as my Waldorf did, see the articles and archives at waldorfcritics.org/ and the ongoing discussion at groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/.
I should add that another institution comes into my story. The Myrin Institute for Adult Education was situated near the Waldorf School and was associated with it. Several of the individuals who helped establish Waldorf [www.waldorfgarden.org/our school/school history] were also important figures at the Institute. Echoing Rudolf Steiner’s advocacy of “spiritual science,” the Institute stated its objective as “contributing toward the reintegration of scientific and spiritual world concepts.” [Franz E. Winkler, THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY ON EDUCATION (New York: The Myrin Institute, Inc., 1955), p. 3.] The Institute held seminars and published booklets arising from these events. In this essay, I quote from various publications of The Myrin Institute, including some that were written by individuals whom I knew. [See the disclosure statement at the end of these endnotes.] I was not privy to any of these booklets when I was a student at Waldorf, but recently I have found them informative.
[3] John T. McQuiston, “’Psychic’ Ex-Student’s Influence Shakes Waldorf School,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, Feb. 18, 1979, p. 48.
A separate account, written by an individual who reports being a teacher at the school during the scandal, includes the following:
“The story of the collapse [sic] of the Garden City Waldorf School is very complex....
“In his twenty years as Faculty Chairman, John Gardner had carefully crafted a strong, clear [curricular] form based on the pedagogical teachings of Rudolf Steiner, but in recent years Dr. Gardner had begun to feel the limitations of the form he had created and felt that teachers needed to be guided more by the spirit instead of the outer forms, so he started encouraging some of the teachers to use their own spiritual perceptions in their educational approach....
“[Following a boycott by some parents and an emergency meeting of faculty]...we learned that everyone strongly aligned with the ‘spirit-led’ group had either been fired or resigned....In the end, it was simply a matter of finances...the only thing that keeps a school alive is the tuition paid by the parents....About a dozen teachers were fired....” [Lawrence Williams, Ed.D., THE OAK MEADOW TRILOGY (Oak Meadow, Inc., 1997) — see www.oakmeadow.com/resources.]
The conclusion that “it was simply a matter of finances” suggests a strong reason for Waldorf schools to keep their Anthroposophical beliefs under wraps: They need to attract tuition-paying families, a task that would be greatly complicated by public professions of occult doctrines. Elsewhere in this essay, I suggest additional reasons for secrecy at Waldorfs.
Understandably, the official history for my Waldorf school, posted on the school’s Web site (www.waldorfgarden.org), does not mention the scandal.
Among the faculty members who left Waldorf after the scandal was my class’s homeroom advisor during grades 9 - 12. After my class graduated, he became high school principal at Waldorf; THE NEW YORK TIMES referred to him as such. For more about the teachers who shepherded my class through the school, see endnotes 54 and 56.
[4] The mission statement is reasonably forthright, although it leaves crucial terms undefined and fundamental questions unanswered. You can find it at www.waldorfgarden.org, at the bottom of the home page. (As of mid-February, 2008, the mission statement remains unchanged.)
I do not know how much or how little the school has changed since I graduated. [See endnotes 35 and 52.] In this essay, I attempt to explain what the Garden City Waldorf was in my day and what it did to its students. Others, if they like, may describe the school as it is today. My purpose is to discuss the potential lifelong consequences of attending a Waldorf school where at least some of the leading faculty members take Steiner’s doctrines as gospel.
Today, thanks to the Internet and other forms of mass communications, information on all subjects is more generally available than it once was. Perhaps for this reason, various Waldorf schools now include references to Rudolf Steiner and even Anthroposophy in their promotional materials. In doing so, they implicitly acknowledge the Anthroposophical basis of Waldorf education. But anything like full disclosure of Steiner’s doctrines remains extremely rare. (I don’t want to impugn anyone’s motives. It is possible — indeed, I hope it is true — that many Waldorf teachers today have not made a deep study of Steiner’s doctrines. If so, they may not recognize what their educational programs are ultimately intended to accomplish. Conceivably, they might be persuaded to change course.) You can find links to many Waldorf Web sites at waldorfworld.net.
[5] www.awsna.org, Frequently Asked Questions, Are Waldorf Schools Religious? [I last checked this on Oct. 28, 2006.]
[6] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 20.
Throughout this essay, I quote Steiner as accurately as possible. He altered his views and terminology to some degree over time. To avoid unnecessarily complicating matters, I refrain from trying to trace such changes, which to non-Anthroposophists would generally seem minor. Steiner made each of the remarks I quote, and subsequent modifications of his teachings did not change the core of his mysticism nor the fundamental character of his teachings.
Because Steiner was long-winded, I have trimmed some of his statements. But I have not altered his meaning in any instance. You can check by going to the original texts, all of which are detailed here.
Please also note: In this and other essays, I hop back and forth between past tense and present tense. This is intentional. Steiner is dead, but he and his doctrines live on in Waldorf schools. Using only the past tense would diminish the continuing threat Steiner poses to children who attend Waldorf schools. We must not fall into the comforting delusion that Steiner’s harmful effects are over and done with.
[7] Ibid., p. 38.
[8] Ibid., p. 38. The “verse” I quote is also included in PRAYERS FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), pp. 44-45.
[9] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 38, footnote 1.
[10] ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION (Detroit: MacMillan Reference, 2005), pp. 392-394.
[11] www.awsna.org, Frequently Asked Questions, What is Waldorf education? [I last checked this on Oct. 22, 2006.]
My former headmaster occasionally gave somewhat less guarded descriptions of the work done by teachers at Waldorf schools. For example: “[T]o develop in their students...the intuitive faculties, alongside and as a balance for the intellectual. This is being done through the new art of education [created] by Rudolf Steiner, and drawn upon since by Waldorf schools throughout the world....” [Sylvester M. Morley, CAN THE RED MAN HELP THE WHITE MAN? (New York: The Myrin Institute Inc., 1970), addendum by John Fentress Gardner, p. 115.] Remember the term “intuitive faculties” when pondering Steiner’s doctrines on imagination, cognition during sleep and dreaming, clairvoyance, etc. These intertwined alternatives to rational thought are integral to the Anthroposophical faith. (A small anecdote: One year — I’ve forgotten the grade level — we made clay pots, and we were instructed to decorate them with American Indian symbols. We had not been taught such symbols, so a teacher was amazed that I covered my pot with completely authentic Indian markings. She told me I had great powers of intuition. In fact, I had learned the symbols while studying my Cub Scout handbook.)
A concise explanation of what Waldorfers mean by “the heart and the hands, as well as the head” is the following:
“Steiner viewed human beings as consisting of three spheres of activity — the head, the heart, and the will — that manifest through thoughts, feelings and physical actions. To educate children to be complete and balanced human beings, we must attend to the needs of all three aspects of a child’s being. From the Waldorf perspective, attaining knowledge is one purpose of the learning process, but just as important — and perhaps even more important — is to educate the heart and the will of the child, so that knowledge is joined with reverence and action.” [Lawrence Williams, Ed.D., OAK MEADOW AND WALDORF — see oakmeadow.com/resources.]
Note that at Waldorfs, educating hearts and wills is at least as important as — and may be “even more important” than — imparting knowledge. This deviates significantly from a conventional definition of education.
Dr. Williams is a Waldorf educator. [See endnote 3.]
[12] Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (London & New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1944), p. 96.
[13] Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE (Foundations of Waldorf Education, 1) (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 1996), pp. 142-145.
[14] Ibid., p. 67.
[15] Ibid., p. 118.
[16] KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, p. 28.
[17] A.C. Harwood, PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL (New York: The Myrin Institute Inc., 1956), p. 15.
A.C. Harwood had a long career as a Waldorf educator and lecturer. He died in 1975.
[18] 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.
[19] THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, pp. 33-34.
I do not know how many of our teachers had studied Steiner, nor how many of his books they had read. Far fewer of his books were available in English translation, back then, but at least some had been available for decades. For example, ESSENTIALS OF EDUCATION, containing lectures about the underlying principles of Waldorf education, had been in circulation in the USA — in English translation — since 1926. Other Steiner titles had been published here in the following years.
Then, too, a number of our teachers were fluent in German. (Indeed, a surprising number of people associated with the school had German surnames. For some, German was their native tongue.) Devoted Anthroposophists who read Steiner in German would almost certainly have told their friends and colleagues what they had learned.
[20] Ibid., p. 39.
[21] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 55.
There are several interesting points about this passage. It clearly states that the Waldorf School has a religious mission. It also indicates that the religion in Waldorf is unusual by Western standards. Steiner does not refer to God, but to the “gods.” What gods? How many are there? What are their intentions? How does Steiner know? What is the divine cosmic plan?
I’ll address one of these puzzles now and leave the others to sort themselves out as we proceed. On the matter of “gods”: Steiner taught that the beings of the spiritual realm are arranged in various hierarchies. Some high-ranking beings may be referred to as gods, although the Godhead of the Holy Trinity stands highest. [See Rudolf Steiner, THE SPIRITUAL HIERARCHIES AND THE PHYSICAL WORLD: REALITY AND ILLUSION (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1996.)]
Set aside the question of Atlantis (“the Atlantean flood”) for the moment. Note that the older racial forms preserved by Lucifer and Ahriman would necessarily be less evolved and hence inferior to newer forms. Anthroposophists often argue that Steiner was not a racist. Yet making distinctions between races — and placing whites at the top of a racial hierarchy — are recurrent themes in his work. In Steiner’s view, the simultaneous existence of multiple races is, in itself, wrong. Correcting this “error” means removing inferior racial strains. “A race or nation stands so much the higher, the more perfectly its members express the pure, ideal human type...The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever higher national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation [leading to] an ideal future.” [46] Attaining a “pure, ideal human type” may or may not be desirable goal. Racial divisions would end if we all became alike — but this vision certainly runs contrary to the current ideals of diversity, multiculturalism, and mutual respect.
[22] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 115.
There is an apparent contradiction between the goal stated here (“to tear the spirit and soul from the physical body”) and the goal referred to earlier (“to bring the soul-spirit into harmony with the temporal body”). But the earlier goal applies to young children who are being ushered into the world. The larger goal of Anthroposophy as a whole applies to all of humankind and, in “Waldorf pedagogy,” it applies to older children: turning them toward “spiritual activity.” Complete fulfillment of this larger goal will take many cycles of reincarnation during which human evolution will proceed.
[23] Ibid., p. 46.
[24] Ibid., p. 184.
[25] Rudolf Steiner, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. xii, introduction by Clopper Almon.
(Clopper Almon was a cofounder of the Rudolf Steiner Institute, which offers summer classes and programs — see www.steinerinstitute.org.)
[26] Ibid., p. 393.
Just as the stars and sun have power, so does the moon. Indeed, the moon is essential in reuniting the component parts of human beings after sleep, enabling human souls to return from the spiritual worlds.
“It is above all the moon forces that connect man’s astral and ego organization with his physical and etheric organisms.
“Every night, when out of the spiritual world the soul desires to re-enter its physical and etheric bodies, it must place itself within the stream of the moon forces. It is of no concern here — that will be obvious to you — whether it be a new or full moon. For even when, as new moon, the moon is not visible to the senses, those forces are nevertheless active throughout the cosmos that bring the soul back into the etheric and physical bodies from the spiritual worlds.” [Rudolf Steiner, PHILOSOPHY, COSMOLOGY, AND RELIGION (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1984), p. 83.]
The moon forces thus have profound effects upon human beings, including “evil and aberrant” humans. When the soul returns from the “spiritual worlds,” it brings effects of cosmic harmony, which strengthen and revivify. Learning to employ such forces is one of the capacities “the good portion of humankind” will develop as its evolution proceeds.
[27] In sensitizing a child to the supernatural, Waldorf teachers are at least partially trying to preserve what Anthroposophists say is the child’s innate connection to the spirit realm. I quoted a portion of the following passage earlier; here is a more extensive excerpt:
“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. This is...the world of creative archetypes and spiritual hierarchies.
“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.
“...In a Waldorf school, therefore, one of the tasks of the teachers is to keep the children young.” [PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL, pp. 15-16.]
Think about the implications of keeping children young as opposed to helping them to mature, especially mentally. [See endnote 42.]
[28] I don’t fully trust my memory to resurrect the precise words of the prayers we recited. As I recall, the teachers would lead the prayers and we would follow along. Our brains didn’t need to be much engaged. But the subliminal effect of praying, and the tone it set for the day, were powerful.
After checking various sources, I can report a consensus that a “verse” written by Steiner and beginning “The Sun with loving light...” was/is used in the lower grades at typical Waldorfs [see endnote 8]. The sources are also in general agreement that the following “verse” written by Steiner was/is often used in higher grades. (There are slight differences in some lines as quoted by the various sources. I point out a few of these discrepancies below. For Steiner’s original wording, see PRAYERS FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN, pp. 46-47. Note that Steiner’s original version of this “verse” shuns the circumlocutions “World Creator” and “Creator Spirit”: The word quoted by the Rudolf Steiner Press in both instances is “God” — or in the original German, “Gottesgeist,” the spirit of God.)
I look into the world in which the sun is shining,
In which the stars are sparkling,
In which the stones repose,
Where living plants are growing,
Where animals live in feeling.
Where the soul with spirit power
Gives strength unto my limbs.
[One source gives the former two lines as
“Where man within the soul
Gives dwelling to the spirit.”]
I look into the soul that lives within my being.
God’s spirit lives and weaves
[One source says instead
“The World Creator weaves”]
In sunlight and in soul-light,
In cosmic space without,
In depths of soul within.
To Thee, Creator Spirit, I turn myself
[One source gives this line as
“To Thee oh spirit of God, I want to turn myself”]
To ask that strength and blessing,
For learning and for working,
May ever grow within me.
[See 1) www.mothering.com/discussions/archive/index.php/t-213635.html
2) www.openwaldorf.com/anthroposophy.html
3) www.waldorfcritics.org/active/archives/WCA0212.1.html
4) www.highmowing.org/the_experience/student_handbook/morning_verse/
5) Todd Oppenheimer, “Schooling the Imagination,” THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Sept. 1999, offprint distributed by the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, p. 7. (“A Sense of Ethics,” THE ATLANTIC ONLINE, cited earlier, originates in Oppenheimer’s essay.)]
[29] Concerning the significance of myths, Steiner said this, for example: “I have demonstrated to you the connection between a myth such as the Baldur myth and great all-encompassing manifestations of human evolution. [paragraph break] Our scientific simpletons who conduct research into myths and legends can go no further than to maintain that they are an expression of creative folk imagination. In reality, however, they encompass deeply significant truths which are revealed particularly through the fact that they are truly worked out down to the last detail.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE KARMA OF UNTRUTHFULNESS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 276.] Note that Steiner extends his assertion beyond myths to legends (he said much the same about fairy tales, as well). Note also his explicit opposition to the findings of science (although in this instance his definition of “science” seems awfully elastic). Another example: “We must not look merely for astronomical facts in such a myth as the myth of Osiris, but we must see in it the result of the deep clairvoyant insight of the wise priests of ancient Egypt. They embodied in this myth what they knew concerning the evolution of earth and man. [paragraph break] Actual facts concerning the higher Spiritual Worlds lie at the foundation of all myths....” [Rudolf Steiner, UNIVERSE EARTH AND MAN IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO EGYPTIAN MYTHS AND MODERN CIVILIZATION (Kessinger Publishing, 2003), p. 94.] Note that Steiner here extends his claims to “all myths.” Note also his endorsement of clairvoyance.
A widely published Anthroposophist gives this sequence for the teaching of myths, etc., in Waldorf schools: Kindergarten and first grade, fairy tales; second grade, legends; fourth and fifth grades, Norse and Greek myths; thereafter, Indian, Persian, and Egyptian myths. [Roy Wilkinson, THE SPIRITUAL BASIS OF STEINER EDUCATION (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996), p. 87.] Old Testament stories are told in third grade [Ibid., p. 63]. He prescribes much the same order in TEACHING ENGLISH (Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1976, reprinted 1997) — see my essay, “Oh My Word.” Essentially the same order is prescribed another Anthroposophist, with some interesting additional notes: first grade, fairy tales — “History is not a separate subject”; second grade, legends and stories about saints — “History is not a separate subject”; third grade, Old Testament stories — “History is not a separate subject”; fourth grade, Norse myths — history is finally established as a subject separate from fairy tales, legends, and myths; fifth grade, ancient history, including the myths of India, Persia, Egypt, Babylonia, and Greece — history and myths seem to overlap again here. [Eugene Schwartz, WALDORF EDUCATION (Xlibris Corporation, 2000), pp. 75-76.] Think of the confusion that can arise in young minds when factual history is blurred with fabulous tales — or, to put this more strongly, when fabulous tales are presented as fact.
An aside: Franz E. Winkler, MD, was a presiding Anthroposophical presence at my Waldorf school. In 1960, he published a well-reviewed book, MAN, THE BRIDGE BETWEEN TWO WORLDS (Harper & Row). It is essentially a disguised presentation of Anthroposophical dogma. At one point, Winkler discusses fairy tales. His comments bear on several subjects I have discussed here. “When we tell a fairy tale to a child, we must never forget that it deals primarily with man’s inner life, his soul life. Its characters represent psychological qualities rather than people of flesh and blood. Its kingdoms are not of this world; they symbolize the vast, partly hidden realms of the human soul...fairy tales reveal the most intimate secrets of the human soul due to a knowledge which is not analytical but creative, and capable of speaking directly to a child’s innate understanding. [paragraph break] If critics of folklore would only accept the obvious — namely, that the evil witch and the magician represent greed and cruelty — they would be less shocked by the punishment dealt out to them. For in the crucial struggle within the human soul there is no room for leniency toward evil.” [pp. 206-207] What do we find in these sentences? ◊ Winkler asserts that fairy tales reveal deep truths about the human soul’s “most intimate secrets.” ◊ “Psychological” is one of the words Winkler used to disguise his Anthroposophical convictions. As should be obvious, he was actually writing about spiritual matters, not psychological ones: “man’s inner life, his soul life...the vast...realms of the human soul...the most intimate secrets of the human soul....” ◊ Waldorfs encourage a form of “thought” that is irrational, emotional, fanciful, rather than logical or (using Winkler’s word) “analytical.” Waldorf-style thought is often referred to as intuition or imagination (which are often code for clairvoyance). Here, Winkler endorses Waldorf-think. [See endnote 42.] ◊ Anthroposophists believe that children (who have lived many previous lives) arrive at birth with innate knowledge of the spirit realms. (See my essay, “Thinking Cap.”) Winkler endorses these views. ◊ Rudolf Steiner often described mankind’s story as a long battle between good and evil. Much of the evil he deplored resides in the human soul — or at least in the souls of people who are not really human, or who are robotic, or who belong to inferior races, or who are possessed by demons... Thus, he advocated relentlessness in punishing wrongdoing at Waldorf schools, because giving in would weaken the authority of teachers who are doing the “gods’” work (e.g., “We may never place ourselves in a situation where we may have to relent in a disciplinary decision...With punishment, we cannot relent.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 109].) Here, Winkler supports exposing children to visions of relentless, severe punishment.
In the cause of full disclosure, I should state that I was acquainted with Franz Winkler. He was one of my doctors. My parents sent me to regular MDs for annual checkups and for medications when needed. But they also sent me to Dr. Winkler, from whom I received few nostrums except herbs. Instead, Dr. Winkler prescribed mental exercises such as visualizing a pencil in complete detail and then visualizing all the steps in its manufacture. This is the sort of exercise Steiner prescribes in such books as KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944) — steps intended to provide complete conscious control of the mind, leading — according to Steiner — to both physical health and clairvoyance. I can’t say what, if anything, the herbs did for me, but I never developed psychic powers. I wasn’t explicitly told that I should even try. (This raises the possibility that I now criticize Anthroposophy in order to avenge that faith’s failure to make me clairvoyant. But the truth is that I never sought clairvoyance. I graduated from a Waldorf school despising physical reality and longing for transcendent deliverance, but I never imagined that second sight, ESP, or any other form of hocus-pocus was the route to salvation. Critics of my own work might flip this around to claim that I oppose Anthroposophy because my personal failings prevent me from exercising clairvoyance and thus seeing the beautiful truths of Steiner’s doctrines. Like everyone else, I have my shortcomings, but they are irrelevant to this discussion. Clairvoyance is a fantasy. People who claim clairvoyant powers are either fooling themselves or fooling us, or both.) [See also endnotes 2, 30, 42, 54, 59, 68, 79, 82, and 85.]
[30] At Waldorf, we often employed wet-on-wet watercoloring (wet brushes spreading watery paint over wet paper), a technique that effectively prevents a young child from creating recognizable images of the real world. Instead, as elementary school students, my classmates and I produced colorful but blurred pictures that corresponded nicely to Steiner’s description of the spirit realm: rich in color but devoid of harsh lines and clear-cut forms:
“You see, when the soul arrives on earth in order to enter its body, it has come down from spirit-soul worlds in which there are no spatial forms. Thus the soul knows spatial forms only after its bodily experience, only while the aftereffects of space still linger on.
“But though the world from which the soul descends has no spatial forms or lines, it does have color intensities, color qualities. Which is to say that the world man inhabits between death and a new birth (and which I have frequently and recently described) is a soul-permeated, spirit-permeated world of light, of color, of tone; a world of qualities not quantities; a world of intensities rather than extensions.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE ARTS AND THEIR MISSION, Lectures from 1923. New York: (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1964), p. 23.]
Steiner taught that the various art forms have metaphysical effects — which is a major reason that students at Waldorfs paint and sculpt and make music, and so forth, as much as they do. Thus, the paints we used in our watercoloring were, from an Anthroposophical perspective, magical: Their hues provided entree into the spirit realm. If we would but open our souls — as through painting or music — we could begin to participate in an interchange between the physical and spiritual worlds:
“We have seen that colours and musical notes are windows through which we can ascend spiritually into the spiritual world, but life also brings us windows through which the spiritual enters our physical world....If we fail to perceive the fact that spirit descends to us through such windows, it is like someone who cannot read opening a beautiful book. He has the same thing in front of him as someone who can read, but if he cannot read he sees unintelligible scribbles....A person who cannot read world phenomena is like a cosmic illiterate where these phenomena are concerned....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 (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996), pp. 111-112.]
(My old Waldorf school put up a newly designed Web site around the beginning of 2008. The home page shows three watercolor paintings. Two are reminiscent of paintings my classmates and I produced, although they are sharper and better defined than our work in the lower grades. One is a misty landscape seen at sunrise or sunset — apparently a wet-on-wet painting, but with enough control exerted to create a recognizable scene. The second, suggestive of mystic beliefs, is a rainbow mandala. The third painting, a realistic representation of a bridge spanning a river, is less like work we created, at least until we were well along in middle school. http://www.waldorfgarden.org/index.aspx. I’m writing this note on February 13, 2008.)
[31] Of all the art forms, eurythmy has particular significance in Steiner’s system (see, e.g., ART AS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF MYSTERY WISDOM, p. 41 and p. 50). One result is that Steiner’s statements concerning eurythmy are particularly arcane. To offer a quick rundown: Eurythmy enables the physical body to make direct connection with the spiritual realm. Our physical bodies are, in a sense, merely tools that enable us to do eurythmy. Eurythmy gives us access to aspects of our previous lives, and it creates — in our limbs — effects that will carry over into our next lives. (If the following quotation remains difficult to decipher, focus on the final sentence.)
“In a certain sense, we take from earthly life only the physical medium, the actual human being who is the tool or instrument for eurythmy. But we allow this human being to make manifest what we study inwardly, what is already prepared in us as a result of previous lives; we transfer this to our limbs, which are the part of us where life after death is being shaped in advance. Eurythmy shapes and moves the human organism in a way that furnishes direct external proof of our participation in the supersensible world. In having people do eurythmy, we link them directly to the supersensible world.” [Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 247.]
[32] I shouldn’t pass too quickly over the ordinary novels we were assigned — they help illustrate how our teachers were able to inculcate Anthroposophical values in us without explicitly discussing Steiner or his doctrines. The novels we read supported, tangentially, the school’s mystical purposes. For example, we studied Willa Cather’s MY ANTONIA, which deals with Manifest Destiny as enacted by a pair of Christian families: The forces of destiny want these white people to take possession of the North American continent, and religious faith helps the families to overcome their difficulties.
We also studied CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, the story of a remorseless, apparently irredeemable murderer. Yet the novel ends in a passage to which no Anthroposophist could object: The murderer clutches a New Testament while the author projects for him “a new story, the story of the gradual rebirth of a man, the story of his gradual regeneration, of his gradual passing from one world to another....” [Fyodor Dostoyevsky, CRIME AND PUNISHMENT (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1951), p. 559.]
I do not mean, of course, that Cather and Dostoyevsky were Anthroposophists — those authors would have been shocked by such a suggestion. But our teachers selected reading matter that was, in varying degrees, congruous with Anthroposophical positions. See my accounts of other books we were recommended or assigned.
[33] “[In] the thick darkness, there are not wanting gleams of better light...miracles in the earliest antiquity...the history of Jesus Christ...prayer....” [Ralph Waldo Emerson, THE SELECTED WRITINGS OF RALPH WALDO EMERSON (New York: Random House, 1940), p. 40.)]
Emerson was a leader of the American Transcendentalists, a loosely allied group whose religious quest sought truth through subjective insight rather than through experience and rationalism. Emerson affirmed man’s ability to transcend the world described by science and thus to attain a direct personal revelation of God.
While he did not say so in class, Mr. Gardner contended that Emerson and other American Transcendentalists were spiritual antecedents of Rudolf Steiner. After resigning due to the scandal reported in the TIMES, Mr. Gardner wrote AMERICAN HERALDS OF THE SPIRIT [Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press, 1992], about the American Transcendentalists Emerson, Whitman, and Melville. The third appendix deals with “Rudolf Steiner’s extensive and immensely fruitful research.” Mr. Gardner’s thesis is that the American Transcendentalists anticipated — in somewhat vague form — spiritual doctrines that Steiner would sharpen and perfect, “lending them the clarity of something fully experienced....” (p. 298).
[34] “Paganism emblemed chiefly the Operations of Nature...Christianism emblemed the Law of Human Duty...What a progress is here....” [Thomas Carlyle, ON HEROES AND HERO-WORSHIP {published in the same volume as Ralph Waldo Emerson, REPRESENTATIVE MEN} (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, undated), p. 99. {Carlyle’s book originally appeared in 1841.}] Carlyle was known for his idiosyncratic language. “Christianism,” of course, is Christianity. “Emblemed” means “was emblematic of” or “represented.”
Influenced by German Transcendentalists, Carlyle in turn influenced Emerson. One significant difference between the two men, however, is that Carlyle was mordant and angry, whereas Emerson espoused idealistic hope. The hallmark of Carlyle’s spirituality was hatred of the Devil, not adoration of God.
Carlyle wrote that all contemporary forms of religion are outworn — that a new religious system is needed. For Waldorfers, it would be a short step to believe that the need Carlyle so presciently identified was filled by Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophy.
[35] Late in his life, Mr. Gardner wrote TWO PATHS TO THE SPIRIT: CHARISMATIC CHRISTIANITY AND ANTHROPOSOPHY (Great Barrington, MA: Golden Stone Press, 1990). On p. 8, he says “Both paths [i.e., charismatic Christianity and Anthroposophy] acknowledge Christ Jesus as the ultimate Shepherd of human souls, finding in His life the archetype of all human experience, and seeing in His Baptism, Crucifixion, and Resurrection the pivotal events of human history.” I cannot know how much Mr. Gardner’s beliefs may have changed since he ran the Waldorf School decades earlier. He writes that his interest in charismatic Christianity is newfound (pp. 1-2), but he maintains his advocacy of Anthroposophy — and he attributes the same Christian core to both “paths.” More important, the words I have just quoted and the sanctioned activities at Waldorf under Mr. Gardner are consistent with Rudolf Steiner’s version of Christianity: “What, then, is this mysterious impulse making its victorious way through the world? ...It is the Christ himself. He goes from heart to heart, from soul to soul, living and working in the world regardless of whether he is understood as evolution progresses through the centuries.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE FIFTH GOSPEL: FROM THE AKASHIC RECORD (East Sussex, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press), pp. 11-12. Steiner revered Jesus but his “Christianity” is heretical. See my essay, “Was He Christian?”] At our school, Jesus was always secretly central. Apparently the school remains devoted to Jesus — perhaps more forthrightly so — today. In 2007, the school’s institutional Christmas card bore the inscription: “In deepest Winter Night/is born the World’s Future Light.”
[36] See R. J. Reilly, ROMANTIC RELIGION (Great Barrington, MA: Lindisfarne Press, 2006). Lewis’s Christianity lies near the surface of his fiction; Tolkien’s is more hidden. For analyses of the Christian message in Tolkien’s books, see Ralph C. Woods, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO TOLKIEN (Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003) and Kurt D. Bruner & Jim Ware, FINDING GOD IN THE LORD OF THE RINGS (USA: SaltRiver, 2001). Tolkien’s enthralling Christian mythology, which does not immediately appear to be Christian, would have obvious appeal to a Christian school that wanted to appear nonsectarian. I remember Tolkien’s books being sold in our school lobby at Christmastime. (That’s where I got my copies — after which I reread THE LORD OF THE RINGS once a year until I graduated.)
Tolkien’s trilogy is better known, but Lewis’s “space trilogy” has perhaps been more influential. OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET, PERELANDRA, and THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH are, in effect, anti-science fiction. In the first two volumes, the protagonist travels to Mars and Venus; in the final volume, he concludes his adventures back on Earth (with the help of Merlin, whom he summons from suspended animation). The cosmology of the novels is a reworking of the ancient great chain of being. [See the Encyclopedia Britannica, “Great Chain of Being.”] Lewis locates various gods on the planets, where they preside in the service of God and his Son, called “Maleldil” in the trilogy. The following comes from the chapter “Descent of the Gods.” To set the scene: The “gods,” who go by the names of the planets they rule, are visiting Earth to help in the battle against demonic powers. “Saturn...stood in the Blue Room. His spirit lay upon the house, or even the whole Earth, with a cold pressure such as might flatten the very orb of Tellus [i.e., Earth] to a wafer...Suddenly a greater spirit came — one whose influence tempered and almost transformed to his own quality the skill of leaping Mercury, the clearness of Mars, the subtler vibration of Venus, and even the numbing weight of Saturn...[H]is mighty beam turned the Blue Room into a blaze of lights...For it was great Glund-Oyarsa, King of Kings...known to men in old times as Jove and under that name...confused with his Maker — so little did [man] dream by how may degrees the stair even of created being rises above him.” [C. S. Lewis, THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH (Scribner, 2003), pp. 323-324.] Jove, or Jupiter, is the highest god in Roman mythology. The Hebrew God — Lewis’s “Maker” — is Jehovah, or Jahve, or Yahweh, or Elohim. Lewis suggests that Jove and Jahve have been confused by some.
Steiner’s vision is, in various ways, similar to Lewis’s. • Both men locate “gods” on or in celestial spheres: planets, moons, and stars. Thus, Steiner places Jahve (Jehovah) on the Moon: “[The] further evolution of man has only been possible because one of the Elohim, Jahve, accompanied the separation of the Moon [from the Earth] — while the other six spirits remained in the Sun — and because Jahve cooperated with His six colleagues....” [Rudolf Steiner, THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 99. For “Elohim,” see the Encyclopedia Britannica, “Elohim” — it was a Canaanite plural noun that the Hebrews adapted as a single noun, a name for God.] • Just as Lewis distinguishes between Jove and God, Steiner finds a difference between Jehovah and God. Note that, in the passage I’ve quoted, Jahve is only one of the “Elohim” and he must cooperate with his “colleagues” to achieve his benevolent purposes. The distinction Lewis draws between gods seems valid; Steiner’s distinction is something else. • Both Steiner and Lewis posit variants of the great chain of being, beginning a short distance below mankind and stretching far, far above. According to Steiner, entities superior to humanity include zeitgeists, spirits of form, exusiai, dynamis, and kyriotetes; while attendant nature-spirits include undines, sylphs, and salamanders. “Abnormal” spirits are associated with planets and cause mankind’s five “root races” (Negro, Malayan, Mongolian, Caucasian, and Red Indian). [THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS, pp. 15-16, 65, 83-85.] • Both Steiner and Lewis tell of interplanetary journeys, Lewis in fiction, Steiner in “truth.” Indeed, Steiner recounts human migration to various planets: “[D]uring the Lemurian epoch of earth-evolution [i.e., long ago] only very few human beings had outlasted, on the earth itself, the happenings of this evolution...the majority of souls withdrew from the earth to other planets, continuing their life on Mars, Saturn, Venus, Jupiter, and so forth.” [Rudolf Steiner, OCCULT HISTORY (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1982), p. 36.]
Lewis was an orthodox Christian who used fiction to express his beliefs in fanciful terms. Steiner often strayed far from Biblical teachings, asserting that his heterodox doctrines describe reality. How many of my caring, intelligent Waldorf teachers accepted Steiner’s furthest-out doctrines? I don’t know for sure, but I hope not many.
[37] John Fentress Gardner, THE EXPERIENCE OF KNOWLEDGE (New York: The Myrin Institute Inc. , 1962).
[38] Ibid., p. 5.
[39] Ibid., p. 19
[40] Ibid., p. 26
Notice the correspondence between Mr. Gardner’s words here and Steiner’s words above [endnote 29]. A mountain is far more than just a mountain; colors are far more than just colors. We should find the concealed truths in world-content; we should read the cosmic significance behind world phenomena.
Mr. Gardner later expanded his booklet, adding chapters. The latest edition of the resulting book is still available — under a different title — from its publisher: EDUCATION IN SEARCH OF THE SPIRIT (Hudson, NY: The Anthroposophic Press, 1996).
[41] ART AS SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY, p. 256.
[42] Anthroposophists claim that intellect is not neglected at Waldorf schools, it is simply nurtured in a different way. “In spite of — or rather, because of — the attention paid to the realms of feeling and will, thinking receives a stronger development in a Waldorf school than elsewhere.” [PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL, p. 24.] This brings us back, for a final time, to a decisive concern about Waldorf education: the kind of “thinking” that is taught.
According to Steiner, children pass through three stages of development, which he said recapitulate stages of human evolution. [See. e.g., Earl J. Ogletree, “Rudolf Steiner: Unknown Educator,” THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL, Vol. 74, No. 6. (Mar., 1974), p. 347.] The stages are described this way by A.C. Harwood: “During the first seven years a child approaches his environment through the activity of his will. What he sees he must manipulate.” [PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL, p. 17.] During the second seven years, “the inward life of feeling” is paramount. [Ibid., p. 18.] The third seven-year period finally produces the dawning of “intellectual thought.” [Ibid., p. 24.]
The claim that Waldorfs foster the intellect is, at best, moot. Waldorf-style “intellectual thought” is intended to be moderated by the faculties of intuition and/or imagination and/or clairvoyance. Taught that logic (i.e., methodical reasoning) is insufficient, the Waldorf student is directed toward “spiritual experience” that is notionally “self-evident” (i.e., no proof required). It is questionable whether this is genuine thinking at all or merely a form of wishfulness:
“To what extent will [a child’s] thinking become purely logical and colorless, unenriched by imagination, uninformed by experience? ...More than ever, therefore, should the attempt be made with our adolescents to preserve from the earlier stage of childhood those capacities which are natural to it [see endnote 27], and to unite them with the new gift of intellectual thought. For this means to transform thought from what it is at present — the capacity for abstract hypothesis — into the capacity for self-evident spiritual experience.” [Ibid., pp. 23-24.]
Ask yourself whether an education aiming at such a form of “thought” is likely to equip individuals for life in the real world. Weigh it against the values discussed by Garry Wills as quoted at the beginning of this essay. In brief: Should we teach our children to live rationally in the real world or to have unsubstantiated intuitions of unseen worlds?
[43] In 1974, the Anthroposophic Press published THE BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER, an account of communications between a dead German soldier and his living sister. The book reports that Rudolf Steiner read transcripts of the soldier’s messages, which he pronounced “absolutely authentic communications from the spiritual world.” [p. vii] The book’s Introduction explains that the messages were different from those sent by dead persons who “are still earth-bound [sic], ‘just beyond the thin veil’ that separates them from those of us living on earth.” [p. viii, Introduction by Joseph Wetzl — see endnote 56].
[44] According to a letter I received from Jamie L. Gigolo, Assistant Registrar at Teachers College, Columbia University, John Fentress Gardner received a BA with a major in “Curriculum & Teaching — Childhood Education — Older Children” on Feb. 26, 1947, and an MA with a major in “Rural Education” on Dec. 17,1947.
In June, 1974, Adelphi University (Garden City, NY) awarded Mr. Gardner an honorary degree of Doctor of Letters. [John Fentress Gardner, THE IDEA OF MAN IN AMERICA (New York: The Myrin Institute, 1974), p. 3.]
[45] Rudolf Steiner, THE UNIVERSAL HUMAN: THE EVOLUTION OF INDIVIDUALITY, Lectures from 1909-1916 (USA: Anthroposophic Press, 1990), p. 75.
Ahriman is, originally, an evil spirit posited by Zoroastrianism. His main characteristics are greed, envy, and anger. [See www.britannica.com:80/eb/article-9004159/Ahriman.] Steiner taught that Ahriman tries to limit humans to their physical bodies and the materialistic, brain-centered thinking of which these bodies are capable. [See Rudolf Steiner, THE INCARNATION OF AHRIMAN: THE EMBODIMENT OF EVIL ON EARTH (Forest Row, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press, 2006)].
Also see endnote 36 re. “root races” created by “abnormal” spirits on various planets.
In re. Atlantis: According to Steiner, Atlantis and its predecessor, Lemuria, actually existed. I discuss this in some detail in my essay, “Legends,” at this Web site, and also at steiner-predicts.com.
[46] KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, p. 149.
[47] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 688.
[48] Ibid., p. 712.
Notice that Steiner clearly contemplates deceiving parents and teachers about the nature of the Waldorf School: “...whether we dare tell those who come to us that we will not prepare them for the final examination at all....”
[49] Ibid., p. 725.
Theoretically, a Waldorf school could set high academic standards in basic subjects (English, math, and so forth) and reserve the school’s spiritualistic intentions for other parts of the day (arts classes, story hours, discussion groups, etc.) This might produce a solid academic record, depending on the caliber of the students enrolled and the degree of the faculty’s commitment Steiner’s intentions. Some Waldorfs today claim to exceed various scholastic standards and benchmarks. Considering how low standards have generally become, this claim could easily be true in at least some instances.
[50] She took the job to supplement my father’s income so that my sisters and I could enroll in an attractive private school. She had no previous knowledge of Anthroposophy, and as far as I know she never formally studied Steiner’s works. But she fell deeply under Mr. Gardner’s spell, as did many staff, faculty, parents, and students. Mr. Gardner was a father figure for most of us. Although I eventually turned away from Mr. Gardner and his teachings, I never bore him any personal animus. By his lights, he was kind to me. And, certainly, I believe my mother’s intentions were unimpeachable.
My mother retired from Waldorf in or about 1968 — after her second child graduated. This was a decade before the scandal broke. See endnote 3 and addendum 4.
[51] Mr. Gardner stated his view of evolution to other students as well. His conversation with me came after a class in which he outlined those views (which I now see came from Steiner). I must have expressed enough interest — and perhaps some misgivings — to prompt him to make sure that I fully understood and agreed. As far as I recall, however, in neither the class nor our private talk did he extend the discussion to reincarnation or mention Steiner. When he spoke of individuals evolving, I thought he meant changes occurring in a single lifetime, with the effects — for good or ill — being passed along to one’s children.
About my private sessions with Mr. Gardner: One of my sisters has suggested that Mr. Gardner may have been grooming me as a potential future Anthroposophical leader. This thought is almost too awful to contemplate, but I must admit it is plausible. Mr. Gardner did seem to pay special attention to me. Not only did we speak together fairly often, but I was singled out for various honors. The faculty created a special Latin award for the sole purpose of conferring it on me. Along with one of my classmates, I was also awarded a Lincoln Center student award allowing me to attend New York Philharmonic performances, although others in the class had far more musical talent than I did. Mr. Gardner and other faculty members sometimes took me aside and lent me books bearing on Anthroposophy, albeit the bearing was tangential. My position on the student council made me a minor Waldorf leader. My mother held a central position in the school. So, all in all, my sister’s guess is plausible. On the other hand, I had a rebellious streak and I misbehaved in various ways. A friend of mine and I actually committed some minor acts of vandalism at the school, but this was a few years before Mr. Gardner started showing me marked attention. Then again, perhaps my missteps caused him to see something of himself in me: He, too, had been at least mildly rebellious in his youth. [See endnote 54.]
[52] If Mr. Gardner was circumspect with us, he claimed that he openly answered parents’ questions about Anthroposophy. Yet by his own account, he was well aware of the need to reassure the parents and others: “...I worked to gain understanding for [the school and its methods]. I minimized the difference between a Waldorf school and other schools....As soon as fundamental questions began to be answered plainly, wild rumors and frightened guesses quieted down.” [John Fentress Gardner, “The Founding of Adelphi’s Waldorf School,” ONE MAN’S VISION: IN MEMORIAM, H.A.W. MYRIN (New York: The Myrin Institute Inc., 1970), p. 48.] Mr. Gardner’s “plain” answers apparently entailed the proposition that “There was nothing in Rudolf Steiner that Thoreau and Emerson and Whitman would not have approved wholeheartedly.” [Ibid., p. 46.] This claim would be defensible only if the great bulk of Steiner’s teachings (the gods’ divine cosmic plan, the magical effects of eurythmy, the existence of human automatons, etc., etc.) were kept hidden and the remainder were reduced to something like “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. This is the simplest statement of the purpose of Waldorf methods....” [Ibid., p. 48.]
Other passages in Mr. Gardner’s essay indicate the caution he and others felt about going beyond such extreme simplifications. Waldorf’s founder and chief financial benefactor, H.A.W. Myrin, saw the school’s purpose as spiritualistic, and he wanted to avoid spreading information about that purpose too widely: “He felt it was unwise to publicize a spiritual cause...He shunned all forms of advertising because he saw in them several dangers for spiritually motivated undertakings....” [Ibid., p. 44.] Mr. Gardner also quotes Steiner on the dangers of publicizing Waldorf pedagogy:
“Steiner warned against any ambitious plans to publicize Waldorf education prematurely among circles that did not share the same kind of inspiration...Steiner said, in part:
“‘[T]he western nations will not be able to understand what will arise out of the whole concrete Central European spiritual culture with regard to the art of education; on the contrary, it will annoy them, and it really ought not to be told them in its original form. It could have an undesirable effect on them.’” [Ibid., p. 46.]
Re. Steiner’s reference to the “Central European spiritual culture”: The work of many writers, philosophers, political theorists, and others in and around Germany shows the imprint of the region’s long mystical tradition. See, e.g., Franz E. Winkler, FOR FREEDOM DESTINED: MYSTERIES OF MAN’S EVOLUTION IN THE MYTHOLOGY OF WAGNER’S RING OPERAS AND PARSIFAL (New York: The Waldorf Press, 1974), and Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, THE OCCULT ROOTS OF NAZISM: SECRET ARYAN CULTS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON NAZI IDEOLOGY (New York: NYU Press, 1992).
As for the title “The Founding of Adelphi’s Waldorf School”: Waldorf stands adjacent to Adelphi University. Originally, Waldorf, the Myrin Institute, and the Waldorf Institute all had ties to Adelphi. Following the “psychic” ex-student scandal, institutional ties were severed. (A search of the Adelphi Web site [www.adelphi.edu] in January, 2007, yielded no hits for the Myrin Institute or the Waldorf Institute; hits for the Waldorf School produced no historical information. In the NEW YORK TIMES article of Feb. 18, 1979, an Adelphi dean is quoted forecasting “no anticipation of continuing [the connection] with Waldorf.” [See endnote 3.]) In 1979, Waldorf changed its name from the Waldorf School of Adelphi University to the Waldorf School of Garden City. This history suggests the problems that can arise if Waldorfers reveal their mystical beliefs.
[53] To clarify: Mr. Gardner retired as headmaster in 1974, but he remained active in and around Waldorf. During those years, he devoted himself mainly to the Waldorf Institute, a teacher-training program. As a result of the scandal, he resigned from the Institute — effectively ending all his official ties with Waldorf. He was the “former headmaster” mentioned by the TIMES.
John Fentress Gardner died in 1998, in Massachusetts. The Waldorf School of Garden City bestowed on him, posthumously, its Heritage Award: “To acknowledge his role in building the Waldorf School of Garden City in its early years....” [The News, the Waldorf School of Garden City, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2004, pp. 6-7.]
[54] Irrelevant, perhaps, but interesting: Carol Hemingway Gardner was Ernest Hemingway’s sister. According to a series of reminiscences and other pieces published in the Hemingway Review in 2004, Carol’s decision to marry John resulted in a lifelong break from Ernest. Apparently John — a somewhat rebellious young man — insulted Ernest, and Ernest came to believe that John was deranged. See, especially, the Afterword written by Elizabeth Gardner Lombardi, John and Carol’s daughter. [The Hemingway Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, Fall 2004.]
See also addendum 2. For more about the teachers who shepherded my class through Waldorf, see endnotes 3 and 56. For an excerpt from John Gardner’s message to my class upon graduation, see addendum 1.
[55] For Steiner’s discussion of Theosophy, see e.g., Rudolf Steiner, THEOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SPIRITUAL PROCESSES IN HUMAN LIFE AND IN THE COSMOS (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 1994), and Rudolf Steiner, SPIRITUALISM, MADAME BLAVATSKY, AND THEOSOPHY: AN EYEWITNESS VIEW OF OCCULT HISTORY (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 2001).
Christopher Bamford, editor-in-chief of SteinerBooks, gives a concise summary: “[S]teiner felt the necessity of refounding Theosophical insight... [H]e felt he had to infuse Theosophy, which had an anti-Christian bias, with the real meaning of Christ and the Mystery of Golgotha.” [Rudolf Steiner, WHAT IS ANTHROPOSOPHY: THREE SPIRITUAL PERSPECTIVES ON SELF-KNOWLEDGE (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 2002), p. 19, introduction by Christopher Bamford.]
Rosicrucianism is a secretive, semi-Christian order claiming to possess esoteric knowledge handed down from the ancients. The order’s symbol combines a rose and a cross (hence the name). One of Steiner’s more revealing comments of Rosicrucianism is the following. After asserting that Rosicrucianism has been misrepresented, Steiner explains why genuine Rosicrucianism is especially appropriate for (white) Europeans :
“When the ancient Indians received the teaching of the holy Rishis [i.e., Hindu saints], there was a different way of thinking, a different kind of feeling and willing....[H]umankind is constantly evolving. People today have an entirely different, finer brain structure, even an entirely different blood formation...For this reason, today all truths must be formulated differently, and methods of initiation must be designed so that they are appropriate for today's European. These are the reasons why there has to be [true] Rosicrucianism, why we need a different form of initiation.” [Rudolf Steiner, THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY: EARLY LECTURES (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 146.]
Steiner embraced both pluralism (the tenet that the universe arises from more than one “ultimate principle”) and polytheism (belief in more than one god): “[T]his doctrine of pluralism...is expressed in Anthroposophy by our recognition of a number of widely differing Beings and Hierarchies...Monotheism or monism [the universe arises from one principle]...could never lead to a real understanding of the world....” [THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS, p. 115] Despite the apparent superiority of pluralism/polytheism, Steiner asserted that both pluralism and monism are needed. “Monism is not possible without pluralism. Pluralism is not possible without monism. We must recognize the necessity for both.” [Ibid., p. 116] Note what Steiner did here: He took what is true about language (the word “monism” implies its antonym, “pluralism”) and then, fudging, he applied this to reality. In truth, either monism or pluralism may be true, but — because they contradict one another — they cannot both be true. Steiner required his followers to accept such contradictions.
[56] Rudolf Steiner, STAYING CONNECTED: HOW TO CONTINUE YOUR RELATIONS WITH THOSE WHO HAVE DIED (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 1999).
Also see Rudolf Steiner, LIGHT FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998), which preserves correspondence between Steiner and Helmuth von Moltke, head of the German general staff during World War I. Steiner’s association with German militarism is noteworthy, as is Steiner’s continued “communication” with von Moltke after the latter’s death.
A third Anthroposophical book about messages from beyond the grave: THE BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER (Anthroposophic Press, 1974) [see endnote 43]. Translated from German, the English-language edition carries the subtitle AFTER DEATH [sic] COMMUNICATIONS OF A YOUNG ARTIST WHO DIED IN WORLD WAR I. Circumstantial evidence leads me to think that the translator was a member of the faculty at my Waldorf school. Both the translator and the teacher were Anthroposophists named Joseph Wetzl; both were passably fluent in German and also English; and both had ties to Spring Valley, NY. If my guess is correct, then the translator was my class’s homeroom teacher during grades 6 - 8. (For more about teachers who shepherded my class through Waldorf, see endnotes 3 and 54.)
[57] Dissatisfaction deep in our psyches may provide much of the motivation for religious aspiration. The first Noble Truth of Buddhism — Buddha’s underlying insight into the human condition — is “dukkha” or suffering. We humans are discontented, full of sorrows and regrets. [See, for example, www.buddhism.about.com.] Why do we have a seemingly insatiable appetite for acquisition? What leads us into almost constant wars and conquests? Why are we so avid for escapist entertainment — everything from movies and sports to virtual-reality computer games? Why are we drawn to alcohol and other drugs that alter consciousness? Not because we are happy with things as they are: We yearn for more, bigger, better...different. (As the protagonist of Saul Bellow’s HENDERSON THE RAIN KING repeatedly repeats, “I want, I want, I want.”) Gnawing emptiness may account for much of our behavior — including our tendency to adopt (or some would say invent) religions. If we cannot find release from suffering in the physical world, maybe we can find it in the spiritual world — if not in this life, then maybe in the next. So we build churches, make offerings, and seek solace.
From a Western perspective, Buddhism is more nearly a form of therapy than a conventional religion: It aims at finding an end to suffering, primarily through detachment from longings. Buddha explicitly declined to answer such typical religious questions as whether God exists, whether there is life after death, etc. “[I]t's not that I know the answers to these questions and I'm not telling you, or that I don't know the answers to these questions. It's just that I know for sure that speculating on these questions does not help to live the life that we want to practice...Suffering and the end of suffering, that is what's important. About that I have spoken.” [www.everydayzen.org.] Anthroposophy bears scant resemblance to Buddhism, yet Steiner spoke of “[T]he longing human soul in its yearning, tormented emptiness” [THE SPIRITUAL HIERARCHIES AND THE PHYSICAL WORLD: REALITY AND ILLUSION, p. 225] and, like Buddha, he offered his system as an antidote to suffering: “[W]e may point to spiritual science as a bearer of the redemption of human longing...spiritual science now provides what tempestuous but also woeful human beings have sought for a long time.” [Ibid., p. 231.]
[58] A fascinating theory formulated by cognitive psychologists is that we are born with an innate predisposition to believe in the supernatural. We have this disposition due to the malfunctioning of our modes of perception. We think about physical objects differently than we think about psychological objects (i.e., creatures with minds). We instinctively place psychological objects in a special category, as if they were not physical — as if thoughts and feelings were not produced by a physical object called a brain. This leads us to feel that minds are not bound to bodies — the notion of bodiless “souls” feels right to us. Further, because we know that minds have intentions, it feels right to us to believe that most events result from someone’s intentions. If the world exists, then it must have been intended — it is a “creation” — which means there is a “creator.” In sum, the theory is that religion is an illusion caused by the way our minds naturally, but imperfectly, function. [Paul Bloom, “Is God an Accident?”, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, December, 2005, p. 105. See also Robin Marantz Henig, “Darwin’s God,” THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, March 4, 2007, at www.nytimes.com, especially the discussion of “the byproduct theory.”]
It lies beyond the scope of this essay to account for every reason people feel religious impulses. But please notice that the analyses offered here and in endnote 57 are not incompatible. Quite possibly, flaws in our modes of perception produce the illusions necessary for religious faith, and our psychological suffering produces the emotional impetus that leads to fervent affirmation of such faith.
[Related subjects: 1) New research shows that the prevalence of “magical thinking” or superstition (seeing propitious signs, wearing “lucky” clothing on important occasions, and so forth) is far more widespread than once thought. “The appetite for such beliefs appears to be rooted in the circuitry of the brain, and for good reason. The sense of having special powers buoys people in threatening situations, and helps soothe everyday fears and ward off mental distress. In excess, it can lead to compulsive or delusional behavior.” [Benedict Carey, “Do You Believe in Magic?”, THE NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 23, 2007, p. D1.]
2) A report in THE WASHINGTON POST WEEKLY EDITION (May 14-20, 2007, pp. 9-10) describes how humans project personalities — in effect souls — onto robots. The same psychological predisposition that can cause us to believe in gods can lead us to treat mechanical devices as psychological objects. For example, a US Army colonel stopped the test of a bomb-detecting robot because “This test, he charged, was inhumane” [p.9]. Some soldiers who use such robots “award their [robots] ‘battlefield promotions’ and ‘purple hearts’” [p.9]. MIT graduate students working on robots are sometimes so spooked by the apparently human qualities of their own creations that “[t]hey couldn’t stand the way [a robot] seemed to gaze...at them. These humans are as sophisticated about robots as anyone on earth... [but] ‘We’re programmed biologically to respond to certain sorts of things’...It’s not about how the machine works. It’s about how humans are wired.”
[59] People “living in materialistic impulses” dwell exclusively on the plain of physical reality. They are “blinded” to higher realities. Thinking only with their physical brains, they have no spiritualistic or clairvoyant capacities. They are not fully human: They are mechanical men:
“When people are as blinded by materialistic thoughts as they became during the nineteenth century and right into the present, the physical body becomes a copy of the spirit and soul living in materialistic impulses. In that case, it is not incorrect to say that the brain thinks. It is then, in fact, correct. By being firmly enmeshed in materialism, we have people who not only think poorly about the body, soul, and spirit, but people who think materially and feel materially. What that means is that materialism causes the human being to become a thinking automaton, that the human being then becomes something that thinks, feels, and wills physically.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 115.]
(See also THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, p. 60: “[T]he brain and nerve system have nothing at all to do with actual cognition....”)
Philosophers have long debated whether humans have free will. If we don’t have it, then there might be some justification for referring to us as automatons: biological mechanisms whose actions are determined by the laws of physics or by God’s will. But this position would undercut Steiner’s system, which requires people to make decisions that will send them, deservedly, to higher or lower levels in their next lives. Note that in discussing automatons, Steiner was not outlining a universal human condition; he was referring to people who had taken the wrong turning, toward materialism rather than spiritualism, and who therefore were on their way to becoming less than truly human. [See our previous discussion of the dangers of materialism: “The human being is thus in danger of drifting into the Ahrimanic world, in which case the spirit-soul will evaporate into the cosmos.” For a recent report on the question of free will, see Dennis Overbye, “Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 2, 2007, at www.nytimes.com.]
[60] Answering a question about planetary movements, Steiner drew a helical line. Positioned at about the midpoint on the line was the Sun. Strung out on the line to the left were Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Toward the right side of the line were Mercury, Venus, and Earth. A separate, smaller drawing above the first showed that the helical line, if seen from above, inscribed a lemniscate. Steiner’s words:
“Now you simply need to imagine how that [i.e., the line] continues in a helix. Everything else is only apparent movement. The helical line continues into cosmic space. Therefore, it is not that the planets move around the Sun, but these three, Mercury, Venus, and the Earth, follow the Sun, and these three, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, precede it.” [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 30-31.]
As for humans who have moved to other heavenly bodies, see endnote 36: “[T]he majority of souls withdrew from the earth to other planets....” [Rudolf Steiner, OCCULT HISTORY (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1982), p. 36.] Another informative passage: “[T]he moon today is like a fortress in the universe, in which there lives a population that fulfilled its human destiny over 15,000 years ago, after which it withdrew to the moon together with the spiritual guides of humanity...This is only one of the ‘cities’ in the universe, one colony, one settlement among many...As far as what concerns ourselves, as humanity on earth, the other pole, the opposite extreme to the moon is the population of Saturn.” [Rudolf Steiner, RUDOLF STEINER SPEAKS TO THE BRITISH (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998), p. 93.]
[61]“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. In actuality, such islands do not sit directly upon a foundation; they swim and are held fast from outside. In general, the cosmos creates islands and continents, their forms and locations.” [Ibid., p. 607.]
[62] “[T]he heart is indeed a sense organ for perceiving the blood’s movement, not a pump as physicists claim; the coursing of our blood is brought about by our spirituality and vitality.” [AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: EXPLORING OUR SUPRASENSORY NATURE, (Steiner Books, 2000), p. 84.]
Statements like those cited in endnotes 59-62 would seem to represent strategic errors by Steiner. They run so thoroughly contrary to scientific fact, they must drive away potential adherents. But students — Steiner’s target audience here — are young and impressionable. Moreover, like them, many adults are fascinated by magical, amazing descriptions of the universe. For many people, young and old, the fantastic always trumps the mundane. In addition, as a point of rhetorical strategy, notice how Steiner moves from specifics that should be nearly impossible to accept (islands float, stars hold them in position) to a generality that is impossible to dispute (“the cosmos creates islands and continents, their forms and locations”), giving the strange specifics a thin cover of truth.
[63] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 29.
[64] Anthony Standon, SCIENCE IS A SACRED COW (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1950).
The scientific method does have its limits. It cannot deal adequately with unique (i.e., unreproducible) events or with materials or forces that cannot be measured and tested using our physical bodies, our ordinary senses, and/or reliable scientific apparatuses. Seeking ways around these limits has tantalized many fine minds. See, e.g., Owen Barfield’s SAVING THE APPEARANCES (Middletown, CT: Weslyan University Press, 1957), J.W.N. Sullivan’s THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE (New York: The Viking Press, 1933), and Saul Bellow’s foreword to Steiner’s THE BOUNDARIES OF NATURAL SCIENCE (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1983.)
Chafing at the limitations of science is not the same as eliminating them. Take an example: the universal speed limit. To reach distant galaxies, we would need to build spacecraft that could fly faster than light. But apparently this is impossible — the structure of the universe seems to include an absolute speed limit (equal to the speed of light). We can’t will the limit away, any more than a mystic can will away the other laws of physics or the limitations of our senses and brains. But to borrow one of Steiner’s favorite phrases, “in a sense” this is precisely what Anthroposophy attempts to do, abolishing the limits. If only it were possible. Saul Bellow, for one, found academic, scientific knowledge insufficient. “Other people, scholars and scientists, know a great deal more about nature and society...I nevertheless object that their knowledge is defective — something is missing. That something is poetry.” [Saul Bellow, IT ALL ADDS UP (New York: Viking, 1994), p. 86.] Bellow’s quest for a more complete and balanced form of knowledge led him to investigate Anthroposophy, which might “transcend the limits of empirical human knowledge and attain another, higher form of consciousness, a higher ‘spiritual reality.’” [James Atlas, BELLOW: A BIOGRAPHY (New York: Random House, 2000), p. 436.] But Bellow recoiled from Steiner’s radical mysticism: “Bellow was no mystic. Like Citrine [a character in Bellow’s novel HUMBOLDT’S GIFT], he was skeptical of Steiner’s more outlandish notions...‘organs of spiritual perception’ or the strange mingling of Abraham with Zarathustra...It was all too much for me.’” [Ibid., p. 437.]
Science and logic are not perfect tools, but they are the best we have. And as scientific discoveries continue accumulating year after year, expanding our comprehension of the universe, the power and truth of science are increasingly vindicated. Einsteinian physics are repeatedly confirmed. Ditto quantum mechanics. And string theory appears to be inching toward a reconciliation of the two in the form of a “theory of everything.” The limitations of science fade, while alternative approaches to truth grow ever wobblier. [See endnote 85.]
[65] Friedrich Georg Juenger, THE FAILURE OF TECHNOLOGY (Chicago: Henry Regency Company, 1956), p. 201.
[66] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 558-559.
[67] Rudolf Steiner, FROM BEETROOT TO BUDDHISM (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1999), p. 59.
Other troubling comments Steiner made include “Judaism as such has long outlived itself and no longer has a legitimate place in the modern life of peoples; the fact that it has nevertheless succeeded in maintaining itself is an aberration in world history the consequences of which had to follow.” [Rudolf Steiner, “Vom Wesen des Judentums,” DIE GESCHICHTE DER MENSCHHEIT UND DIE WELTANSCHAUUNGEN DER KULTURVOLKER, Dornach, 1968; English translation from “Anthroposophy and the Question of Race” (English summary for the media). Council of the Anthroposophical Society in The Netherlands, Zeist/Driebergen, April 1, 2000.]
According to Staudenmaier, when this book was translated into English, the lecture “The Essence of Jewry” was omitted. [Peter Staudenmaier, “Race and Redemption: Racial and Ethnic Evolution in Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophy,” 2004.]
[68] Rudolf Steiner, DIE GEISTIGEN HINTERGRÜNDE DES ERSTEN WELTKRIEGES {The Spiritual Background of the First World War} (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1974), p. 38, translated by Roger Rawlings, 2005.
I am indebted to Sharon Lombard and Peter Staudenmaier for pointing out startling passages in Steiner’s lectures, including the passage I refer to here. I ordered the above-named book from Germany precisely in order to check the contents of this most objectionable passage. Did Steiner really express such thoughts? He did. (The rest of the book contains others stunners, but this passage is arguably the worst.) Essays by Lombard and Staudenmaier are posted at www.waldorfcritics.org.
Whether there are direct connections between Anthroposophy and Nazism is a subject of heated debate. Certainly there are affinities between the two belief systems, especially their racial views and the tenet that some apparent human beings are actually subhuman. [See endnote 88.]
According to Staudenmeir, one faction in the Nazi government supported Anthroposophy; he also asserts that some Anthroposophists engaged in Nazi political activities. A major example of the latter: “Friedrich Benesch (1907-1991) was a leading figure in the Christian Community, the forthrightly religious arm of Anthroposophy...Benesch is a generally revered figure in Anthroposophical circles... [A]n article by historian Johan Böhm...reviews Benesch’s early career as a radical Nazi activist... [F]rom 1934 to 1945 Benesch was a leader in the more extremist wing of the regional Nazi party....” [Peter Staudenmaier, message 1571 at groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics, 2007. Böhm’s article is “Friedrich Benesch: Naturwissenschaftler, Anthropologe, Theologe und Politiker” Halbjahresschrift für südosteuropäische Geschichte, Literatur und Politik, vol. 16 no. 1 (May 2004).]
Arguing that there were no connections between Anthroposophy and Nazism under Hitler, Anthroposophists sometimes claim that the Nazis closed all the Waldorf schools in Germany. Staudenmaier rebuts this, saying “All of the Waldorf schools in Germany were eventually closed during the Nazi era, though most of them were not directly closed by the Nazis...The only Waldorf schools that were actually closed by the Nazi authorities were the Stuttgart school in 1938 and the Dresden school in 1941.” [Ibid., message 1569, 2007.] Staudenmaier has also written that the last remaining Waldorf school in Germany did not shut its doors until eight years into the Nazis’ 12-year reign. Moreover, he has contended, the Nazis permitted Waldorfs to continue operating in the occupied countries throughout the war. [Staudenmeir, “Waldorf in the Nazi Era,” 2004, www.waldorfcritics.org.]
Some sources say that Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy führer, was an Anthroposophist, but this claim is vigorously denied by Steiner’s supporters [www.defendingsteiner.com/pers/Hess.php] and the evidence does not seem conclusive.
Another source says that Hitler enjoyed reading Steiner’s works: “In discussing Hitler’s favorite reading, especially in his youth, mention should be made of what Ernst Pretzsche remembered of Hitler’s browsing (not buying) in his Vienna bookshop. Apart from the usual Nietzsche-Wagner material, he liked Rudolf Steiner and especially the racist diatribes of Georg Lanz von Liebenfels.” [cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/index.php?p=3897]. Goodrick-Clarke casts doubt on this account, writing that no one named Pretzsche lived in Vienna at that time [THE OCCULT ROOTS OF NAZISM, p. 224].
The debate I have briefly outlined is important, but it is not central to our discussion of Waldorf schools and their agendas. Whether Hitler admired Steiner, or vice versa, or neither, Anthroposophy and Waldorf pedagogy need to be evaluated on their own merits. Of course, as I indicated earlier, Jewish parents (among others) may quite rightly find this debate central in making their personal decisions about where to send their children for schooling. Steiner’s statements about Jews and Judaism are inconsistent, but in general they can be summarized by saying that Steiner taught that the Jews provided great services to humanity by promoting monotheism and paving the way for the arrival of the Messiah — but once Jesus began his ministry, history had no further use for Judaism. The consequences of Judaism’s survival were, in Steiner’s view, unfortunate — but they did not include the Holocaust (which occurred years after Steiner’s death — although as a self-professed clairvoyant, he should have seen the Holocaust coming). Rather than suggesting the slaughter of the Jews, Steiner taught that Jews should disperse and merge with other people and races that still had something to give to mankind. The “mission” of the Jewish people was finished. [See also endnotes 55 and 66.]
[69] Rudolf Steiner, HEALTH AND ILLNESS, VOL. 1. Lectures from 1922 (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1981), pp. 85-86.
[70] Rudolf Steiner, VOM LEBEN DES MENSCHEN UND DER ERDE {On the Life of Human Beings and of the Earth} (Dornach: Verlag Der Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, 1961), p. 62, translated by Roger Rawlings, 2005. Races become “extinct” when they move to the wrong place because races tend to have deep spiritual bonds with their allotted places on the earth. “To a certain extent the etheric forces emanating from the soil permeate the human organism so that man becomes dependent upon the soil of a particular geographical area.” [THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS, p. 74.] Steiner’s doctrine on this matter is troublingly close to the Nazis’ belief in blood and soil. [See endnote 68.]
This is another passage I confirmed in a German text. There have apparently been significant expurgations in various English-language editions of Steiner’s works [see endnote 67]. Staudenmaier reports that when Steiner’s HEALTH AND ILLNESS, VOL. 2 was published in English by the Anthroposophic Press, a passage including the following words — about novels written by blacks — was omitted: “[I]f we give these Negro novels to pregnant women to read, then it won’t even be necessary for Negroes to come to Europe in order for mulattos to appear. Simply through the spiritual effects of reading Negro novels, a multitude of children will be born in Europe that are completely gray, that have mulatto hair, that look like mulattos!” [Peter Staudenmaier, “Race and Redemption: Racial and Ethnic Evolution in Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophy,” 2004.] Some Anthroposophists have claimed this remark is a joke. If so, it is a “joke” that only a racist would tell or find amusing. But I think the remark is serious, not a stab at humor (of which Steiner’s books are almost completely devoid). Considering the magical powers Steiner attributed to art forms such as painting and dance [see endnotes 30 and 31], it seems likely he found such powers in literary arts as well.
Steiner’s failure to include aboriginal Americans in the passage from VOM LEBEN DES MENSCHEN UND DER ERDE calls for comment. During a seminar for adults held at my Waldorf, a participant quoted Steiner as saying that American Indians had a gift for intuitive ideas [Sylvester M. Morley, AMERICAN INDIANS AND OUR WAY OF LIFE (New York: The Myrin Institute Inc. , 1961), p. 6.] Anthroposophist Morley undertook the task of ferreting out Steiner’s meaning. One result was that he delivered the graduation address to my eighth grade class: He expounded on the differences between red and white Americans, the affinity of the red man for nature, and the influences Indian culture has had on the American character. As he expresses it in his booklet, the underlying difference between Indians and whites is that “The white man has been swept along in the tide of evolution....” [Ibid., p. 18] This is Steiner’s basic rationale for asserting the superiority of the white races.
A sad irony is that the stress Steiner placed on race has no foundation in fact. The whole fuss was pointless. Scientists working on the human genome project have discovered that all human beings “are more than 99.9% genetically identical [proving that] race has almost no biological validity.” A more recent finding is that “a tiny genetic mutation...largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago.” The mutation “involves a change in just one letter of DNA code out of 3.1 billion letters in the human genome....” [Rick Weiss, “Scientists Find a DNA Change That Accounts for White Skin,” THE WASHINGTON POST, Dec. 16, 2005, p. A01.]
[71] Rudolf Steiner, lecture given on October 15, 1911, quoted in ART INSPIRED BY RUDOLF STEINER, John Fletcher (England: Mercury Arts Publications, 1987), p. 95.
[72] 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 (London: 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. Steiner took terms such as “etheric body” and “astral body” from Theosophy; later he chose different tags, such as “life body” or “sentient body.”
[73] AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE, p. 68.
[74] Rudolf Steiner, THE DESTINIES OF INDIVIDUALS AND OF NATIONS (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1986), p. 213.
[75] See, e.g., THE FIFTH GOSPEL: FROM THE AKASHIC RECORD.
[76] See, e.g., www.enlightenedbeings. and www.edgarcayce.org/about_ec/cayce_on/akashic/.
[77] THE UNIVERSAL HUMAN: THE EVOLUTION OF INDIVIDUALITY, pp. 65-6.
[78] “[T]he purpose of this book is to depict some portions of the supersensible world...It is only through knowledge of the supersensible that our sense-perceptible ‘reality’ acquires meaning...In compiling this book, I have included nothing I cannot testify to on the basis of personal experience in this field. Only my direct experience is presented here.” [THEOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SPIRITUAL PROCESSES IN HUMAN LIFE AND IN THE COSMOS, pp. 7-8.]
[79] Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke ties several of these threads together: “...Rudolf Steiner...a pivotal figure of twentieth-century esotericism...blended modern Theosophy with a Gnostic form of Christianity, Rosicrucianism, and German Naturphilosophie.” [RUDOLF STEINER (WESTERN ESOTERIC MASTERS SERIES), anthology edited by Richard Seddon (Berkley: North Atlantic Books, 2004, general editor's preface by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke), p. 7.]
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, a professor at the University of Exeter, is the author of several books on occult and esoteric subjects. Gnosticism, a heresy, is built on the notion that redemption depends on esoteric knowledge of God. German Naturphilosophie may be loosely described as a pantheistic view of nature associated with Transcendentalism.
Like the Theosophists before him, Steiner justified his borrowings from various religions and mystic traditions by claiming that there was truth to be found in all of them. He further claimed that he verified those truths (or discovered their deeper, more accurate meanings) through his direct clairvoyant observation — a claim that is inherently untestable unless one develops similar psychic powers (and even then there would be problems: see endnote 85). The best we can do is to identify the sources Steiner drew upon. Here’s a quick survey of just a few of the terms and concepts found in Steiner’s books. Karma is originally a Hindu concept. Reincarnation is a belief shared by Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists. Ahriman was introduced to the world by Zoroaster. Vulcan was originally the Roman god of fire. The legend of Atlantis began with Plato. Lemuria, or Mu, was an even more ancient lost continent, a notion rooted in Polynesian lore. In classical mythology, Lucifer (or Phosphorus) was the morning star or the herald of the dawn; Christians later adopted “Lucifer” as the name for Satan as he was before man’s fall. Etheric bodies and astral bodies are Theosophical concepts. In occult tradition, the Akashic records are written on Akasha, or astral light, which mediates clairvoyance. In western folklore, Goblins are mischievous or malicious sprites. In the same folklore, gnomes are deformed goblins living underground and guarding treasures. [For much of this information, I am indebted to the ENCYCLOPEDIA Britannica at www.britannica.com.]
[80] SPIRITUALISM, MADAME BLAVATSKY, AND THEOSOPHY: AN EYEWITNESS VIEW OF OCCULT HISTORY, p. 107.
[81] www.britannica.com/eb/article-. 9015621/Helena-Blavatsky.
For an entertaining but balanced account, see MADAME BLAVATKSY’S BABOON: THEOSOPHY AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE WESTERN GURU, by Peter Washington [London: Secker & Warburg, 1993], which includes multiple references to Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy. (A review of the book in the LIBRARY JOURNAL (Feb. 1, 1995) said, “While [Washington] makes no attempt to hide his complete skepticism, his presentation of both the personalities and teachings are fair and historically accurate.”) Blavatsky’s major work is THE SECRET DOCTRINE, published in two volumes (Pasadena, CA: Theosophical University Press, reprint edition, 1999).
[82] Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS. Lectures from 1908-1924 (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), pp. 62-3.
The term “enlightened” is tricky. When it refers to the Enlightenment or its values, it connotes rationality [see endnote 1]. But religionists often use the same word in the opposite sense: They apply it to those who have “seen the light,” i.e., become a devotees. In the statement of Steiner’s quoted here, the former definition applies. Steiner is not saying that he or his followers know nothing of the topic under discussion. Indeed, Steiner claims to know all about it, and he is informing his followers. “[T]he enlightened man knows nothing of them” whereas people with “clairvoyant vision” — including Steiner — supposedly possess superior (non-rational) knowledge. In brief: Steiner set himself up in opposition to rational enlightenment.
[83] Bernard Heuvelmans, ON THE TRACK OF UNKNOWN ANIMALS (New York: Hill and Wang, 1959. (A review in SCIENCE — Nov. 6, 1959 — called the book shallow and added “The already great gullibility of the reading public will be increased by the book....”) Included is a chapter on the “Congo dragon” as well as references to the Loch Ness monster and sea-serpents (one of which may have been spotted in a lake near the Congo dinosaur’s present-day haunts!). Huevelmans generally stopped short of claiming that any “unknown” animals actually exist (since that would make the animals “known”), but he argued that reports of them are more than simple errors or lies. Concerning the Congo dragon, Heuvelmans wrote “Assuming it is a reptile, what kind is it? In outline it is certainly like a dinosaur; that one can hardly deny.” [p. 478]
My memory on the following point is wobbly (it may be serving up a simple error, but not a lie): Our school’s books on flying saucers may have included one or more by George Adamski, who claimed to have seen a surprising number of spacecraft from other worlds. Adamski was considered credible by many people because of his address: Mt. Palomar. However, he was not an astronomer and he had no access to the giant Palomar telescope. He kept body and soul together as a short-order cook (and, later, as an author of UFO books). I definitely remember that at one point there were at least two UFO books in our library. Tangentially, I also remember this: In either my junior or senior year, in German class, we read a book about a group of boys in Berlin. The plot hinged on the hunt for a book about flying saucers. Any references, even in fiction, to flying saucers was so unsurprising at Waldorf that I gave it no thought at the time. Only now, having bought the book again, am I startled. [Arnold Littmann, PETER HAT PECH! Die Jagd nach der “Fliegenden Intertasse” {The Search for the “Flying Saucer”} (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961).]
[84] Marcus Tulles Cicero, ON THE NATURE OF THE GODS, Book I, XXVI, 45 BC.
[85] I have applied some harsh terms to Steiner: false prophet, charlatan, lunatic, racist — and so forth. I chose those words deliberatively — if they aren’t appropriate in Steiner’s case, I don’t know when they ever would be. Still, as an advocate of intellectual humility, I should acknowledge that I cannot be absolutely certain that Steiner was completely wrong about everything. There is a possibility — faint though it seems — that some of his preachments may stand up under scrutiny. But what are the odds? Floating islands held in place by the stars, astral bodies, the Akashic record, natural demons, the inferiority of certain races, Atlantis, goblins, organs of clairvoyance, the intelligence-heightening effects of blond hair and blue eyes, upward and downward karmic evolution, swarming invisible spiritual beings that are more detectable in rooms of a particular color, the magical effects of eurythmy, human beings who are not really human... Where is the evidence for any of this? There may be order and even method in Steiner’s “spiritual science,” but there is no real application of the scientific method. [See endnotes 11 and 41: Scientific thinking — “purely logical” with the “the capacity for abstract hypothesis” — is antithetical to Steiner’s system.]
Some of Steiner’s books include instructions — sometimes vague, always difficult — on how to attain esoteric knowledge, enter higher states of being, and so on. For example, “The student must first apply himself with care and attention to certain functions of the soul, hitherto exercised by him in a careless and inattentive manner. There are eight such functions....” And so forth. [KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT, p. 84.] Presumably, such directions could be “tested” by interpreting them properly and then following them step by step. But such testing would have little probative value. Positive results would necessarily be subjective: one or more people claiming supernatural visions, etc. Such claims would not constitute solid evidence — they would be anecdotal evidence or eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable, often resulting from self-deception or deceit. On the other hand, negative results could be dismissed as mere procedural failures.
Let’s take this a step farther. Is there any way we could get beyond take-it-or-leave-it subjective testimony? Perhaps demonstrations of clairvoyant powers could be arranged. Seances? Mind reading? Fortune telling? Unless the demonstrations went far beyond what is typically seen in Las Vegas magic acts — and were validated by strict scientific controls — they would be unlikely to tell us much. Remember Madame Blavatsky.
In instances where Steiner’s statements can be openly tested — such as whether the Earth orbits the Sun — Steiner is often flat-out wrong. In instances involving the “supersensible world,” the “Akashic record,” nonphysical bodies, and the like — subjects that cannot be seen or examined using our normal senses and brains — no objectively verifiable test seems possible. Rational people must acknowledge the chance that someday there will be a convincing demonstration of a Steiner claim. But until that day, deep skepticism will remain warranted.
[86] FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, pp. 649-650.
[87] Ibid., p. 650.
[88] Ibid., p. 650.
Steiner did not always speak so harshly about the disabled and the non-human. He worked for several years with developmentally disabled students, and today there are Waldorf schools devoted to helping children with special needs. Nonetheless, Steiner’s words in this instance are deplorable, and they bear on the question of affinities between Anthroposophy and Nazism. [See endnote 68.]
It is also worth noting that Steiner’s efforts to treat developmental disabilities were essentially flawed. For instance, he used astrology to reveal the condition of children: “Now let us turn to the horoscope of the younger child. Again, here are Venus and Uranus and Mars near together...when we examine more nearly the position of Mars, we find it is not, as before, in complete opposition to the moon. It is however very nearly so. Although the younger child does not come in for a complete opposition, there is an approximation of opposition.” [Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR SPECIAL NEEDS: The Curative Education Course (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998), p. 196.] Using astrology to guide the treatment of children with special needs is clearly a recipe for ineffective treatment, at best, and disaster, at worst.
My Waldorf yearbook (which I had not looked at in decades) contains several points of interest:
1) Here is a portion of Mr. Gardner’s message to the departing class of 1964:
“For some onlookers, a special star has shone over your class from its beginning many years ago. And there may be a reason for the protection afforded you by this star of destiny: as genius of your class, it may yet have demands to make of you....
“[Y]ou have not been weakened by intellectualism — heaven knows! — nor soured by cynicism....
“My hope and expectation are that, following your star, you will be able to do something to make the world environment pleasanter for those that come after you....
“Those who persevere will undoubtedly be asked in due course to use their good faith and good cheer to help overcome darkness and dreariness in the lives of their fellowmen [sic].”
Mr. Gardner was writing in code, of course, since many non-Anthroposophists (including all the uninitiated but potential Anthroposophists in our class, and our parents) would see his words. When I first read the message in 1964, it seemed murky (and perhaps a little insulting — what did he mean about our intellects?) But examined now in the context of Steiner’s tenets, the message is clear. Mr. Gardner and Steiner believed in the power of the stars (holding islands in place, for instance, and influencing lives), in destiny (or karma), in overcoming darkness, and in the upward march to a better world occupied by a better people. And they believed — heaven knows! — that a proper education would not lead to intellectualism, since that cannot produce true knowledge. All of these elements are present in Mr. Gardner’s message. He was beckoning us to the struggle against darkness and, in the long run, to a good-faith commitment to Steiner’s clairvoyant vision.
2) We dedicated the yearbook to Mrs. Gardner, for “the love, guidance and devotion she has shown us in our beginning years.”
3) My photo shows me standing behind a lectern, as I stood during various student council activities. I am not smiling. The words beside the photo, written by a kind classmate: “Roger works hard and achieves what he wants. As student council president and student leader, he offers courageous and highly respected opinions....” My own words: “I view the future with apprehension and hope: apprehension that I may not measure up to stiff competition; hope that I shall.” Today, I read the self-doubt and fear in those words.
4) The photo of the school office staff includes my mother, Elaine Rawlings, seated at her desk. She is identified as Mr. Gardner’s secretary. The door through which she often — and I occasionally — entered Mr. Gardner's private office is just out of the frame.
5) The photo of the school’s science teachers includes Mr. Gardner and Hertha Karl. “Biology and earth science are taught by Mrs. Karl and Mr. Gardner. Mr. Gardner also teaches physiology to the 7th and 8th grades.”
6) A photo near the end of the yearbook shows the senior class sitting in a circle. Also present are a science teacher, a math teacher, an English teacher, and Mr. Gardner. The caption says, in part: “Each week the seniors and several members of the faculty meet to discuss a topic of interest...The first part of the year has been spent in a reassessment of technology, as viewed by Friedrich Georg Juenger in his book, THE FAILURE OF TECHNOLOGY.”
7) The last text page in the yearbook includes the question “remember... lemniscates?”
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Of the authors cited, I was personally acquainted with John Fentress Gardner, Elizabeth Gardner Lombardi, Sylvester M. Morley, and Franz E. Winkler. The degree of acquaintance varied. Of the individuals named in the NEW YORK TIMES article about the Waldorf School scandal [see endnote 3], I did not know the “psychic” ex-student, some of the departing teachers, or the departing headmaster; I knew the former headmaster, the new (interim) headmaster, the departing high school principal, and the librarian; among those not named, I knew the new high school chairman and some other faculty and staff who remained at the school. In addition, I am aware that at least three of my former schoolmates joined the faculties at Waldorf schools — including one childhood acquaintance who eventually became faculty council chair at the Garden City Waldorf.
I wrote this essay in 2005-6. I’ve subsequently added some material. More recent essays are accessible at this Web site, and at waldorf-problems.com and steiner-predicts.com. If you’d like to read a brief biographical statement, click on the tag “bio” at the beginning of this essay.
CORRESPONDENCE
I published the first version of this essay in early 2006. Subsequently, I received first- and secondhand responses from a few old schoolmates. They ranged from “I do believe in angels, the supernatural and the constant battles between good and evil...” to “I loathed the specialness, secretiveness, etc., of the Waldorf Ring...we kids knew it was a lot of hokum...still there was a lot of damage.”
SOURCES
James Atlas, BELLOW: A BIOGRAPHY (New York: Random House, 2000).
Owen Barfield, SAVING THE APPEARANCES (Middletown, CT: Weslyan University Press, 1957).
Saul Bellow, IT ALL ADDS UP (New York: Viking, 1994).
Helena Blavatsky, THE SECRET DOCTRINE (Pasadena, CA: Theosophical University Press, reprint edition, 1999).
Paul Bloom, “Is God an Accident?”, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, December, 2005.
Johan Böhm, “Friedrich Benesch: Naturwissenschaftler, Anthropologe, Theologe und Politiker” Halbjahresschrift für südosteuropäische Geschichte, Literatur und Politik, vol. 16 no. 1 (May 2004).
Kurt D. Bruner & Jim Ware, FINDING GOD IN THE LORD OF THE RINGS (USA: SaltRiver, 2001).
Benedict Carey, “Do You Believe in Magic?”, THE NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 23, 2007.
Thomas Carlyle, ON HEROES AND HERO-WORSHIP {published in the same volume as Ralph Waldo Emerson, REPRESENTATIVE MEN} (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, undated).
Marcus Tulles Cicero, ON THE NATURE OF THE GODS, Book I, XXVI, 45 BC.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, THE SELECTED WRITINGS OF RALPH WALDO EMERSON (New York: Random House, 1940).
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA at www.britannica.com.
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION (Detroit: MacMillan Reference, 2005).
John Fentress Gardner, AMERICAN HERALDS OF THE SPIRIT (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press, 1992).
John Fentress Gardner, EDUCATION IN SEARCH OF THE SPIRIT (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1996).
John Fentress Gardner, THE EXPERIENCE OF KNOWLEDGE (New York: The Myrin Institute Inc., 1962).
John Fentress Gardner, “The Founding of Adelphi’s Waldorf School,” ONE MAN’S VISION: IN MEMORIAM, H.A.W. MYRIN (New York: The Myrin Institute Inc., 1970).
John Fentress Gardner, THE IDEA OF MAN IN AMERICA (New York: The Myrin Institute, 1974).
John Fentress Gardner, TWO PATHS TO THE SPIRIT: CHARISMATIC CHRISTIANITY AND ANTHROPOSOPHY (Great Barrington, MA: Golden Stone Press, 1990).
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, THE OCCULT ROOTS OF NAZISM: SECRET ARYAN CULTS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON NAZI IDEOLOGY (New York: NYU Press, 1992).
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, RUDOLF STEINER (Berkley: North Atlantic Books, 2004).
A.C. Harwood, PORTRAIT OF A WALDORF SCHOOL (New York: The Myrin Institute Inc., 1956).
Robin Marantz Henig, “Darwin’s God,” THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, March 4, 2007, at www.nytimes.com.
Bernard Heuvelmans, ON THE TRACK OF UNKNOWN ANIMALS (New York: Hill and Wang, 1959).
Friedrich Georg Juenger, THE FAILURE OF TECHNOLOGY (Chicago: Henry Regency Company, 1956).
LIBRARY JOURNAL, Feb. 1, 1995.
Sharon Lombard, “Spotlight on Anthroposophy,” CULTIC STUDIES, Vol. 2, No. 2. (www.waldorfcritics.org.)
Elizabeth Gardner Lombardi, “Foreword,” “Recollections,” “Carol and Ernest Hemingway: The Letters of Loss,” etc., The Hemingway Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, Fall 2004.
John T. McQuiston, “’Psychic’ Ex-Student’s Influence Shakes Waldorf School,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, Feb. 18, 1979.
Sylvester M. Morley, AMERICAN INDIANS AND OUR WAY OF LIFE (New York: The Myrin Institute Inc., 1961).
Sylvester M. Morley, CAN THE RED MAN HELP THE WHITE MAN? (New York: The Myrin Institute Inc., 1970), addendum by John Fentress Gardner.
The News, the Waldorf School of Garden City, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2004.
Earl J. Ogletree, “Rudolf Steiner: Unknown Educator,” THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL, Vol. 74, No. 6. (Mar., 1974).
Todd Oppenheimer, “A Sense of Ethics,” THE ATLANTIC ONLINE, 1999.
Todd Oppenheimer, “Schooling the Imagination,” THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Sept. 1999.
Dennis Overbye, “Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 2, 2007, at www.nytimes.com.
1964 PINNACLE, Waldorf School of Adelphi University, (Kansas City: Inter-Collegiate Press, 1964).
R. J. Reilly, ROMANTIC RELIGION (Great Barrington, MA: Lindisfarne Press, 2006).
Eugene Schwartz, WALDORF EDUCATION, Schools for the Twenty-First Century (Xlibris Corporation, 2000).
SCIENCE, Nov. 6, 1959.
Richard Seddon, RUDOLF STEINER, WESTERN ESOTERIC MASTERS SERIES (Berkley: North Atlantic Books, 2004), general editor's preface by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke.
Anthony Standon, SCIENCE IS A SACRED COW (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1950).
Peter Staudenmaier, message 1569 at groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics, 2007.
Peter Staudenmaier, message 1571 at groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics, 2007.
Peter Staudenmaier, “Race and Redemption: Racial and Ethnic Evolution in Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophy,” 2004, www.waldorfcritics.org.
Peter Staudenmeir, “Waldorf in the Nazi Era,” 2004, waldorfcritics.org.
Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF MYSTERY WISDOM (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996).
Rudolf Steiner, ART AS SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1998).
Rudolf Steiner, lecture given on October 15, 1911, quoted in ART INSPIRED BY RUDOLF STEINER, John Fletcher (England: Mercury Arts Publications, 1987).
Rudolf Steiner, THE ARTS AND THEIR MISSION, Lectures from 1923 (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1964).
Rudolf Steiner, THE BOUNDARIES OF NATURAL SCIENCE (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1983), foreword by Saul Bellow.
Rudolf Steiner, THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY: EARLY LECTURES (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1998).
Rudolf Steiner, THE DESTINIES OF INDIVIDUALS AND OF NATIONS (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1986).
Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996).
Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR SPECIAL NEEDS: The Curative Education Course (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998).
Rudolf Steiner, ESSENTIALS OF EDUCATION: FIVE LECTURES DELIVERED [SIC] DURING THE EDUCATIONAL CONFERENCE AT THE WALDORF SCHOOL, STUTTGART, APRIL, 1924 (Anthroposophical Publishing Company, 1926).
Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1998, Volumes 1 & 2).
Rudolf Steiner, THE FIFTH GOSPEL: FROM THE AKASHIC RECORD (East Sussex, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995).
Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE (Foundations of Waldorf Education, 1) (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 1996).
Rudolf Steiner, FROM BEETROOT TO BUDDHISM (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1999).
Rudolf Steiner, DIE GEISTIGEN HINTERGRÜNDE DES ERSTEN WELTKRIEGES {The Spiritual Background of the First World War} (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1974).
Rudolf Steiner, HEALTH AND ILLNESS, VOL. 1. Lectures from 1922 (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1981).
Rudolf Steiner, THE INCARNATION OF AHRIMAN: THE EMBODIMENT OF EVIL ON EARTH (Forest Row, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press, 2006).
Rudolf Steiner, THE KARMA OF UNTRUTHFULNESS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005).
Rudolf Steiner, KARMIC RELATIONSHIPS: Esoteric Studies, Vol. 2 (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1974).
Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (London & New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1944).
Rudolf Steiner, LIGHT FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998).
Rudolf Steiner, THE MISSION OF THE FOLK SOULS (UK: Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005).
Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS. Lectures from 1908-1924 (UK: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995).
Rudolf Steiner, OCCULT HISTORY (UK: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1982).
Rudolf Steiner, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 1997, p. xii, introduction by Clopper Almon).
Rudolf Steiner, PHILOSOPHY, COSMOLOGY, AND RELIGION (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1984).
Rudolf Steiner, PRAYERS FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995).
Rudolf Steiner, RUDOLF STEINER IN THE WALDORF SCHOOL, Foundations of Waldorf Education (Anthroposophic Press, 1996).
Rudolf Steiner, THE SPIRITUAL HIERARCHIES AND THE PHYSICAL WORLD: REALITY AND ILLUSION (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1996).
Rudolf Steiner, SPIRITUALISM, MADAME BLAVATSKY, AND THEOSOPHY: AN EYEWITNESS VIEW OF OCCULT HISTORY (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 2001).
Rudolf Steiner, STAYING CONNECTED: HOW TO CONTINUE YOUR RELATIONS WITH THOSE WHO HAVE DIED (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 1999).
Rudolf Steiner, THEOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SPIRITUAL PROCESSES IN HUMAN LIFE AND IN THE COSMOS (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 1994).
Rudolf Steiner, THEOSOPHY OF THE ROSICRUCIAN (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1981).
Rudolf Steiner, THE UNIVERSAL HUMAN: THE EVOLUTION OF INDIVIDUALITY, Lectures from 1909-1916 (USA: Anthroposophic Press, 1990).
Rudolf Steiner, UNIVERSE EARTH AND MAN IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO EGYPTIAN MYTHS AND MODERN CIVILIZATION (Kessinger Publishing, 2003).
Rudolf Steiner, VOM LEBEN DES MENSCHEN UND DER ERDE {On the Life of Human Beings and of the Earth} (Dornach: Verlag Der Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, 1961).
Rudolf Steiner, “Vom Wesen des Judentums,” DIE GESCHICHTE DER MENSCHHEIT UND DIE WELTANSCHAUUNGEN DER KULTURVOLKER, Dornach, 1968; English translation from “Anthroposophy and the Question of Race” (English summary for the media). Council of the Anthroposophical Society in The Netherlands, Zeist/Driebergen, April 1, 2000.
Rudolf Steiner, WHAT IS ANTHROPOSOPHY: THREE SPIRITUAL PERSPECTIVES ON SELF-KNOWLEDGE (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 2002, introduction by Christopher Bamford).
J.W.N. Sullivan, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE (New York: The Viking Press, 1933).
THE WASHINGTON POST WEEKLY EDITION (May 14-20, 2007).
Peter Washington, MADAME BLAVATKSY’S BABOON: THEOSOPHY AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE WESTERN GURU (London: Secker & Warburg, 1993).
Rick Weiss, “Scientists Find a DNA Change That Accounts for White Skin,” THE WASHINGTON POST, Dec. 16, 2005.
Joseph Wetzl (translator), THE BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER: AFTER DEATH [sic] COMMUNICATIONS OF A YOUNG ARTIST WHO DIED IN WORLD WAR I (Anthroposophic Press, 1974).
Roy Wilkinson, THE SPIRITUAL BASIS OF STEINER EDUCATION (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996), p. 87.
Roy Wilkinson, TEACHING ENGLISH (Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1976, reprinted 1997).
Lawrence Williams, Ed.D., OAK MEADOW AND WALDORF — see www.oakmeadow.com/resources.
Lawrence Williams, Ed.D., THE OAK MEADOW TRILOGY (Oak Meadow, Inc., 1997) — see www.oakmeadow.com.
Garry Wills, “The Day the Enlightenment Went Out,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, Nov. 4, 2004.
Franz E. Winkler, FOR FREEDOM DESTINED: MYSTERIES OF MAN’S EVOLUTION IN THE MYTHOLOGY OF WAGNER’S RING OPERAS AND PARSIFAL (New York: The Waldorf Press, 1974).
Franz E. Winkler, THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY ON EDUCATION (New York: The Myrin Institute, Inc., 1955).
Franz E. Winkler, MAN, THE BRIDGE BETWEEN TWO WORLDS (New York: Harper & Row, 1960).
Ralph C. Woods, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO TOLKIEN (Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003).
Web Sites:
www.adelphi.edu
www.awsna.org
www.britannica.com
www.buddhism.about.com
www.defendingsteiner.com
www.edgarcayce.org
www.enlightenedbeings.com
www.everydayzen.org
groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics
www.highmowing.org
www.mothering.com
www.oakmeadow.com
www.nytimes.com
www.openwaldorf.com
www.stanford.edu
www.steinerinstitute.org
www.theatlantic.com
www.waldorfcritics.org
www.waldorfgarden.org
www.waldorfworld.net
Literary Works Cited:
Dante Alighieri, THE DIVINE COMEDY, 1321.
Saul Bellow, HENDERSON THE RAIN KING (New York: Viking, 1959).
Saul Bellow, HUMBOLDT’S GIFT (New York: Viking, 1975).
Willa Cather, MY ANTONIA, 1918.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, 1866.
Homer, THE ODYSSEY, circa. 700 BC.
C.S. Lewis, SPACE TRILOGY (London: John Lane, 1938-1945).
John Milton, PARADISE LOST, 1667
J.R.R. Tolkien, THE LORD OF THE RINGS (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1954-55).
