Open Mindedness?

Patrick Evans (February 23rd, 2004):
"I think that certain doors of understanding are closed in your mind with regard to Steiner."

Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004):
That is very likely true.

Dottie Zold (February 23rd, 2004):
"The problem with your article is that you have an apparent bias."

Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004):
Why would that be a problem? You would prefer that I kept my bias unapparent?
[Actually, the ideal casewould be to overcome a bias, especially if you presume to write history]

Christine (February 22nd, 2004):
"While your scholarship on the issue is profound and has involved many hours of research and thought, do you think that you have presented it in a way and through a medium that would keep the discussion in an academic and objective realm?"

Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
I hope not! I am very critical of the academic realm and the stultifying conception of objectivity that is so often associated with it. That is one of the main reasons I have avoided an academic career so far and remained an independent scholar (though I must confess that I am currently in the midst of throwing in that particular towel); one of my goals is to move historical discussions out of the academic realm so that non-academics can participate in them. My published work on anthroposophy is not objective in the sense I think you mean, and no competent reader could mistake it for such; I am very up front about my own skeptical stance. Much of what I write on anthroposophy is a mixture of scholarship and polemic, addressed to a non-specialist audience. It is not a neutral reflection on the pros and cons of Steiner's various doctrines.

Christine (February 22nd, 2004):
Since I have not read your published work yet, may I ask what the prime objective of that work is? Is it specifically written with a stated viewpoint as to the amount of value to be found in Rudolf Steiner's work for the individual and/ or for society? And if so, which end of the value see-saw do you lean toward? Pro or con?

Mike Helsher (February 23rd, 2004):
"But I'm sorry, and maybe I need help getting past the idea that our subjective life experience doesn't taint our motive and intent."

Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004):
I'd say that "taint" is probably the wrong word here, but I don't disagree with the general sentiment. I also agree with Bradford's observation that our biases shine through in our writing; this seems obvious and unremarkable to me. Since there is nothing wrong with bias in that sense, particularly when it is right out in the open, I still can't see what this has to do with the discussion we've been having. Every reader of my work on anthroposophy knows that I am a critic of anthroposophy. Why would that be a bad thing?

Bradford (February 22nd, 2004):
"We may imagine that we are acting with a 'Fair and Balanced' thought"

Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004):
In my opinion, people who imagine this are fooling themselves, especially when they're involved in public discussion of controversial topics. If anybody out there thought I was trying to present my perspective on anthroposophy as 'fair and balanced' in that sense, please take it from me: I am a critic of anthroposophy, not some neutral referee. Fairness and balance are not what I aspire to in this context. My work is in part a response to what I see as the often utterly inadequate accounts of anthroposophy's history purveyed by many anthroposophists. My work is explicitly directed against these accounts. That is what I consider to be the legitimate goal of critique. I have absolutely no idea what any of that might have to do with moral relativism.

Bryan Miller (February 23rd, 2004):
"What is your ultimate goal in pursuing this criticism?

Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004):
To have my opinion changed. That's why we put arguments out into the public realm, no?

Bryan Miller (February 23rd, 2004):
Not really. Most criticism aims to change the object being critized or at least the perception/opinion that others have of this object. However, if you want to have your opinion changed, may I ask why?

Bryan Miller (February 24th, 2004):
"To clarify things: my first question to you was, what is your ultimate goal in your work as a critic of anthroposophy? Is there a practical goal you want to achieve?"

Peter Staudenmaier (February 25th, 2004):
No, not in the way that I think of 'practical goals'. I didn't seek out the topic, I sort of stumbled onto it. When I was asked to write my first article on anthroposophy, I thought I'd just do the one piece and then move on. That article did include several 'practical goals', and was explicitly formulated along political lines. The outraged responses it generated made me go back to the materials, and the more I dug up the more I was drawn into a long term research project. At this point I'm trying to write a book on Steiner's racial theories and their reception among the first generation of anthroposophists, but it's coming along slowly. I do have a lot of the primary research done, but it's looking like I may have to hold off on the writing for a couple years.