Is "Racist" Stigmatizing?

Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
I agree that racist doctrines do not invalidate their authors' other achievements.

Tarjei Straume (February 22nd, 2004):
If the achievements in question relate to natural-scientific research, I agree that they are not affected by the morality of doctrines adhered to. If the achievements are of an occult-spiritual and/or moral-ethical nature, I disagree however.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
I wasn't talking about morality. I fundamentally disagree with your take on concepts like 'racism' (assuming I've understood what you're getting at); I don't think it makes sense to use these concepts primarily as moral categories; to my mind our first task is to see what they mean descriptively, and then we can move on to normative judgements.

Tarjei Straume (February 22nd, 2004):
In other words, racism has nothing to do with ethics and morality?

Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
Not until we enter into a discussion of ethics. It's important to distinguish between empirical and normative senses of the same term, don't you think?

Tarjei Straume (February 23rd, 2004):
I think it's important to keep the moral aspect of racism up front, especially when you throw the word around almost every time you mention Steiner, causing readers to form moral judgements because of it.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 24th, 2004):
Then we disagree. I think moral judgements are distinct from descriptive claims.

Tarjei Straume (February 23rd, 2004):
You're not communicating. The words "racism" and "racist" are charged with associations related to ethics, and when they are used in the manner you are using them, the reader is led to moral judgements, consciously or subconsciously. That does not mean that the author of a description is
passing judgements of any kind, although he or she may imply ever so subtely that a moral judgement is implicit.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 23rd, 2004):
I don't know why you think I'm not communicating. I simply disagree that it is impossible, or even particularly difficult, to use words like "racism" in a descriptive way, without invoking moral judgements. Try to keep in mind that there are a number of self-proclaimed racists out there who appreciate and promote Steiner's racial theories precisely because they see these theories as compatible with their own racist worldviews. [First, what do self-proclaimed racists have to do with whether the term is stigmatizing? Some people enjoy life on the fringes of society. That says nothing of whether the term stigmatizes. Second, such self-proclaimed racists have obviously missed all of Steiner's main themes. In fact, in some cases all they know about Steiner they got from Peter Staudenmaier!] Those folks evidently have a very different sense of moral judgement from yours and mine. I'm still not clear why you consider this controversial; just look at this very exchange right here: you and I can dispute what constitutes proper spirituality, according to our own moral judgements, but this won't tell us anything important about what the basic category of "spirituality" means. [And what does that have to do with whether the label "racist" is stigmatizing?]

Tarjei Straume (February 23rd, 2004):
Abuse of Steiner's conceptions of racial evolution does not ipso facto make those conceptions false; nor does it make them racist.

Christine (February 22nd, 2004):
"Or, do you not think that any association with the word "Nazi" may call up an emotional response in great numbers of people who do not have the time or inclination to do such scholarly work on their own?"

Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
No, I definitely disagree with you on that point, as I tried to spell out in one of my replies to you on the waldorf critics list. I think that terms like "racist" and "Nazi" have specific meanings that can and should be used responsibly, not as terms of abuse but as analytical descriptions. I spend an enormous chunk of my time reading documents written by Nazis (actual Nazis, the kind who proudly call themselves Nazis), and I pay close attention to what distinguishes their perspectives from those of other authoritarian right-wingers. Rudolf Steiner was certainly not a Nazi, but a number of his followers were, [Factually untrue. A small number of Nazis had some interest in Steiner; they were Nazis first. Steiner's followers deplored Nazism. Note that Peter Staudenmaier offers no examples here.] and there was a significant strand within the Nazi movement that looked favorably on various aspects of Steiner's work. The point of exploring these historical connections is not to call up an emotional response but to prompt informed consideration of the ambiguous record of alternative spiritual movements and their wide-ranging political affiliations.

Christine (February 22nd, 2004):
I accept and respect the fact that you and perhaps others, are using such words "responsibly" with clear and definite meanings. However, I maintain that in society in general, the percentage of people is very low who
a. have made an in depth study of the definitions and meanings of racism and
b. would approach your work without emotional pre-conceptions.

Dottie Zold (February 22nd, 2004):
It seems to me the reason you hold Steiner was not a Nazi was because he had died before this group actually pulled itself together, is this correct? And is it not correct that you think Dr. Steiner layed the groundwork for what later became teh thought process within the nazi regime?

Is "anti-Semitic" Stigmatizing?

Patrick Evans (February 27th, 2004):
"Secondly, the word anti-Semitic isn't merely descriptive. It attaches a stigma to anyone that is labeled by it. Surely you understand that by saying that anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are racist and anti-Semitic you contribute mightily to the perception of them as such. This could not be further from the truth. But as you know, perception becomes reality. anthroposophy brings forth the spiritual ideal that humanity is progressing towards universal brotherhood. It encourages us to look at the individual not the color of his skin. This idea opposes racist ideologies. In our time one must use these terms with care. When you use them you bear the responsibility of their effects. Do you disagree?"

Peter Staudenmaier (March 1st, 2004):
That is historically mistaken. The term "antisemite" was coined by antisemiites themselves (most prominently by Wilhelm Marr, founder of the League of Antisemites); it obviously carried no stigma for them.

Patrick Evans (February 27th, 2004):
"Surely you understand that by saying that anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are racist and anti-Semitic you contribute mightily to the perception of them as such."

Peter Staudenmaier (March 1st, 2004):
Merely saying such things cannot have this effect; there has to be some evidence for the charge to be even partially convincing. That's why I think we ought to be discussing the evidence in Steiner's case.

Patrick Evans (February 27th, 2004):
"In our time one must use these terms with care. When you use them you bear the responsibility of their effects. Do you disagree?"

Peter Staudenmaier (March 1st, 2004):
I agree that it is a good idea to use concepts like racism and antisemitism carefully. To my mind this requires some basic knowledge about the history of racist thought and the history of antisemitism.
[Note he says nothing about bearing responsibility for the effects of labeling. Peter Staudenmaier has a serious problem with moral responsibility, as these exchanges will show. He will never admit to being wrong, which means that he never takes responsibility for his mistakes, even when caught red-handed (in mistranslation, for example).]