On Steiner

Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
Hi Bradford, thanks for your reply. You wrote:
"However, just for the record, my own record, is there something you really, really admire about Dr. Steiner?"
Yes, there are several things I admire about Steiner, though they aren't very closely related to the aspects of his work that my research focuses on. I respect the way he combined ideas with practical endeavors; he usually didn't just teach principles, but stressed the importance of putting them into practice in very concrete ways. I know that might sound odd, since I disagree with so many of his ideas, but I think this practical emphasis sets Steiner apart from many of the other spiritual renewers of his time. I also respect his evident indifference toward many of the more worldly temptations that so many other popular spiritual leaders succumb to; as far as I can tell, he wasn't particularly interested in financial gain, or a docile group of adoring followers, and so forth. Among the variety of "barefoot prophets" of his generation, Steiner's personal comportment was pretty honorable, in my view.
"It's not that we shouldn't be picky eaters or, choose carefully what we like and dislike, it is just that I have heard so much about you that I wonder if there is something that really interests you about Spiritual Science?"
The things that really interest me about anthroposophy are rather removed from the things that I admire about Steiner. I'm mostly interested in Steiner's teachings about race and ethnicity and the ways these teachings have been incorporated into the work of his students, as well as the political affiliations of the first generation of anthroposophists. I wandered into this complex of themes by way of studying the German right wing, particularly those late nineteenth and early twentieth century rightists who showed a powerful interest in environmentalist and ecological issues. Much of my work (which mostly focuses on fascists, not on anthroposophists) concentrates on the kind of left-right crossover that was so prominent within alternative spiritual and cultural currents in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland at that time. I see Steiner, along with many of the first generation of anthroposophists, as exemplary figures in this respect; to my mind, they combined more or less progressive notions with more or less reactionary notions in a highly interesting way. That is largely what has kept my attention over the several years that I've been examining the history of anthroposophy. My own politics are quite far to the left, and are strongly ecologically oriented, and I find this sort of material fascinating in its own right, as well as very relevant to current issues. I hope that gives a better sense of why I spend so much of my time on critical assessments of anthroposophy.

Christine (February 22nd, 2004):
First, what is your personal conclusion about Rudolf Steiner and racism? Have you concluded that Rudolf Steiner in the final development was truly "racist"?

Peter Staudenmaier (February 22nd, 2004):
Yes, that is part of my conclusion, though what seems important to me is not whether Steiner was racist as a person, but whether his teachings contain important racist elements. But I do, as it happens, think it legitimate to describe Steiner as a racist. I think that several of my relatives are racists (kind of like your dad, maybe), and a number of very significant philosophers whose work I treasure were racists, and one of the great composers of all time, Richard Wagner, was an ardent racist and a raving antisemite. I think it is both possible and necessary to recognize the racist facets of figures like these, without using that as an excuse to dismiss the rest of their work.

Tarjei Straume (February 23rd 2003):
"this high regard for the Jews was evidently so deep and profound in Steiner that he obviously told the truth when he emphasized in his autobiography that he had not intended anything anti-Semitic when writing the politically inclined article in question."

Peter Staudenmaier (February 24nd, 2004):
That is not in dispute. Nobody here says that Steiner intended anything antisemitic in the 1888 article.