Quality of Scholarship

Peter Staudenmaier (February 29th, 2004):
"I'd like to make the same recommendation to you that I made to other listmates a few days ago: read Ralf Sonnenberg's article. Not just for an illuminating perspective on this translation issue, but for a broader discussion of the themes I came here to discuss. It is by far the best treatment of Steiner's views on Jews that I have seen from an anthroposophist (which is, admittedly, not saying much), and it makes mincemeat out of that silly piece by Ravagli, Leist, and Bader that you put so much stock in. Here's the info again: Ralf Sonnenberg, " 'Keine Berechtigung innerhalb des modernen Völkerlebens': Judentum, Zionismus und Antisemitismus aus der Sicht Rudolf Steiners", Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung 12 (2003), pp. 185-209."

Daniel Hindes (March 1st, 2004):
Thanks for the recommendation. I've read both the article and the book. Personally I don't think that the academic level of the two are very far apart, so I have to wonder at your characterization of Sonnenbert's piece as "making mincemeat" of Ravagli, Leist, and Bader's book. It seems to fit a consistent pattern of praising highly any piece of work you agree with, while deprecating the academic credentials and intellectual abilities of those whose conclusions contradict your own. (For example, praising the scholarship of a writer like Peter Bierl while suggesting that Goodrick-Clarke has a bias towards Steiner.) Perhaps you could comment on how you feel Ravagli, Leist, and Bader's description of the context of Steiner's lectures to the workers of the Goetheanum does or does not alter your approach to an interpretation of select passages from the printed book.

Peter Staudenmaier (February 29th, 2004):
"I've read both the article and the book. Personally I don't think that the academic level of the two are very far apart"
I couldn't disagree more strongly. Ravagli et al routinely make the kind of blunders that nobody familar with the history of German antisemitism could possibly make.
"It seems to fit a consistent pattern of praising highly any piece of work you agree with"
But I obviously don't agree with Sonnenberg's work. I vigorously disagree with it. It is, however, historically informed, which Ravagli et al's is not.
"while deprecating the academic credentials and intellectual abilities of those whose conclusions contradict your own."
I'm not big on either academic credentials or intellectual abilities. People with limited intellectual abilities and no academic credentials frequently make entirely reasonable and perfectly persuasive arguments, while people with impressive intellectual abilities and extensive academic credentials frequently make utterly spurious and threadbare arguments.
[Peter Staudenmaier being a perfect case in point.]
"For example, praising the scholarship of a writer like Peter Bierl while suggesting that Goodrick-Clarke has a bias towards Steiner."
That was not at all a criticism of Goodrick-Clarke, who is an exemplary historian. There is nothing wrong with having a bias toward Steiner.
[A perfect illustration of Peter Staudenmaier's curious relationship to words. In the common understanding, accusing a historian of bias is a criticism, plain and simple.]
"Perhaps you could comment on how you feel Ravagli, Leist, and Bader's description of the context of Steiner's lectures to the workers of the Goetheanum does or does not alter your approach to an interpretation of select passages from the printed book."
I think you're talking about the book published by Verlag Freies Geistesleben; I was talking about the other text by the same authors and with the same title (the subtitles differ) published by the Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen. The former focuses on racism, the latter on antisemitism. Anyway, I think that most of their general remarks about the lectures to the Goetheanum workers are either banal or beside the point. Sometimes their claims in this respect are silly; witness the hypothetical comparison to "a militant racist" on pp. 113-114 of the Freies Geistesleben book. Remarks like those suggest that these authors are innocent of any meaningful historical perspective on the development of racist thinking.
[This is how Peter Staudenmaier treats a comprehensive rebuttal to his position. In 200 carefully argued pages, Ravagli, Leist, and Bader examine the primary texts in their historical context, and because the result is to defang all of Staudenmaier's criticisms, he dismisses the whole work as "silly". Acknowledging even one point would severely weaken his position.]