Suppressing History?
Daniel
Hindes (March 2nd, 2004):
Daniel:
"
Don't you find it odd that the raw source material for most
all the
information of the behavior of anthroposophists during the
Third Reich comes from anthroposophists themselves?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, not in the least. Hardly anybody else studies anthroposophy's
history. Why do you find this odd, if I may ask?
Daniel:
Well, I would think that if anthroposophists felt that they
had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing the primary
documents and hope that no one notices. Yet on the contrary,
they seem to be taking a "full disclosure" approach
and publishing everything they can find in various archives.
Peter Staudenmaier (March 3rd, 2004):
Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
"
Well, I would think that if anthroposophists felt that they
had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing the primary
documents and hope that no one notices."
That would be a very foolish strategy, in my view. But I
think this is beside the point. My argument is not that anthroposophists
are trying to hide primary documents. My argument is that
many anthroposophists systematically misunderstand their
own movement's history.
"
Yet on the contrary, they seem to be taking a "full
disclosure" approach and publishing everything they
can find in various archives."
That is Arfst Wagner's approach. You are aware of how much
grief he's taken from other anthroposophists for doing this,
aren't you?
Daniel Hindes (March 3rd, 2004):
Daniel
wrote:
" Well, I would think that if anthroposophists felt that they
had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing the primary
documents and hope that no one notices."
Peter Staudenmaier:
That would be a very foolish strategy, in my view. But I think
this is beside the point. My argument is not that anthroposophists
are trying to hide primary documents. My argument is that many
anthroposophists systematically misunderstand their own movement's
history.
Daniel:
"
Yet on the contrary, they seem to be taking a "full disclosure" approach
and publishing everything they can find in various archives."
Peter Staudenmaier:
That is Arfst Wagner's approach. You are aware of how much
grief he's taken from other anthroposophists for doing this,
aren't you?
Daniel:
Actually, no. I haven't heard anything of the sort. I checked
with a few other people, and no one was aware of any. This
is not to say that there might exist some critical statements
off the beaten path, but I am not aware of any such public
criticism in mainstream Anthropsophical circles. I haven't
talked to Wagner personally, so perhaps he recieved private
correspondence on the matter, but there is no public record
that I have been able to find. Wagner's work is in several
larger Anthroposophical libraries, and quite a few big names
in anthroposophy find his work helpful. What makes you say
he has "gotten grief" for his work?
Daniel Hindes (March 5th, 2004): [Peter
Staudenmaier changed thread titles in his intermediate response,
reproduced in full here]
Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
" Well, I would think that if anthroposophists felt that they
had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing the primary
documents and hope that no one notice.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That would be a very foolish strategy, in my view.
Daniel:
Indeed. Eventually someone would unearth them. But there
is no indication that such a strategy was ever contemplated.
Anthroposophists are as interested as anyone (and perhaps
more so) about the history of their movement during the Nazi
era. That is why it is Anthroposophists are the ones unearthing
and publishing this information. I must point out that you,
for all your interpretation, have not uncovered any new primary
source material from any archives on the subject. All you
have accomplished so far is to arrange a narrow selection
of these documents that you have culled from sources that
Anthroposophists have published into such a pattern that
it paints the picture that you would like to present. You
have made no attempt whatsoever to determine what the majority
of Anthroposophists thought about Hitler or Nazism at the
time. You have picked through for the few prominent examples
that support your case, and made it your job to publicize
these as representative of the movement as a whole. This
is not indicative of the work of a real historian.
Peter Staudenmaier:
But I think this is beside the point. My argument is not
that anthroposophists are trying to hide primary documents.
My argument is that many anthroposophists systematically
misunderstand their own movement's history.
Daniel:
Well, so we are arguing interpretation then. Good. My fundamental
stance is not that the documents you have found don't support
the case you make. Rather, my point is that the documents
you have found represent a small aspect of Steiner's work
and the history of the movement (well under 1%). The other
99.9% tell a vastly different story. The problem is how
to integrate the two parts - your small collection of documents
and the 88,600 pages of other material - into a consistent
whole and examine that. This is what a serious historian
would attempt. But you have given no indication of being
in the least bit interested in such an undertaking. Instead
you have said that it would be "an abdication of responsibility" (to
what or whom, I must wonder) for you to attempt to be objective,
even for one article. I appreciate your honesty in such
a stance, but I don't see how anyone can take your writing
seriously given such a stance.
Peter Staudenmaier (March 5th, 2004):
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
"All you have accomplished so far is to arrange a
narrow selection of these documents that you have culled
from sources
that Anthroposophists have published into such a pattern
that it paints the picture that you would like to present."
I think you are mistaken about the range of sources I use,
as well as their provenance. I rely on a broad array of
anthroposophical publications, as well as a large number
of non-anthroposophical publications.
" You have made no attempt whatsoever to determine what the
majority of Anthroposophists thought about Hitler or Nazism
at the time."
Indeed. What I focus on is what anthroposophical periodicals
published at the time, what anthroposophical officials
said at the time, and so forth.
" You have picked through for the few prominent examples
that support your case, and made it your job to publicize
these as representative of the movement as a whole."
Aside from the fact that I look at a lot more than just
a few examples, whether these examples are representative
of the movement as a whole remains an interesting question,
in my view. Do you think that this question is not worth
exploring?
" This is not indicative of the work of a real historian."
If I may say so, I think you have an odd conception of
what historians do. Picking through the available evidence
and analyzing prominent examples is a big part of the job.
" Well, so we are arguing interpretation then."
Yes, that's what we've been doing all along.
" My fundamental stance is not that the documents you have
found don't support the case you make. Rather, my point
is that the documents you have found represent a small
aspect of Steiner's work and the history of the movement
(well under 1%). The other 99.9% tell a vastly different
story."
Vastly different in what sense? If you mean vastly different
in the sense that much of Steiner's work is irrelevant
to the topics I examine, then I largely agree. If you mean
that the preponderance of his work on race, for example,
is anti-racist, then I disagree. If you're talking about
his teachings on Jews and Jewishness, I think it's pretty
much split down the middle, as I've explained before.
" The problem is how to integrate the two parts - your small
collection of documents and the 88,600 pages of other material
- into a consistent whole and examine that."
I don't think that would be a sensible way to approach
the matter. If you want to study Annie Besant's atheist
writings, for example, you'd do well to set aside her Theosophical
writings.
" But you have given no indication of being in the least
bit interested in such an undertaking."
It is certainly true that I am not interested in trying
to force everything Steiner wrote into some "consistent
whole". That would be a fundamental misunderstanding
of the nature of historical reconstruction.
"
Instead you have said that it would be "an abdication
of responsibility" (to what or whom, I must wonder)
for you to attempt to be objective, even for one article."
There is nothing objective about pretending that Steiner's
entire work forms a consistent whole, if that's what you're
getting at. But I think you and I simply disagree about
what sort of objectivity is appropriate in any case. Suspending
critical judgement is very much the wrong kind of objectivity.
Daniel Hindes (March 5th, 2004):
HI Daniel, you wrote:
" This seems incredibly disrespectful of anthroposophists."
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think perhaps we disagree about what counts as respectful
discourse. I know absolutely nothing about calculus, for
example. You show me no disrespect whatever if you point
out that fact.
Daniel responds:
Well, your counterexample nicely sidesteps my original
accusation. Of course I would show you no disrespect if
I were to accuse
you of ignorance of calculus and knew this to be true (As
a side note, I must say, mathematics in general and calculus
specifically is a wonderful training in clear, logical
thinking; among other things, in math the answer is right
or wrong,
and you can't argue over how to apply an exponent to a
variable or whether a negative sign really applies to the
entire expression).
Your original accusation did not accuse a specific person
of ignorance. You accused an entire group of thousands
of individuals of ignorance, in a case where you are in
a position
to know that in at least a few cases the accusation is
not true (and I grant you, it may have been inadvertent,
and
thus not technically a "lie"). This type of generalization
is what I termed disrespectful. If I were to accuse all
Waldorf Critics of being unable to think logically and
consistently,
that too would be disrespectful. Among other things, I
have no way of knowing whether my accusation really applies
to
all such critics or just the ones I have come in contact
with so far. In making such a gross generalization, I would
just be shooting off my mouth.
Daniel Hindes (March 5th, 2004):
Daniel wrote:
" However, since for the most part it doesn't support the version
you would like to read, so you simply dismiss it out of
hand."
Peter Staudenmaier
That's silly. It makes no sense to dismiss something out
of hand simply because it doesn't support one's own reading
of the material.
Daniel:
Indeed. Which is why I have to wonder why you seem to do
so so frequently in the case of the significant anti-racist
and anti-discrimination stances inherent in anthroposophy.
Daniel Hindes
Daniel Hindes (March 5th, 2004):
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
" All you have accomplished so far is to arrange a narrow selection
of these documents that you have culled from sources that
Anthroposophists have published into such a pattern that it paints the picture
that you would like to present."
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think you are mistaken about the range of sources I use,
as well as their provenance. I rely on a broad array of anthroposophical
publications, as well as a large number of non-anthroposophical
publications.
Daniel:
Your first statement is a classic "wiggle" move
of argumentation. You are countering a different point than
the
one I made. I said nothing derogatory about the range of
sources you use or their provenance. I questioned the usefulness
of
the entire collection.
Daniel Hindes (March 5th, 2004):
Daniel wrote:
" You have made no attempt whatsoever to determine what the
majority of Anthroposophists thought about Hitler or Nazism
at the time."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Indeed. What I focus on is what anthroposophical periodicals
published at the time, what anthroposophical officials said
at the time, and so forth.
Daniel:
And this is what sets you apart from serious historians.
Further, the mere fact that you focus on what anthroposophical
periodicals published at the time and what anthroposophical
officials said at the time, etc. does not tell the whole
story, for you only focus on those aspects of these sources
that support your contention, and not what all these sourcs
say on the balance. You are stuck in polemic if all you do
is look for the parts you like and ignore the whole.
Daniel Hindes (March 5th, 2004):
Daniel wrote:
" My fundamental stance is not that the documents you have
found don't support the case you make. Rather, my point
is that the documents you have found represent a small aspect
of Steiner's work and the history of the movement (well
under 1%). The other 99.9% tell a vastly different story."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Vastly different in what sense? If you mean vastly different
in the sense that much of Steiner's work is irrelevant to
the topics I examine, then I largely agree. If you mean that
the preponderance of his work on race, for example, is anti-racist,
then I disagree. If you're talking about his teachings on
Jews and Jewishness, I think it's pretty much split down
the middle, as I've explained before.
Daniel:
It is precicely in the fact that you fail to see how the
rest of Steiner's work relates to his views on race that
I consider your greatest weakness.
Daniel wrote:
" The problem is how to integrate the two parts - your small
collection of documents and the 88,600 pages of other material
- into a consistent whole and examine that."
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't think that would be a sensible way to approach the
matter. If you want to study Annie Besant's atheist writings,
for example, you'd do well to set aside her Theosophical
writings.
Daniel:
If you did that, you would have an incomplete view of Besant.
You could not claim to understand Besant, only her athiest
writings. The same applies to Steiner. If you want to be
an expert on those quotes that make Steiner appear racist,
so be it. If you want to be an expert on Steiner, you'll
have to do a little more work than that. I can understand
you hesitency to attempt an full understanding of Steiner
- it is a lot of work, after all - but I don't feel that
you can get around the basic problem that if you don't understand
Steiner's main points, you simply don't possess the historical
context in which to evaluate the rest of the quotes.
Daniel wrote:
" But you have given no indication of being in the least bit
interested in such an undertaking."
Peter Staudenmaier:
It is certainly true that I am not interested in trying
to force everything Steiner wrote into some "consistent
whole". That would be a fundamental misunderstanding
of the nature of historical reconstruction.
Daniel:
On the contrary, it is a prerequisite for historical reconstruction.
I have precious little hope of understanding Stalingrad if
I don't know how the Germans got there or why they refused
to leave. At best I can describe the who, what, where and
when, but I have no chance of properly explaining the why
unless I possess a fairly comprehensive understanding of
the psychology a certain short Austrian 1500 miles away.
You are fine with your Steiner quotes as long as you stay
with the who, what, where and when, but as soon as you attempt
the why you are lost unless you have at least some understanding
of how Steiner thought.
Daniel Hindes (March 5th, 2004):
Daniel wrote:
"
Instead you have said that it would be "an abdication
of responsibility" (to what or whom, I must wonder)
for you to attempt to be objective, even for one article."
Peter Staudenmaier:
There is nothing objective about pretending that Steiner's
entire work forms a consistent whole, if that's what you're
getting at. But I think you and I simply disagree about what
sort of objectivity is appropriate in any case. Suspending
critical judgement is very much the wrong kind of objectivity.
Daniel:
Granted:
Suspending critical judgement is not desireable.
We are back to philosophical subjectivism versus philosophical
idealism. It is only out of a relativist subjectivism that
you can claim that Steiner's work does not form a consistent
whole. And only if it does not form a consistent whole can
you claim that it is pointless to attempt to understand it.
If, however, you stand on relativist subjectivism, the ground
under your feet is shaky indeed.
Steiner's work either forms a consistent whole, or it does
not. If it does form a consistent whole then it is possible
to be objective about it. If it does not, then it is not
possible to be objective about that, or anyting else, for
that matter.
A whole may contain contradictory or appearently contradictory
aspects. Identifying appearent contradictions is easy. Reconciling
appearent contradictions requires considering both sides.
No one has objectivity who has not considered both sides.
Daniel Hindes (March 5th, 2004):
Daniel wrote:
"
You have picked through for the few prominent examples that
support your case, and made it your job to publicize these
as representative of the movement as a whole."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Aside from the fact that I look at a lot more than just a
few examples, whether these examples are representative of
the movement as a whole remains an interesting question,
in my view. Do you think that this question is not worth
exploring?
Daniel:
I think the question is worth exploring. I am exploring it
myself. The mere fact that you look at a lot of examples
belies the fact that you systematically ignore the ones that
don't support your case (again evidence of polemical writing
and not history).
Daniel wrote:
"
This is not indicative of the work of a real historian."
Peter Staudenmaier:
If I may say so, I think you have an odd conception of what
historians do. Picking through the available evidence and
analyzing prominent examples is a big part of the job.
Daniel:
While picking through the available evidence and analyzing
prominent examples is a big part of the job of a historian,
the job does not end there. A historian has the responsibility
for attempting to the best of their ability to fairly present
the entire case, and not just the part that fits their pet
theory. Subsequent scholars generally have a dim view of
so-called historians with obvious biases.
Daniel Hindes (March 7th, 2004):
Peter,
I'm still curious why you think Arfst Wagner took a lot of
grief for taking a "full disclosure" approach to
the behavior of Anthroposophists during the Third Reich.
I realize that your comment was off-the-cuff, but the implications
are serious. You are suggesting that there is hostility on
the part of Anthroposophists to examining their own history.
I know of no such tendency, so I have to call you on this.
(Yes, I know, you never, ever work by implication, but consider
the implications of your accusation for a moment). What evidence
do you have that Arfst Wagner took a lot of grief for taking
a "full disclosure" approach to the behavior of
Anthroposophists during the Third Reich?
Peter Staudenmaier (March 8th, 2004):
I think you'll find this hard to believe, but I didn't reply
initially because I didn't want to make fun of you for this.
The controversy over Wagner's efforts is crucial to understanding
Uwe Werner's book, for example. While some anthroposophists
greeted Wagner's publications as a sign of historical maturation,
others were furious with him. Wagner himself described the
latter sort of reactions as "Eine braune Flutwelle aus
bestimmten Kreisen der Anthroposophenschaft." (Interview
with Wagner in the special anthroposophy issue of the taz,
11 March 1995, p. 12.) The differences between Wagner and
Werner are more nuanced, of course, but nevertheless significant.
I urge you to read the several critical reviews of Werner's
book that Wagner published in the anthroposophical press.
I'm afraid I don't have citations at hand, but I think one
of them appeared in the Swiss journal Die Gegenwart. Wagner
is usually happy to reply to correspondence, in my experience,
so you could just contact him directly if you prefer.
Daniel Hindes (March 8th, 2004):
I see. So there were a few apparently critical reviews to
Wagner's work, and later to Werner's book. I'll have to read
them myself, as I don't really trust your characterization
(you'll pardon me on this, but your track record to date
isn't very good on these type of things).
The statement of Wagner's you cite states that his work "Elicited
a brown tidal wave from certain circles of anthroposophists".
You've snipped it quite short, so I have no context, but
my first inclination is to read it to mean that his work
encouraged an outpouring from those anthroposophists who
were fascists (hence a "brown" i.e. fascist tidal
wave), which he probably found regrettable. I also note the
careful "certain circles"; Wagner is clearly not
implicating the movement in general. In it's full context
I might come to a different interpretation.
I initially speculated that there was probably some sort
of criticism, but also stated that an overwhelming majority
of Anthroposophists within the movement supported Wagner
and Werner. So far, I have heard nothing to convince me otherwise.
Oh, and don't worry about my feelings. If I ask an honest
question, I can handle an honest answer. Your concern is
touching, though.
|
