To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040305232532.22878.qmail@web14423.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] understanding antisemitism
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:21:48 -0500

Daniel wrote:
"I notice this has gone unremarked. The implication is that if we are to remain consistent, it is not possible to speak of Steiner as an anti-Semite, or even to speak of Steiner's anti-Semitism. We can only talk about certain ideas of Steiner's that may appear anti-Semetic."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I think you skipped several steps in reaching that conclusion. Talking about who or what a person is is different from talking about what they say and write. It scarcely follows that we can only talk about the latter. The point is simply that it sometimes makes sense to keep the distinction in mind. It is entirely accurate to describe Heinrich von Treitschke as an antisemite, based on the antisemitic things that he said and wrote. (If you disagree, now would be a good time to say so.) Yet Treitschke never considered himself an antisemite. This does not by itself prevent historians from doing so. Alternatively, it would be a bad idea to label every person who ever made a single antisemitic remark an antisemite. I hope that clarifies things.

Daniel responds:
Your points here are quite valid (and you will certainly not find me defending Treitschke from charges of anti-Semitism). Talking about who or what a person is is indeed different from talking about what they say and write. And of course, it does not automatically follow that we should therefore not label them.

So we agree that it is possible to label someone an anti-Semite. The question remains, what is required for someone to earn the label? You have suggested that a single anti-Semitic remark is generally not sufficient grounds to earn the label (though I'm sure there are some who would disagree). The difficulty is coming up with a standard. Absent a standard, it is easy to be quite arbitrary with the label.

There are some who argue that we should never label another person with anything, either good or bad (this is one of the key points of Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication). Rosenberg argues that we should only ever describe behavior, and that this makes for more open exchanges. A similar theory is derived by Carol Dweck in her study of the learning behavior of school children. Dweck has found that the label "intelligent" has a number of negative consequence for the children upon whom it is affixed. I have found the research sufficiently convincing to attempt to change my own behavior in this regard.

When you responded to Patrick's question, I thought you might be operating from a similar background. Another possibility is that you were just playing a game with his honest question, and getting a cheap jab in as well, suggesting that his understanding is blocked because he is somehow fixated on labels. The key "wiggle" word is "necessarily". You seem to be saying that it does not require us attach the label, sidestepping the fact that you probably will affix it anyway, not because it is required, but because you choose to. The put-down of Patrick is really gratuitous, since you are not actually making a counter-claim.

Daniel Hindes

The original exchange (thanks Peter!):
"Why does this make [Steiner] philosemitic and antisemitic?"
Peter Staudenmaier:
"It doesn't necessarily make him anything at all. You'd have an easier time understanding this if you could distinguish persons from beliefs."

Daniel:
So basically, Steiner was not an anti-Semite, he just held views that today can be characterized as anti-Semitic during certain periods of his life.

Daniel Hindes