To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040307175304.45059.qmail@web14424.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 17:27:04 -0500

Daniel wrote:
"In the snipped portion of the above text, I questioned whether SELECTIVE USE of ONLY periodicals and official documents can ever create a COMPREHENSIVE PICTURE of the period being investigated."

Peter Staudenmaier:
Where did the "only" part come from?

Daniel:
In the part you snipped out. Where do you think?

Peter Staudenmaier:
And why are you stuck on this "comprehensive picture" idea?

Daniel:
Well I hope you'll pardon my high standards for historical research. Polemic is a different game entirely, and if that is what you aspire to write, then of course there is no requirement to actually understand anything about the subject you are writing about.

Peter Staudenmaier:
Nobody gets a comprehensive picture of an entire historical period out of an article.

Daniel:
Perhaps, but the writer of such an article ought to have such a comprehensive picture of an entire historical period before they sit down to write. Otherwise the quality of such an article will not likely be very good.

Daniel wrote:
"If this is "highly inaccurate" then I'm living in a different reality than Mr. Staudenmaier."

Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, I think that's part of the problem here.

Daniel:
And I'll agree. We are definitely living in a different realties when it comes to what constitutes good historical research.

Daniel wrote:
"That is what I don't find in Peter Staudenmaier's articles."

Peter Staudenmaier:
Why are you looking for a comprehensive picture of anything in articles written for a popular audience?

Daniel:
Well, again, I hope you'll pardon my high standards for historical research. Polemic is a different game entirely, and if that is what you aspire to write, then of course there is no requirement for accuracy, comprehensive understanding or objectivity.

Daniel wrote:
"Thanks for condescending to educate me by proxy on the methods and practices of history."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I've been trying hard not to condescend to you, but it's difficult sometimes (especially about philosophy, by the way, where you seem to consider yourself well-versed).

Daniel:
Yes, I've noticed that you have a hard time keeping your condescension in check sometimes. (And yes, my sarcasm can get out of hand at times; I suppose we all have something to work on). I claim no great knowledge of philosophy, but I have studied it a bit. From our recent exchanges, your background in the area appears to be more limited. Whether this is because you are highly knowledgeable in only a few areas but lack a comprehensive background, or whether you have simply not spent any time in the field I haven't been able to determine.

Peter Staudenmaier:
A number of your general claims about historians are very wide of the mark. If you could bring yourself to consult any of the materials I recommended, I think you'd realize that quickly.

Daniel:
If you care to post them here or mail them to me, I will read them and then write you a review. I'm afraid I don't have the time to go hunting for a half dozen books right now. But I will do you the courtesy of reading what you send me and responding.

Peter Staudenmaier:
There is a wide range of opinion among working historians today about how to deal with questions like objectivity (a few of us even agree with some of your expressed views on the subject), and it isn't hard to find extensive discussions of that topic.

Daniel:
Indeed, and after no small amount of consideration, I have chosen the opinions I choose to apply to my own work and to judge others. These are the ones I argue here. I could, of course, counter-recommend a dozen books on the subject that would correspond to my standards, but I suspect that you are already familiar with them. If you choose other standards for your own work, don't be surprised if I point out and articulate the differences between the standards I choose and the ones you choose. And if these make you methodology appear weak to a common-sense point of view, it is little recourse to point out that there are other people who agree with you.

Peter Staudenmaier:
I you can't track down the Bauer, Novick, or Bentley books, a good place to start is the book Telling the Truth About History by Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob. I also recommend Alan Spitzer, Historical Truth and Lies About the Past.

Daniel:
Again, if you care to post them here or mail them to me (originals, which I would of course return, or copies) I will read them and then write you a review. I'm afraid I don't have the time to go hunting for a half dozen books right now. But I will do you the courtesy of reading what you send me and responding. As an alternative, you could attempt to make the point yourself. Appealing to external authorities is certainly one way to argue, but the discussion stops when I counter with other authorities who disagree, and we are in the equivalent of trading quotations, a method which you have indicated you feel is useless in reaching understanding.


Daniel wrote:
"Well, if you reject a priori that his views on Eurythmy could have any relationship to his views on race and ethnicity, then you certainly will never discover if they do."

Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, that's very likely. This is called defining your topic. To make a research project worthwhile, you need to know what you're focusing on and what you're not focusing on. No historian believes that she or he will discover everything relevant to their chosen subject. The point is to do a thorough job in a clearly delineated area.

Daniel:
As usual, your position makes eminent sense in the general. Of course the point is to do a thorough job in a clearly delineated area. In this particular case, specifically Steiner, I think your area of specialization is simply too narrow. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you can't hope to understand Steiner's view on race if you don't understand his view of the human being and evolution. If you are bound to try anyway, studiously avoiding any real engagement with Steiner's main work, you are bound to end up with a distorted view. You can argue every which way that in your case this won't happen, but I guarantee you it will. No one would try to write about Jefferson's view of race without taking Jefferson's view of liberty into consideration. No one would think to write about the treatment of fire in Aristotle's work without trying to come to terms with Aristotle's overall worldview.

Daniel wrote:
"I essentially stated that you can't fully understand Steiner unless you know BOTH his allegedly racist statements AND his views on eurythmy."

Peter Staudenmaier:
That might be, but if so, then "fully understanding Steiner" is not part of the task of analyzing his racial doctrines. What individual historians produce are *partial* understandings of specific themes; if there is sustained interest in these themes, then the work of several historians over some span of time will sometimes yield a fuller understanding of the topic.

Daniel:
I'm afraid I disagree. Fully understanding Steiner is an essential prerequisite to the task of analyzing his statements on race (the very phrase "racial doctrines" is mistaken). Any less, and you will not be able to properly understand his statements on race. If you aim to produce a partial understanding of Steiner, I'm sure you won't mind my continually pointing out the fact that what you have done is succeeded in partially understanding Steiner. If that is your position, then I don't know what to make of your earlier statement:
"I wish to claim that I am striving for an honest understanding of Steiner and Anthroposophy. I'm also striving for an accurate and meaningful understanding of Steiner and anthroposophy. I'm also striving for a critical understanding of Steiner and anthroposophy. And so forth."

Daniel wrote:
"It doesn't matter what direction you approach things from, the point is to look at the whole picture."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I disagree. Much of the time the point is to look closely at a part of the picture by adjusting your focus.

Daniel:
To play with your metaphor, I still maintain that you should know roughly what the whole picture looks like before you get too lost in the part you are focusing on. Otherwise the adjective "myopic" may apply.

Daniel wrote:
"You can either decide what Steiner's main points are and then look at his apparently racist statements and their context, both within his work and within his entire culture, or you can look first at his apparently racist statements and their context, both within his work and within his entire culture, and then consider what Steiner's main points are."

Peter Staudenmaier:
The second one is appropriate, in my view, and the first one is not.

Daniel:
Well of course you would argue that. It fits supports what you are doing. You conveniently snipped the rest of the thought.
"Either way you should come to the same results, and if you don't, then it is time to start considering where the errors of understanding lay."
Can you explain why you are now claiming that it is inappropriate to study Steiner in general before considering Steiner and race? (I should also point out the other implication of this stance, namely that anthroposophists, virtually all of whom started with Steiner and then, if they get that far, look at Steiner and race, are behaving inappropriately. By implication (yes, yes, I know, you never, ever work by implication) in this case the implication is simply the next step in the thought - not logically necessary, but suggested none the less) by starting at the wrong end, anthroposophists will never properly understand Steiner's view on race. This can't be true, or else why do you bother coming here and attempting to educate us on the matter? So if it is possible to start at the other end and still eventually come to the same conclusion, why is it inappropriate to go about it this way?

Daniel wrote:
"What I accuse you of is starting at one end and then stopping half way through."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I am indeed roughly halfway through my work on Steiner's racial and ethnic doctrines. What makes you think I have stopped?

Daniel:
You just can't stop yourself, can you? Here again, you have snipped out my point, and then responded in such a way as to misrepresent my argument (that is six, for those who are counting). What was my original thought?
"You can either decide what Steiner's main points are and then look at his apparently racist statements and their context, both within his work and within his entire culture, or you can look first at his apparently racist statements and their context, both within his work and within his entire culture, and then consider what Steiner's main points are. Either way you should come to the same results, and if you don't, then it is time to start considering where the errors of understanding lay. What I accuse you of is starting at one end and then stopping half way through. It makes little sense to stop halfway, whichever end you start at."
I didn't accuse you of stopping half way through your own narrow (-minded) project, I accused you of half way through understanding Steiner. This despite your solemn vow that "I wish to claim that I am striving for an honest understanding of Steiner and Anthroposophy. I'm also striving for an accurate and meaningful understanding of Steiner and anthroposophy. I'm also striving for a critical understanding of Steiner and anthroposophy. And so forth." All this "and so forth" but apparently not a complete view of Steiner and anthroposophy. If you subsequently claim that it is your goal to form an honest understanding of Steiner without actually forming a complete understanding of Steiner, then I must say that would be much like Bill Clinton stating "I did not have sex with that woman."

Daniel Hindes

This dialogue continues.