June 2006 Archives

His interest in, but distance from Nietzsche Steiner repeated frequently when referring to Nietzsche. In a memorial address given September 13th, 1900, Steiner speaks of himself in the following way:

It is strange that with the infatuation for Nietzsche in our day, someone must appear whose feelings, no less than many others, are drawn to the particular personality, and yet who, in spite of this, must constantly keep before him the deep contradictions which exist between this type of spirit, and the ideas and feelings of those who represent themselves as adherents of his world conception.(Steiner, Rudolf. Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom. Englewood, NJ: Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1960. Pages 201.)

Or in an article in the Wiener Klinischer Rundschau (14th year, No. 30, 1900):

For Nietzsche does not work upon his contemporaries through the logical power of his arguments. On the contrary, the wide dissemination of his concepts is to be traced to the same reasons which make it possible for zealots and fanatics to play their role in the world at all times.( Steiner, Rudolf. Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom. Englewood, NJ: Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1960. Pages 153-154. )

These are hardly the words of a man "under the sway of" Nietzsche. We find Steiner repeatedly distancing himself from the "zealots and fanatics" or even ordinary "adherents" of Nietzsche's world conception.

Steiner's relationship to Nietzsche

Probably the best source for understanding Nietzsche's influence on Steiner is Rudolf Steiner's book Friedrich Nietzsche, Ein Kämpfer Gegen Sein Zeit (a title I would translate as: Friedrich Nietzsche: a fighter doing battle against his times) published 1895. Lest his readers mistake him for a disciple of Nietzsche, Rudolf Steiner says on the very first page:

In the words in which he expressed his relationship to Schopenhauer, I would like to describe my relationship to Nietzsche: "I belong to those readers of Nietzsche who, after they have read the first page, know with certainty that they will read all pages, and listen to every word he has said. My confidence in him was there immediately... I understood him as if he had written just for me, in order to express all that I would say intelligibly but immediately and foolishly." One can speak thus and yet be far from acknowledging oneself as a "believer" in Nietzsche's world conception. But Nietzsche himself could not have been further from wishing to have such "believers." Did he not put into Zarathustra's mouth these words:

You say you believe in Zarathustra, but of what account is Zarathustra? You are my believer, but of what account are all believers?

You have not searched for yourself as yet; there you found me. Thus do all believers, but, for that reason, there is so little in all believing.

Now I advise you to forsake me, and find yourselves; and only when you have denied me will I return to you.

Nietzsche is no Messianic founder of a religion; therefore he can wish for friends who support his opinion, but he can not wish for confessors to his teaching, who give up their own selves to find his.

Steiner, Rudolf. Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom. Englewood, NJ: Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1960. Pages 42-43.

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 25 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

During his Vienna period Steiner also fell under the sway of Nietzsche, the outstanding anti-democratic thinker of the era, whose elitism made a powerful impression. The radical individualism of Max Stirner further contributed to the young Steiner's political outlook, yielding a potent philosophical melange that was waiting to be catalyzed by some dynamic reactionary force. The latter appeared to Steiner soon enough in the form of Ernst Haeckel and his Social Darwinist creed of Monism. Haeckel (1834-1919) was the founder of modern ecology and the major popularizer of evolutionary theory in Germany. Steiner became a partisan of Haeckel's views, and from him Anthroposophy inherited its environmentalist predilections, its hierarchical model of human development, and its tendency to interpret social phenomena in biological terms.

This next paragraph is a beautiful work of polemic, once again devoid of even the slightest hint of substantiation. It also has the chronology wrong, for Steiner encountered the works of Haeckel long before reading Nietzsche, and Stirner was the last of the three whose works Steiner read. Most would agree that Nietzsche was an outstanding anti-democratic thinker of his era, but did Steiner fall under his sway in the manner implied? And what was Stirner's influence on Steiner? Did it really yield "a potent philosophical mélange that was waiting to be catalyzed by some dynamic reactionary force"? (And why must it be a reactionary force that catalyzes this potent philosophical mélange? Could it not have just as easily been progressive force? Ah yes, the thesis is that Steiner was a proto-Nazi, so he must be socially reactionary.) Finally, what was Steiner's relationship to Haeckel? It seems that Steiner is quite a passive sponge under all this influencing. Was he the only person to have read Nietzsche, Stirner and Haeckel? Must anyone of that period who read all three also become an anti-democratic radical individualist and Social Darwinist? Let us look at the allegations one at a time, in my next entries.

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 24 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

The Social Vision of Anthroposophy

Steiner's political perspective was shaped by a variety of influences. Foremost among these was Romanticism, a literary and political movement that had a lasting impact on German culture in the nineteenth century. Like all broad cultural phenomena, Romanticism was politically complex, inspiring both left and right. But the leading political Romantics were explicit reactionaries and vehement nationalists who excluded Jews, even baptized ones, from their forums; they were bitter opponents of political reform and favored a strictly hierarchical, semi-feudal social order. The Romantic revulsion for nascent "modernity," hostility toward rationality and enlightenment, and mystical relation to nature all left their mark on Steiner's thought.

To sum up the paragraph, Steiner was hostile to rationality and enlightenment, favored a mystical relation to nature and was revulsed by "modernity," and was therefore influenced by the Romantics. Since he was influenced by the Romantics, he must also share their opposition to political reform and favor a strictly hierarchical, semi-feudal social order, and was likely an explicit reactionary and vehement nationalist who excluded Jews. That is the claim. Besides vastly oversimplifying the Romantic Movement, is such a claim substantiated? Quite simply, no. I would suggest that a serious scholar should examine Steiner’s actual life and work (rather than hostile summaries thereof) and then determine, after such an investigation, which of the conventional labels fit.

Romanticism as a movement was indeed complex, as Peter Staudenmaier states. Should we even begin to agree on who the leading political romantics might have been, Steiner was studiously apolitical his entire life; therefore indicting him based on the political goals of some members of an earlier group that shared aspects of his philosophical attitude is quite a stretch. Yet it is only by such long shot guilt-by-association arguments that Steiner can be made into an anti-Semite reactionary. Nothing in his writing would support such a claim. The absurdity of this charge becomes especially evident in examining the claim that Steiner was a social reactionary. In actual fact Steiner's one foray into politics occurred when he proposed a fundamental social reform in his Threefold Social Order, maligned below. While advocating the Threefold Social Order, Steiner spent over a year agitating and attempted to build support from the grassroots. (Steiner's initial attempts to interest leading politicians yielded no results, so he turned to the grassroots.)

Peter Staudenmaier has made some bold assertions about the sources of influence on Steiner's intellectual development. He is simply wrong, both on the actual content of Steiner's thought and its influences. Further, he has not offered any examples to establish his claims. Quite simply he is woefully unqualified to formulate such sweeping judgments.

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 23 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Incidents such as these are distressingly common in the world of Anthroposophy. The racial mindset that Steiner bestowed on his faithful followers has yet to be repudiated. And it may well never be repudiated, since Anthroposophy lacks the sort of critical social consciousness that could counteract its flagrantly regressive core beliefs. Indeed Anthroposophy's political outlook has been decidedly reactionary from the beginning.

This polemical paragraph shows the lengths to which Peter Staudenmaier will let his rhetorical flourishes go. Unfortunately, it has no factual basis. Anthroposophy has never repudiated its racist past because no such racist past exists. Peter Staudenmaier's rhetoric cannot resist going further, accusing Anthroposophy of being without any critical social consciousness, when Peter Staudenmaier himself presented evidence contrary earlier in this same article! (In paragraph 4). Based on two individual incidents involving two individual people (but presented as being common to all thousand-some Waldorf schools and tens of thousands of anthroposophists) it is stated without further evidence that this type of thing is "distressingly common in the world of Anthroposophy.” This is a group that numbers somewhere between 100,000 and 2 million people worldwide, depending on the criteria for inclusion. I would suggest that were this the case, Anthroposophy would not exist as it does in the world today. Waldorf Schools exist in South African townships, in Taiwan and Peru, in Brazil, Columbia and the Philippines – all run by locals as grassroots initiatives. It is hard to call such a movement "lacking in critical social consciousness" and couched in "flagrantly regressive core beliefs."

The sweeping statement that Anthroposophy is politically reactionary is also not supported by any evidence presented in this article. The question will be dealt with at some length in future posts.

Continuing my commentary on the 22nd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Now I am not familiar with the case of Rainer Schnurre (nor, apparently, is Peter Staudenmaier, who's cited sources are limited to the reference on one page of Oliver Gedden's Rechte Ökologie). But even if everything claimed there is true (and does not represent any selective presentation or out-of-context quotation of Mr. Schnurre's views) we have one individual with racist views. By no standard of scholarship does this prove that an entire group of tens of thousands of people who have read the same author must therefore also be racists, nor does it tell us anything about Steiner’s own views. Indeed, given the overt agenda the Geden is pursuing I would submit that further validation is warranted. It would indeed be puzzling to find Schnurre speaking publicly about overcoming racism while simultaneously espousing overtly racist positions. While not impossible, it does beg critical examination rather than wholesale acceptance. That Geden claims Schnurre is a racist has been uncritically accepted by Peter Staudenmaier. [Note: I have since heard that Rainer Schnurre was informed of the charges, and has retained a lawyer in this case. He got depositions from several people who were present and who swore that he said no such thing.]

Continuing my commentary on the 22nd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

The Anthroposophical Society of the Netherlands also formed a commission with the express purpose of examining all 90,000 pages of Rudolf Steiner's collected works (something Peter Staudenmaier/Peter_Peter Staudenmaier.php">Peter Peter Staudenmaier with his predilection for secondary sources has certainly not done). The commission was tasked with answering three questions:

1. Does Anthroposophy contain a racist or race-based doctrine?
2. Do the works of Rudolf Steiner contain statements by Rudolf Steiner that can be understood to be racially discriminating?
3. Do the works of Dutch authors on Waldorf education contain elements of racial discrimination?

To the first question the commission found no racial bias in Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy. To the second question the commission found that out of 90,000 pages, “...sixteen statements, if they were in public by a person on his or her own authority, could be a violation of the prohibition of racial discrimination under the Criminal Code of the Netherlands.” That is, 16 statements by Steiner, if made by someone today, would legally be considered racially discriminatory in the Netherlands. Or simply stated, that 16 statements of Steiner’s are offensive. The commission also sought to answer the questions of historical context, as well as the role that these statements played in Steiner’s overall thought. (For an English version of the press release announcing the release of the final version of the commission’s report see: http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/Holland/Dutch-FinalPressSummary.htm). These are the real questions for historians to grapple with. Making selective use of these quotations for polemical purposes is made easier by the commission’s having collected them all in one place. Facile polemics should not be confused with actual scholarship, however, and Peter Staudenmaier has not shown any evidence of familiarity with the broader scope of Steiner’s thought, including the literally hundreds of statements about the equality of all people and the need for respect and tolerance.

Question everything… but then listen to the answers.

Recently I've come across a few vague Holocaust denials. Rather than explicitly state that the Holocaust did not happen, they simply "raise questions" about the "accepted versions" about what happened. When outrage ensues, they do the intellectual equivalent of shrugging innocently and say, "What's wrong with asking questions?"

Questions come in several types. There are leading questions, designed to steer the thinking of the listener in a specific direction, or elicit a specific response. These are typically "Yes or no" questions, as in, "Did you not, on the night of…." And then here are open-ended questions, questions to which the asker does not know the answer. They can be stated as a first step to seeking knowledge, or they can be posed to convey that you don't know something ("Why does anyone do anything?")

The problem with "questioning the Holocaust" is not that someone is seeking knowledge. Seeking knowledge is a good thing. Rather the "questioning" is a form of leading question, designed to guide the thinking of the listener into doubt. Then comes the usual intellectual bait-and-switch: if minor fact x can be shown to be mistaken, then dismiss every other related fact as well.<

If you want to understand the Holocaust, ask questions, but then look for answers. With the Holocaust you are dealing with a fairly recent historical event. There are still eyewitnesses living. There are mountains of written eyewitness testimony (and an eyewitness video library at USC in Los Angeles with close to 6000 video testimonials). And of course there are the Nazi archives, with 10's of millions of records. That Germany is finally opening the largest to the public after 60 years recently made headlines. It contains 60 million documents, with names, addresses, relationships, serial numbers, and dates of execution for millions. In short, there is simply too much evidence for any sort of reasonable doubt.

Therefore, to me anyone who denies the Holocaust is both profoundly uneducated and unwilling to seek the truth: there is simply too much evidence in all forms - eyewitness, forensic, and written - to even begin to question it. Granted, the most important question - WHY? - is basically unanswered to this day. But if you want to doubt the existence of the Holocaust, you might as well argue that Denmark doesn't exist - its purported existence was fabricated by the Dutch so they would have a better marketing campaign for their cheese - it is simply preposterous.

That is, unless you come from a country where antisemitism is endemic, namely Russia. Then perhaps you won't think it so unusual to question the Holocaust, and wonder what the bid deal is when people react strongly. This may seem a bit of an extreme statement. However, the history of antisemitism in Russia is long – it was on of the few things to survive unmodified from Czarist into Soviet times, and it continues to this day. Periodically it will make the news, such as the front-page article in the New York Times last year. Certainly antisemitism in Russia is milder now than in the days of the Pogroms. But to Western sensibilities the degree is still shocking. In such an environment, perhaps "questioning" the Holocaust is not such a big deal; it's done all the time. But in the West, it simply doesn't play well.

Daniel Hindes

---

Sources on Russian antisemitism:

• UCSJ
• A 2001 Report
• TAU Report
• 1999 JCPA report

And the list goes on (just use google). What these reports don't readily capture is the social climate in which disparaging Jews is just simply accepted and normal, kind of the way that racism lives in America.