Talk:Waldorf education

Was Steiner a racist?

I think this deserves serious discussion:

• Steiner was a racialist, meaning he believed in substantial differences between human races and in a hierarchy of human races;

• Steiner was not a racist, since he was well-meaning towards different races.

So, yeah, his worldview was racialist, but his ethics wasn't racist. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a distinction without a difference. A belief in a hierarchy of human races is by definition racist. newmila (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

One thing you have to keep in mind, though, is that almost everyone who lived back then would be considered racist by modern standards. Partofthemachine (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Or, as my professor Olga Amsterdamska said, at that time one was either a Socialist or a racist. (Socialists were seen as creepy or underclass.) tgeorgescu (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this is helpful:

• Steiner ranked races hierarchically in regard to various qualities (notably, not always the same hierarchical order).
• Steiner believed that people should be treated as individuals, not based on their race (or gender, etc.)

From a modern perspective, these appear to be obviously conflicting ideas, but this was less evident in his historical context. 108.58.97.50 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

He is genuinely not thinking of the word hierarchy in the same way you are. He teaches that there is a hierarchy in terms of roles each subrace (he specifically teaches that modern humans are one race) plays in our spiritual evolution at different time periods. Steiner's views on race, gender and warped political ideologies are progressive for his time, or any time. This link insinuates he is racist for merely having a coherent opinion on differences between races, which in the grand scheme of his worldview don't carry nearly the same significance we attribute them today. It's trying to paint a picture that simply isn't true. 2603:6080:3002:4D99:899F:4C75:C6AA:A3E7 (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't matter, and mine doesn't matter, either. That's why we WP:CITE mainstream WP:RS for the claims made in Wikipedia articles.

But if you want to know my take: Steiner was both a racist (loved racial purity, as attested by multiple WP:RS), and an anti-racist—he simply wasn't being coherent, again as attested by a WP:RS.

Namely:

"Steiner's collected works, moreover, totalling more than 350 volumes, contain pervasive internal contradictions and inconsistencies on racial and national questions." Peter Staudenmaier, "Rudolf Steiner and the Jewish Question" Archived 2017-09-16 at the Wayback Machine, Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, Vol. 50, No. 1 (2005): 127-147.

Italian Fascism exploited "his racial and anti-democratic dogma." Hill, Chris (2023). "'Gustavo Who?' — Notes Towards the Life and Times of Gustavo Rol; Putative Mage and Cosmic 'Drainpipe'". In Pilkington, Mark; Sutcliffe, Jamie (eds.). Strange Attractor Journal Five. MIT Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-1-907222-52-8. Retrieved 1 November 2023.

Wieringa, Tommy (8 May 2021). "Groene vingers". NRC (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 7 February 2023. Het was een ontmoeting van oude bekenden: nazi-kopstukken als Rudolf Hess en Heinrich Himmler herkenden in Rudolf Steiner al een geestverwant, met zijn theorieën over raszuiverheid, esoterische geneeskunst en biologisch-dynamische landbouw. — It was a meeting of old acquaintances: Nazi leaders such as Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler already recognized a kindred spirit in Rudolf Steiner, with his theories about racial purity, esoteric medicine and biodynamic agriculture.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)

See also Munoz, Joaquin (23 March 2016). "CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: THE CHALLENGE OF WALDORF EDUCATION FOR ALL YOUTH. Waldorf Education and Racism". The Circle of Mind and Heart: Integrating Waldorf Education, Indigenous Epistemologies, and Critical Pedagogy (PDF) (PhD thesis). The University of Arizona. pp. 189–190. Retrieved 8 February 2024.

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to post this under "Is He Racist?"

Nonetheless, it's sad that this is the primary discussion here. Steiner's own writings reveal his views on racism, sexism, and hate of all kinds are unequivocal. I'd love to point anyone who's interested in one direction or another. Wildebeestmode (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, anything but unequivocal. Again, we WP:CITE WP:RS to that extent, we do not WP:CITE our own opinions. Steiner's writings are not WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Loved racial purity? Steiner's view was that the races are constantly evolving.

Wieringa notes vague "theories of racial purity" which, if they exist, have never been published. Munoz writes about racist incidents at a Waldorf school. To say these sources are evidence of "Steiner's connections to racist ideology" is a serious stretch. They are evidence of "speculations of racism".

If you want more concrete evidence, check out his Sept. 1 1906 lecture from "At the Gates of Spiritual Science" (from his Collected Works 95), a short (for Steiner) overview of what he calls the Aryan Race. It's almost comically different from Hitler's vision. It includes all humans alive today and its purpose is to learn to love and understand one another.

Here's one of the closing statements of that lecture:

"Love is higher than opinion. If people love one another, the most varied opinions can be reconciled. Hence it is deeply significant that in Theosophy no religion is attacked and no religion is specially singled out, but all are understood, and so there can be brotherhood because the adherents of the most varied religions understand one another." Wildebeestmode (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, ignore my citations in the comment below in that case. My personal beliefs about Steiner aside, the sentence in question, "Many Waldorf schools have faced controversy due to Steiner's connections to racist ideology" remains poorly worded and not well supported by the internal link. Wildebeestmode (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What does that prove? That Steiner wrote a mixed bag about racism.

From Wieringa: "Je oren deden zeer van alle quatsch over de superioriteit over het blanke ras, de invloed van etherische en astrale lichamen op onze ontwikkeling en de biologisch-dynamische voedingsleer waaruit slechts een vreugdeloos soort sadisme sprak."

Translated: "Your ears hurt from all the nonsense about the superiority over the white race, the influence of ethereal and astral bodies on our development and the biodynamic diet that only expressed a joyless kind of sadism."

I'm not called to write my own opinions inside Wikipedia articles, so, again: my opinion does not matter, your opinion does not matter, the opinion of any other Wikipedia editor does not matter. What matters is WP:V in WP:RS. Take it or leave it, it's part of the package. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow about the mixed bag.

And yes Wieringa is clear in his description of Steiner, but that is not evidence of the latter's racism. I won't go further on that point here since as you said our views are irrelevant.

Since we're now talking strictly semantics, I'd offer this alternative: "At least one Waldorf School has been associated with racist incidents, and some critics say Steiner's views amount to spiritual racism." Something along these lines seems to better reflect the corresponding information provided both on this page and WP:RS.

I will now stop harassing you. Wildebeestmode (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Mixed bag" means that he wasn't coherent. He wasn't either racist or anti-racist, he was both at the same time.

Rudolf Steiner was meek and gentle—at least while he wasn't preaching that Jews and Freemasons have caused WW1. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Many schools"...or just a few?

Querying the word "many" in this sentence in the lead: "Many Waldorf schools have faced controversy due to Steiner's connections to racist ideology and magical thinking."

Only a very few are mentioned in the body, and any conclusion like "many" should be confirmed by a reliable source. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Reception

There have been positive and negative aspects of Waldorf education's reception. The last paragraph of the lede looks only at negative aspects. These critiques should rather be integrated into the Reception section, where both sides can be presented in a balanced way.

If desired, a brief, balanced summary of both sides of the reception could then be added back into the lede. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

While integrating these critiques, I discovered that one referred only to a single school's being unable to serve challenged children, and another was on a topic better sourced to an educational scholar than a lay person (Sacramento controversy). I did not add these back into the article; please discuss here if there is a sense they should be restored. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue of race raised in particular schools

I have provisionally removed descriptions of events in individual schools from this section, as it seems too particular: if we were to mention every time a single Waldorf school hit the news, whether positively or negatively, it would overwhelm the article. I am preserving this material here, however, in case someone wants to make the case for keeping it in. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that a well-cited list of incidents is more neutral than a vague general statement. Also it seems your edits softened some of the language around the Waldorf School's anti-vax problem. Simonm223 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Smacks of whitewashing. I mean: taken individually, each edit seems to be no big deal, but seen all the edits of this editor, there is a pattern of seeking to whitewash Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 66.41.165.13 (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

And there is an obvious pattern by User:tgeoroescu to denigrate Steiner, Anthroposophy, and the Waldorf schools. There is nothing NPV or objective about his interventions here. Pernoctus (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pernoctus: WP:NPA and WP:BIGMISTAKE. We follow WP:RS wherever they lead to. The greatest mistake would be to express my own personal opinions inside Wikipedia, instead of letting WP:RS speak. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yet it seems apparent that you are trying to steer the editing of this article in precisely the direction of your personal (anti-Steiner; anti-Waldorf) opinions. I am merely pointing this out as a guide to future editors of this page, in case it is not as obvious to them as it is to me. Pernoctus (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pernoctus: WP:NPOV does not mean what Larry Sanger thought it means. It means WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:ECREE, WP:FRINGE, and so on.

How odd to see these really poststructuralist, post-truth positions taken up by some editors here--as if there is always bias, and there is nothing objective about anything anymore. I never thought I'd be this conservative. Sorry Betty, but this is not freshman comp where you get to argue pro or con but you must incorporate both positions. It's always about quality of argument and quality of sourcing. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

tgeorgescu is welcome to go ahead and be as cute as he wants to be, or thinks he is being: The fact of the matter is that that quality of his own arguments and sourcing is non-existent. I repeat: tgeorgescu is trying to steer the editing of this article in precisely the direction of his own personal (anti-Steiner; anti-Waldorf) opinions. AND AGAIN, I am merely pointing this out as a guide to future editors of this page, in case it is not as obvious to them as it is to me.

I have made my point and am now finished with this discussion. Pernoctus (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If you think that the WP:RS which I have WP:CITED are unreliable, the proper means to address that would be opening a thread at WP:RSN. Just not accusing me that I wrote "nothing objective" here.

Again: WP:V information based upon mainstream WP:RS beats WP:OR many, many times over. You are accusing me of bias, and of violating WP:NPOV, without providing any evidence for your claims. That is a WP:PA, even if you do not use swear words. Asserting WP:ASPERSIONS without providing evidence is a WP:PA.

I'm neither pro-Steiner, not anti-Steiner. He made some good points about ethics and about architecture. I'm pro-mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP about Steiner. And since he is a WP:FRINGE figure (clairvoyant), mainstream scholarship has been pretty harsh about him. But that's not my fault. Wikipedia is bound to render the preponderant view of mainstream WP:RS. See WP:MAINSTREAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I happened to see this person's reply and I cannot let it stand unanswered. After this, I will bow out of this discussion, as promised.

This person claims to have made citations, etc. He forgets that I am responding to one uncited/unsourced comment of his in particular: The one that accuses a contributor's edits of "whitewashing" Anthroposophy. There is not an iota of evidence for this statement, and it implies a clear bias against the subject. Unlike this person's remarks about "whitewashing", my observation is not an aspersion; it is a fact. And all the self-serving handwaving and linking of Wikipedia policy acronyms does not alter that basic fact.

The final paragraph about Steiner is completely irrelevant and full of misdirection. This person admits that he is biased against Steiner, but hides behind the skirts of "mainstream scholarship" about Steiner to justify his bias, as if that makes it all OK. Once upon a time, mainstream scholarship supported all kinds of views that were later shown to be false, and even pernicious. Adducing mainstream scholarship here as if it were value-neutral is as incorrect as it is risible. Pernoctus (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"You seem to be assuming reliable sources are always correct" That may seem to you, but I am not. If a reliable source turns out to be incorrect in spite of all evidence agianst that, and Wikipedia has quoted that source, then Wikipedia will be wrong.

We have to accept that risk. The alternative is to find another system that has a lower risk of articles being wrong. Can you suggest one? I don't think so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

In other words: Wikipedians WP:CITE mainstream WP:RS because that's what Wikipedia is meant for. If you do not like to do that, you should create your own wiki, having your own rules. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed material

In 2019 a school in Christchurch, New Zealand began considering removing "Rudolf Steiner" from the name of the school "so that the our best ideals are not burdened by historical, philosophical untruths." In 2014, after an investigation by the NZ Ministry of Education, a small school on the Kāpiti Coast of New Zealand was cleared of teaching racist theories. An independent investigation concluded that while there were no racist elements in the curriculum, the school needed to make changes in the "areas of governance, management and teaching to ensure parents' complaints were dealt with appropriately in the future...[and that]...the school must continue regular communication with the school community regarding the ongoing work being undertaken to address the issues raised and noted that the board has proactively sought support to do this." Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

References