What are your personal feelings toward Anthroposophy

[LuxPerpetua]

Since so many Waldorf beliefs/techniques have their foundation in Anthroposophy, I am just curious as to how much you mamas personally share Steiner's ideology. I was reading up on some of Steiner's ideas the other day and was rather surprised to hear the reasoning behind wet-on-wet painting, which I knew was a Waldorf thing but didn't realize "why" it was such a big deal (and the same goes for drawing lines or using markers instead of crayons, etc.). As a family, we are sort of Waldorfish, I like to say. I love the emphasis upon festivals and traditions, the focus on nature and imaginative play, the lack of media (peace is so pleasant, isn't it?), and love of beautiful art. With that said, though, I have found that these things have merit in and of themselves and was rather taken aback when I learned of Steiner's original reasoning behind these "Waldorf ideas." I do not subscribe to Anthroposophy myself so I have no problems with my 3 y.o. wanting to read or playing with imaginative plastic toys, etc. I personally think she's incarnating beautifully.

I'm just curious as to where other "Waldorf" mamas stand in this regard--do you think of yourself as more purist or flexible? Do you believe or not believe in Steiner's ideas, and how does that affect the way you bring Waldorf principles into your home?

[BMG580]

Originally Posted by LuxPerpetua

I'm just curious as to where other "Waldorf" mamas stand in this regard--do you think of yourself as more purist or flexible? Do you believe or not believe in Steiner's ideas, and how does that affect the way you bring Waldorf principles into your home?

I found Waldorf about a year and a half ago. I fell in love and agreed with most of the practical applications of the educational philosophy. We got involved with the only Waldorf school in our state even though it is a bit of a drive and dove in. Then I started reading more and more of Steiner's work and I found that I have reservations. I don't necessarily disagree with anthroposophy in its entirety but I am definitely not a proponent either.

In short, I've decided that the best thing for our family and my children is to take what we like about Waldorf - awareness of natural and seasonal rhythms, daily rhythm, play based learning, fantasy and cultivation of a child's imagination - and incorporate them into our household without being rigid about what is Waldorf and "allowed" and what isn't.

[RollerCoasterMama]

We're definitely not anthroposophists. I'm a researcher by nature so when I first discovered Waldorf I read everything I could find. I had/have some major reservations on that part. So I set it aside and kept researching other educational theories. But I keep coming back to Steiner methods. So I've come to realize that even though I'm not comfortable with anthroposophy itself, he was onto something with a lot of the practical applications. Things like incarnation and limiting colors and delayed reading are not details we practice. But in the middle of the more out-there theories, there is a lot of good. And since I won't be able to afford the private Waldorf school in town anyway, we can implement the parts we like.

But this thread is the best resource I've found in general, and the hard-core Waldorf families have all been very kind to the Waldorf-light ones! (For which I'm very grateful---no reason we can't all play nice together since we have the same goals!)

[Deborah]

Speaking as a long-time anthroposophist/student of Rudolf Steiner, I'll say that you are all approaching the material in exactly the right way. Steiner asked people to look at what he said critically. Unfortunately, once people get into anthroposophy they can slide into a worshipful mode where everything is treated as TRUTH. This isn't healthy. And it gets sort of silly sometimes.

All that said, I really like the delayed reading concept and I'm very happy with the way it worked for my daughter and is working for my granddaughter (a third grader). My grandson is five, in a waldorf kindergarten, and completely not ready to learn to read. He has learned how to recognize his name and knows those letters, which is just fine. I'm so glad he isn't in a school which would be pushing him before he is ready.

I'm not going to dump on people for wanting to think through stuff on their own time!

I will say that I get frustrated when people attack Steiner for stuff he didn't do or say. One site claimed that Steiner supported the Nazis, for example. Since he died in 1925 this would have been really challenging, right?

[RollerCoasterMama]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Speaking as a long-time anthroposophist/student of Rudolf Steiner, I'll say that you are all approaching the material in exactly the right way. Steiner asked people to look at what he said critically. Unfortunately, once people get into anthroposophy they can slide into a worshipful mode where everything is treated as TRUTH. This isn't healthy. And it gets sort of silly sometimes.

All that said, I really like the delayed reading concept and I'm very happy with the way it worked for my daughter and is working for my granddaughter (a third grader). My grandson is five, in a waldorf kindergarten, and completely not ready to learn to read. He has learned how to recognize his name and knows those letters, which is just fine. I'm so glad he isn't in a school which would be pushing him before he is ready.

I'm not going to dump on people for wanting to think through stuff on their own time!

I will say that I get frustrated when people attack Steiner for stuff he didn't do or say. One site claimed that Steiner supported the Nazis, for example. Since he died in 1925 this would have been really challenging, right?

Thanks for posting! I like to see both sides of things. I've read some things about the delayed reading that I really understand. It seems like they're doing a lot of pre-reading prep-work buried within other activities so that when the child starts, they explode into it! I think that in the hands of a skilled educator, that would work wonderfully! My own little guy (2 yrs old tomorrow) is showing interest and we're certainly not pushing him, but answering specific questions as they come up. Since I was an early reader (3 yrs) that's what feels normal for me. But I respect the other viewpoint and I love the idea of promoting oral story-telling. I've been trying to learn/remember some more fairy-tales to tell my son. He loooooves it when we tell stories.

As for supporting Nazis, I thought what I read was that certain leaders in the Nazi movement liked his educational theories. Different thing altogether!

Thanks again for posting your viewpoint!!

[Deborah]

No, I don't think waldorf education had a following among the Nazi top brass. Most of the schools were closed in 1938. There was one school which managed to stay open for another two or three years...Hamburg (?)...and the reason was a patron of some sort...probably Rudolf Hess (just guessing). He liked all sorts of weird stuff and did have Hitler's ear. But generally anthroposophy and anthroposophists didn't do well during that era. The schools were closed, I believe the anthroposophical society was banned, etc. Biodynamic farms were somewhat protected, again, they had a patron of some sort. The people who cared for developmentally disabled children had to flee (I think most of the group were Jewish) and ended up in Scotland at a place called Camphill. This is why many of the homes for children are called Camphill. I don't know the whole story, but the U.K. proceeded to lock up all the male refugees, which left a small group of women to build the organization, care for the children and cope with the war for about 2 or 3 years. They must have been a tough bunch.

[counterGOPI]

i am still learning a lot but i have not found 1 aspect i do not love yet. i usually don't believe in things being black and white for myself and tend to stay in the grey BUT some reason with waldorf i'm all or nothing..so i guess i lean more towards a purist BUT like i said i'm still learning a lot so i know i'm making mistakes left and right! :

[cat2116]

One site claimed that Steiner supported the Nazis, for example. Since he died in 1925 this would have been really challenging, right?

I would never associate with a belief system that supported nazi ideals....so far I have found no evidence of this in Steiners teachings....BUT I am no expert, I am only going on what I have read.

i am still learning a lot but i have not found 1 aspect i do not love yet. i usually don't believe in things being black and white for myself and tend to stayin the grey BUT some reason with waldorf i'm all or nothing..so i guess i lean more towards a purist BUT like i said i'm still learning a lot so i know i'm makign mistales left and right!

:

I guess the above pretty much sums up how I feel.

[orangewallflower]

I am critical of Steinerian thought, but this is not among my concerns at all. It strikes me as somewhat of a red herring issue. I have read many accounts of people who have left Waldorf before, after or while becoming disillusioned with anthroposophy, and I haven't read a single one where this false and anachronistic connection (anthro and nazism) was a part of their decision. (The scholar whose work focuses on antisemitism in anthroposophy, and to whom I believe Deborah is referring, is not even a Waldorf parent and has made clear that he doesn't know much about modern Waldorf schools.)

[ema-adama]

For those who do not know me, I grew up in an anthroposophical home. My parents are anthroposophists. I am not. Neither is my brother.

It's not that I have any huge issues with it - I just chose to live my life outside the anthroposophy box. I think there are some very funky ideas that are often not very well explained. But there are also some very annoying ideas and for me some very annoying people. What I have take from anthroposophy is the idea of protecting childhood and nurturing young people to grow up to be indepedent thinking compassionate people. I *hate* people talking about Etheric, Asral and Ego without having a clue what they are talking about. It really gets under my skin when people fling Arhiman and Lucifer into a conversation and I think that I would choose to talk about child development rather than incarnation.

Having said that, the fundametals of child development seem to be spot on.

[yukookoo]

it seems to be much easier to find material and sites on line that are "anti waldorf" myths etc and they are pretty scary at first.

Finding waldorf education and now growing to embrace and learn more about orgins of things, I have been put off at times. Some concepts are just so different from what i have been taught is good in this day and age. So for example something like delayed reading my first reaction o $%@& I love to read and want to teach dd to read, what are they talking about not reading until 2nd grade? Put everything down, question involvement with waldorf ed etc. a few hours or days later come back, do more research when less defensive - hmm ok i can see that i guess, but weird, few days later I fall in love with the concept, understand it and embrace it. It has been like that with most things. It's sort of a process for me because it is very different from what i know.

When i think of the best parts of my childhood, it just all falls into place. I actually didnt learn to read until after kindergarten either, just because that's what was normal in my time, in my country, my parents read books to me, i loved them, I would always rather write a story or make one up than read someone else's. Not to focus on delayed reading, but even incarnating. At first that put me off but as I started to read about it makes sense to me. It's not my religion, I question everything i read and apply what works for our family at the moment.

All in all I am very interested in antrhoposophy.

[spiritofthings]

I wouldn't consider myself a narrow-minded person and I'm totally fine with many of Steiner's esoteric views (reincarnation, karma etc.), even though I think overall waldorf education is too euro-centric for my liking. One thing I'm shaking my head about is - if in fact it is true- this idea circulating on the internet that souls incarnate through different cultural groups, starting from the "bottom" of the rung with Africans, then working their way up through the Asians, Hebrews and then the Aryan race supposedly being at the top of the ladder of human evolutionary consciousness !!! I think it is true that Steiner made some incredulous claims about certain races, no? And this is reflected in the history content of the grades curriculum. Can anyone comment on this??

Anyway, I comfort myself with this view that I read tonight somewhere: "Ray McDermott, a professor of Education at Stanford who was advocating Waldorf programs in public schools, wrote of Steiner: 'In 400 volumes of his thought, there are a handful of pages that to our modern ear sound terribly stupid and racist. This is a better percentage than can be found in American icons such as Thomas Jefferson and Ralph Waldo Emerson.' "

[Deborah]

No, that bit about incarnating in series isn't true. He didn't say that.

There is a picture that different cultures at different times were what might be called "leading" cultures. But I don't think anyone got to spend all their incarnations in just leading cultures.

From my point of view, it isn't a problem if Steiner occasionally said something which comes across as racist to modern ears. The problem would arise if anthroposophists were so worshipful of Steiner that they tried to bring into practice every single thing he ever said. Luckily, he said so much stuff that this is an impossible undertaking. Even more luckily, in my experience, anthroposophists cut their worship of Steiner well short of endorsing racism.

I was actually in a study group where one of those remarks turned up in a lecture. We all looked at each other, discussed it for a few minutes in a somewhat disgusted way and then moved on. No one endorsed it, much less suggested that it offered a guideline for late 20th century Americans.

I think the main reason this stuff comes up so much is that people are looking for material to use to attack waldorf. Whatever.

The Steiner supporting Nazi remark was on a particular web-site I came across a few years ago. I don't think it is extant any longer, but I thought it was a great example of how silly some of the attacks were.

Just wanted to add that I have no problem with anyone sharing first-hand negative experiences with anthroposophists or with waldorf schools. It is the rumor mongering that bugs me.

[counterGOPI]

deborah thank you for that!

[LuxPerpetua]

Deborah, I have a question for you:

Since you brought up Steiner's racist views in the last post and how modern anthroposophists do not agree, I was curious about something. Now it is my understanding that Steiner believed that through clairvoyence (sp?) he received the inner knowledge that became Anthroposophy. How much do modern Anthros. (sorry, I can't type out that word each time if that's okay--way too many letters!) still believe in what he said? I'm just wondering because from my logical perspective it seems like if he's claiming sort of divine inspiration for his teachings, then how can anyone pick and choose what is right to believe? I'm really curious how modern Anthros. have evolved since Steiner if at all, especially in light of new scientific discoveries.

[orangewallflower]

[QUOTE=yukookoo;12883719]it seems to be much easier to find material and sites on line that are "anti waldorf" myths etc and they are pretty scary at first.

What's interesting to me about this is that my experience has been quite the opposite in that in the early days I heard about stuff and thought 'that can't *possibly* be true and then in the years my kids were in nursery and kindy I found out that they were. These were things that you probably all know about and are comfortable with like wool underwear, prohibition on line drawing, the belief that little kids don't do well with the color black, personality typing, no teaching of the scientific method, the exagerated problem of a weak class teacher because of the eight-year loop, weak teaching and high turnover in eurythmy, music and foreign language etc... While I have heard about parents discovering undeniably anti-semitic and racist passages in Steiner's writing and being deeply disturbed by them this is not the reason that they take their kids out of Waldorf, at least not from what I have discussed and read, and certainly not in my children's case.

I say all this because I think that the anti-Waldorf myths are in themselves myths. You can make someone look nutty by saying that he or she has accused Steiner of being a Nazi. This in itself is a myth and, I think, a smear. People who leave Waldorf (or choose not to get involved after some time investigating it) usually do it after a great deal of thought and a great deal of anguish and they usually do it for good reasons. That does not need to take away from the experience of happy Waldorf families and happy anthroposophists. It just makes it important for Waldorf schools to be completely upfront about what they are about and what Anthropophy is so that they can help families make good decisions from the outset.

[weliveintheforest]

I've been thinking about this topic lately and it's hard for me to answer. I have found that I agree with many of the ideas, but not necessarily the reason behind them. I find myself strongly agreeing with the child development theories about what is age appropriate, but do not think much about incarnation etc.

[spiritofthings]

Aaaah, thank you Deborah for correcting my statement about the incarnations through cultural groups. I can feel at peace with Waldorf now 'cause this was kinda bugging me. I guess because we are not religious and not Christian per se, but I consider us "spiritual" in the sense that we practice meditation, I'm just trying to incorporate some of our ways into the homeschooling day.

[Deborah]

Orangewallflower,
I did say, quite specifically, that I am perfectly happy with parents describing their own negative experiences with waldorf education. In fact, I think this is a very good thing, because how will any school ever do better if they aren't called on it when they screw up?

On the other hand, there are lots of parents, like me, who will share our good experiences with waldorf education. For example, my daughter, coming out of 13 years of waldorf education completed an engineering degree with flying colors. Science courses all the way. Oh well, she must just be a fluke...

I have come across many stories about waldorf education which were either second-hand or cobbled together. Here is an example: One parent decided that the water color painting exercises were actually based on a color meditation by Steiner and that her child was therefore undergoing a secret spiritual training. A bit of research shows that these color exercises are common in any art education, not just waldorf. The color meditation by Steiner had nothing to do with waldorf education, was clearly stated as an adult exercise and didn't involve any actual color work--it was supposed to be an inward meditation. Nevertheless, this story can still be found here and there.

I think the parent had plenty of real stuff to complain about. She didn't need to make stuff up. And making stuff up--hard to interpret that any other way--hurt her case. Who will take the rest of her bad experiences seriously once it becomes clear that one piece is off the wall? Or even several pieces, because it didn't end with just one piece of misguided interpretation.

The Nazi example was the most flagrant I'd ever seen and, no, I'm not making it up.

[PabloHoneySF]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Speaking as a long-time anthroposophist/student of Rudolf Steiner, I'll say that you are all approaching the material in exactly the right way. Steiner asked people to look at what he said critically. Unfortunately, once people get into anthroposophy they can slide into a worshipful mode where everything is treated as TRUTH. This isn't healthy. And it gets sort of silly sometimes.

All that said, I really like the delayed reading concept and I'm very happy with the way it worked for my daughter and is working for my granddaughter (a third grader). My grandson is five, in a waldorf kindergarten, and completely not ready to learn to read. He has learned how to recognize his name and knows those letters, which is just fine. I'm so glad he isn't in a school which would be pushing him before he is ready.

I'm not going to dump on people for wanting to think through stuff on their own time!

I will say that I get frustrated when people attack Steiner for stuff he didn't do or say. One site claimed that Steiner supported the Nazis, for example. Since he died in 1925 this would have been really challenging, right?

Thank you so much Deborah for educating us on this. This was the kind of stuff I struggled with when learning about Waldorf.