As UUMom suggested on another thread, that’s *all* they are: crayons. They are not some frightening implement of Ahriman, one which darkens the child’s soul-life and hinders spiritual development or what have you. Nor can some imaginary parallel be drawn between the classroom’s lack of black, and Steiner-Waldorf’s supposedly racist-like inclinations (as has been suggested by some).
The black-crayon ‘controversy’ comes down to this: They are blocks of colored wax. They are an example of how silly, inappropriate and out-of-touch Steiner pedagogy can sometimes be. And the fact that this particular silly, inappropriate and out-of-touch Waldorf idea is still pushed by teachers as ‘spiritually and pedagogically relevant’, is a perfect example of what it is that often fuels the critical arguments and anti-Waldorf sentiments.
To believe that black crayons somehow hinder or damage the child’s soul development, is little more than a neo-occult and neo-religious form of superstitious behavior. And so it’s no wonder others stand up and challenge these fearful, fundamentalist-like notions. To confront the not-particularly-truthful is human nature, plus it’s perfectly 21st century in its enlightened, conscious intent. No, I personally don’t appreciate that the anti-Waldorf arguments tend to spin 180 degrees in the opposite fanatical direction, but that’s me. I prefer taking a balanced, level-headed approach to all things.
My second point goes further and deeper into the human/psyche aspect, so to speak, of this and other important questions, some of which are being touched upon in this forum. And I‘ll start with this: I guarantee 90% or more of Waldorf teachers have never asked themselves: “What’s right and good and correct about allowing children to use black crayons?”
To do so would be to gravitate towards a state of concerned interest and human understanding that might be called ‘sympathetic communion’ – which is exactly what we’re all hoping for, when all the disagreeing is done with. And just why it is Waldorf teachers appear to be so incapable and/or willing at times to take part in a sympathetic communion relationship with aspects of their work and with others (with non-anthroposophists) is another huge – and entirely separate, though very related – question.
In a bizarre sort of way, this bordering-on-silly crayon question is an incredibly revealing example of the unconscious and terribly mechanical (anti-human) Steiner-Waldorf way of ‘dealing’ with pedagogical questions, including media, plastic toys, clothing, etc. The Waldorf movement says black crayons are bad; and so teachers ‘believe’, and then behave as if crayons are the problem. Yet the problem isn’t and can’t possibly be the ‘material’ crayon itself (unless one finds a number of scribbles and black streaks on the living room wall).
The problem is we’ve dealt with the whole issue in a completely superficial manner, and are happily content with blaming an inanimate object. And we ‘resolve’ the issue by physically removing the crayon from the child’s hand and from the classroom altogether. Now that’s incredibility shallow, if you really think about it. That’s beyond superstition actually. That’s moving into the realm of crayon idolatry. And so, just as I do when I witness inauthentic behavior, those critical of Steiner-Waldorf rightfully cry “Foul!” And anybody and everyone would, or should.
This has been a long post and so I’m going to end with this observation: writing all this has placed me in a state of sympathetic communion. And now I can’t tell the difference between my (what I believe are) supportive observations and, say, someone else’s (what I tend to frown upon and view as) critical comments. Interesting, the real and authentic revelations a dialogue on crayons can actually lead to.
The black-crayon ‘controversy’ comes down to this: They are blocks of colored wax. They are an example of how silly, inappropriate and out-of-touch Steiner pedagogy can sometimes be. And the fact that this particular silly, inappropriate and out-of-touch Waldorf idea is still pushed by teachers as ‘spiritually and pedagogically relevant’, is a perfect example of what it is that often fuels the critical arguments and anti-Waldorf sentiments.
To believe that black crayons somehow hinder or damage the child’s soul development, is little more than a neo-occult and neo-religious form of superstitious behavior. And so it’s no wonder others stand up and challenge these fearful, fundamentalist-like notions. To confront the not-particularly-truthful is human nature, plus it’s perfectly 21st century in its enlightened, conscious intent. No, I personally don’t appreciate that the anti-Waldorf arguments tend to spin 180 degrees in the opposite fanatical direction, but that’s me. I prefer taking a balanced, level-headed approach to all things.
My second point goes further and deeper into the human/psyche aspect, so to speak, of this and other important questions, some of which are being touched upon in this forum. And I‘ll start with this: I guarantee 90% or more of Waldorf teachers have never asked themselves: “What’s right and good and correct about allowing children to use black crayons?”
To do so would be to gravitate towards a state of concerned interest and human understanding that might be called ‘sympathetic communion’ – which is exactly what we’re all hoping for, when all the disagreeing is done with. And just why it is Waldorf teachers appear to be so incapable and/or willing at times to take part in a sympathetic communion relationship with aspects of their work and with others (with non-anthroposophists) is another huge – and entirely separate, though very related – question.
In a bizarre sort of way, this bordering-on-silly crayon question is an incredibly revealing example of the unconscious and terribly mechanical (anti-human) Steiner-Waldorf way of ‘dealing’ with pedagogical questions, including media, plastic toys, clothing, etc. The Waldorf movement says black crayons are bad; and so teachers ‘believe’, and then behave as if crayons are the problem. Yet the problem isn’t and can’t possibly be the ‘material’ crayon itself (unless one finds a number of scribbles and black streaks on the living room wall).
The problem is we’ve dealt with the whole issue in a completely superficial manner, and are happily content with blaming an inanimate object. And we ‘resolve’ the issue by physically removing the crayon from the child’s hand and from the classroom altogether. Now that’s incredibility shallow, if you really think about it. That’s beyond superstition actually. That’s moving into the realm of crayon idolatry. And so, just as I do when I witness inauthentic behavior, those critical of Steiner-Waldorf rightfully cry “Foul!” And anybody and everyone would, or should.
This has been a long post and so I’m going to end with this observation: writing all this has placed me in a state of sympathetic communion. And now I can’t tell the difference between my (what I believe are) supportive observations and, say, someone else’s (what I tend to frown upon and view as) critical comments. Interesting, the real and authentic revelations a dialogue on crayons can actually lead to.
:
Follow Mothering