Here goes - thoughts and feelings on Waldorf and Anthroposophy and Anthroposophists - Page 5

[DimitraDaisy]

Originally Posted by GoBecGo

My teacher friends DO complain about how schools are run, but here in the UK it boils down to two main problems:

1) money. The schools are private, but the fees still often try to reflect a child's right to this sort of education and since many more cannot afford it than can, the school closest to me is accessible but so very poor and the next closest is richer but somewhat exclusive.

2) the UK's education system. I actually knew one teacher who had a class of which 40% of the pupils had been expelled from UK mainstream schooling. The parents of such kids do not "choose" Waldorf, it chooses them by its policy of not writing kids off over past misdemeanors.

These are also very true, too. I have also seen both of those happen time and time again. I do wonder where you live, GoBecGo (i.e., which schools those are); I shouldn't, but my curiosity gets the best of me.

Originally Posted by GoBecGo

1) the early reluctance towards intellectualism - this doesn't last, some of the most intellectual people i know when through a full Steiner education, but ALL of them found it frustrating in the early years. I also find the emotiveness of this reluctance disturbing, my DD is already recognising all her numbers and many letters and at one point in the company of an anthroposoph she pointed to a word on a colouring book and said "what's that say" and when i told her the anthroposoph demanded angrily "are you teaching her to read!?"

I shall try to comment on this incident without using the words 'sheer stupidity' again. It might be hard, though...

I believe that somewhere along the line Waldorf has confused 'intellectual' with 'intelligent'. I do understand that seeing the world in an intellectual way is not good for a small child, and reading is a pretty abstract thing in a way, and you shouldn't teach children until they are ready but, what where you supposed to do, not answer your daughter's question? Or are you supposed to not expose her to books at all? Yeah, well, perhaps that was a good idea in Steiner's time but I can't see how exactly that would benefit a child today.

Not because they need to learn to read early -- in Greece, where I come from, no child learns to read before they go to school. Of course we do read books to them, although, admittedly, they're not necessarily looking at the book as you read it, so that might be part of the reason why. Also there are no alphabet books or alphabet songs. And yet pretty much all children read quite fluently at the end of their first year in primary school. Mind you, Greece is easier than English when it comes to learning to read. Although I am sure it is harder in other ways... But I digress. Books are such beautiful things. I came across some of my favourite childhood books the other week, and I was amazed at how deeply touched I was by seeing those pictures again. Whyever would I keep a child away from something like that? But I digress yet again.

So, while I do find that teaching small children letters is a somewhat odd idea, I also don't see where the problem is as long as you are not forcing them to learn and as long the child gets enough of what they need to be doing at this age. And while I do see how being in school all morning where you are forced to memorised phonics might get in your way of being four years old, a parent answering a child's questions is not automatically going to stop the child from being able to get enough imaginative play/ feel connected to the world around them / develop their motor skills or whatever this person thought they should be doing. Surely. A little bit of common sense never hurt anyone...

Originally Posted by GoBecGo

The friends i have who are intellectual were prevented from reading until 7 or 8 and hated the experience and felt MUCH happier when they had access to texts.

That may or may not having something to do with the fact that in general children read earlier in the UK. However, I don't agree with children waiting until 7 or 8 or even 9 to become independent readers. Waiting for those who need time is great, but keeping the others behind too is not so great. Children can go to Class 1 when they're six or seven (not seven or eight, as it sometimes happens) and they can begin to learn to read; spending a whole year doing uppercase letters only must be ever so boring. But this is a whole different topic in itself, too.

[LindaCl]

Originally Posted by DimitraDaisy

My favourite anthroposophist, who also happens to be the cleverest anthroposophist I know, once gave me the followig metaphor. If Steiner's ideas on education are the laws of physics, and schools are bridges built based on our knowledge of those laws, instead of using the laws to build the right bridge for each location, we keep building the same bridge over and over. Consequently some fall down...

What happened is that the schools sometimes aren't so much following "Steiner says" as they are following the traditions set at Stuttgart. Steiner himself deviated in many ways from the Stuttgart blueprint (I think there were maybe 4 or 5 Waldorf schools when he died.) What's often labeled "dogma" is more often than not simply tradition. And every school system has some of it's most ridiculous (imo) clashes between the traditionalists and the revolutionists, especially in the US. I see signs all over the place in Waldorf education of some of the debates among its more idealistic educators (who can be traditionalists or revolutionaries) over what the education really needs to do to stay truest to the pedagogical vision.

[frogautumn]

Delurking! I have found this thread so enlightening and I admire how honest and respectful everyone has been--even if disagreements come up.
I have been wondering if Waldorf will be the right education for my child since, well, way before he was born. All the experiences I've had with our local Waldorf school have been extremely positive and so I had a mini "falling in love" experience...then I researched what the critics had to say, felt horrified, and had a mini "falling out of love" experience. So I have resolved myself to go into this with my eyes wide open, asking many of the ?s that have come up here. I've come to the conclusion that the problems that many parents have with Waldorf is not necessarily something that's exclusive to anthroposophy, but usually falls under one of these categories (and I'm definitely touching on many of the points that have already come up):

It's a poor fit for the family. Some families are charmed by the fact that Waldorf is an "artsy" kind of school but may not realize or like that there are many spiritual elements to the curriculum. If the family if troubled by these spiritual elements, then the school is probably not a good fit, no matter how much you want it to fit. I've known families who try out Waldorf even though the anthro stuff makes them slightly uncomfortable and they're ultimately disappointed.

It's a poor fit for the child. I don't think Waldorf serves every child--I don't think there's any school that serves EVERY child. Some might have a natural intellectual curiousity and feel bored by the slower pace in the early years, some might have special needs that benefit from more "mainstream" resources, sometimes the child should not have to be with that particular class teacher for eight whole years. Sometimes parents wish so badly that they themselves were Waldorf students that they have a hard time seeing that it's not for their child (I could see this happening to me ).

It's soooo small. I think the second you enroll your child in Waldorf, you invariably are entering into a small, tight-knit community in a way that just doesn't exist with public schools. There are pluses and minuses to this. Yes, you can get that feeling of community and belonging, but you can also get competitiveness (people trying to "out-Steiner" each other, and in the process losing themselves as well as Steiner's original message--DimitriaDaisy, I can read what you have to write about this all day!), lack of resources (stressed-out, spread-thin school staff, trial-and-error process when it comes to running the school), and cliquishness (when you're "in" it feels great and you spend a lot of energy on staying "in", but if you're "out," it feels devestating). But all of these negatives exist in any small environment, not just Waldorf/Steiner, ultimately you must feel confident that YOU know what's best for your family and your child and never let a group make you feel otherwise.

Sorry that I'm just repeating what's already been said! Writing it out has helped me to make sense of all the things that have been floating around in my head for some time now.

[ema-adama]

I find the thread taking an interesting turn. I am sure there is enough material for many threads here as there clearly are so many issues.

Reading through since my last post, I found reference to the intellectual or cognitive elements in child education and the mix up with intelligence. This is something that I had never really thought about and I am now curious about how this is addressed in a Waldorf setting. How do you manage a highly intelligent child in the classroom when they are streaks ahead of the class and just plain bored?
In a previous post I made a rather glib statement about 4 year old needing to play and not be taught to read. I would like to explain that a bit more.
As parents, we invest so much in assuring our children will have the best in life - and I see around me a huge pressure on children to be achievers,to fulfil some sort of expectation. I think it might have something to do with the culture of being smart being a highly prized trait. I feel uncomfortable with that kind of pressure being put on children.
I remember seeing a 2 1/2 year old being taught to say "I know mathematics, 2 X 2 = 4" and he obviously had no clue what he was saying - ie he was repeated something without understanding the concept. (this is a bit of an extreme example, but essentially I think it illustrates my point)
I also feel uncomfortable when parents long for their child to be some sort of wonder kid and push the child to perform.

As an OT I have looked at these concerns from an Occupation point of view. The occupation of children is to learn through play and by replacing their play opportunity with academic tasks, they loose out on the appropriate learning experience. Now the word 'appropriate' is open to interpretation. I guess this is only one aspect of the whole picture. I am sure different professions and different people would put their own spin on this, but bottom line I think people would agree children need to be playing.

I guess for me it boils down to whether the child is needing the stimulation or if the parent is pushing the child. I also have no clue how any school manages with a child who is streaks ahead of the class (I have a vague memory of this being an issue when I was in elementary school and a parent wanting their child to skip a class up or something so as to be challenged and it was decided by the school that it would be best for the child to be with his age group.)
I am not sure what I think about this. On one level it makes sense, but having a child bored to tears definitely does not make sense.

DimitraDaisy - I really enjoy reading all what you are writing! I found your clarification of the difference between anthroposophy and the 'religion' of anthroposophy very helpful. It makes sense to me and is being tucked away for further contemplation. But I think it might help unravel some of what is so confusing about Waldorf.

My favourite anthroposophist, who also happens to be the cleverest anthroposophist I know, once gave me the followig metaphor. If Steiner's ideas on education are the laws of physics, and schools are bridges built based on our knowledge of those laws, instead of using the laws to build the right bridge for each location, we keep building the same bridge over and over. Consequently some fall down...
This is a rather awesome metaphor.

My baby is not sleeping well and I am just not going to get all what I wanted to write typed out tonight... This is such a dream thread for me and I am really so happy that people are coming forward to share. I look forward to catching up later

[tallulahma]

My favourite anthroposophist, who also happens to be the cleverest anthroposophist I know, once gave me the followig metaphor. If Steiner's ideas on education are the laws of physics, and schools are bridges built based on our knowledge of those laws, instead of using the laws to build the right bridge for each location, we keep building the same bridge over and over. Consequently some fall down...
This is a rather awesome metaphor.

i completely agree!

awesome.

[orangewallflower]

GoBecGo and Dimitra, thank your for your posts! This thread has become something that I would recommend to prospective parents as both illuminating and fair. When I first found Waldorf I was so frustrated to only be able to find fluffy material produced by the Anthro press that had no critical edge or (later on) websites written by people so outraged by unsavory Steiner passages that they no longer were talking about the reality of Waldorf schools. I think that you both have gone to the heart of the matter in a way that will help others make a truly informed decision about this educational path for their children. Thank you!

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by DimitraDaisy

These are also very true, too. I have also seen both of those happen time and time again. I do wonder where you live, GoBecGo (i.e., which schools those are); I shouldn't, but my curiosity gets the best of me.

I'd tell you but i don't want repercussions for those teachers who have complained about their lots!

Originally Posted by DimitraDaisy

I believe that somewhere along the line Waldorf has confused 'intellectual' with 'intelligent'. I do understand that seeing the world in an intellectual way is not good for a small child, and reading is a pretty abstract thing in a way, and you shouldn't teach children until they are ready but, what where you supposed to do, not answer your daughter's question? Or are you supposed to not expose her to books at all? Yeah, well, perhaps that was a good idea in Steiner's time but I can't see how exactly that would benefit a child today.

The person in question was a newly qualified Kindy teacher, and yes in fact they really DID keep their more intelligent child (the one i met them through, i met her at uni) away from printed and written words as much as possible until she was "old enough" but she was the sort of child (not unlike my DD is, and i was) who really WOULD have been reading if she'd been able to see and had her questions answered about the words. Her siblings were less interested in reading and they didn't need to fight their curiosity in that way. No-one "taught" me to read, i was read to, i realised somewhere along the line that the funny markings meant the story in some way, i asked for about a year "what's that say?" of every word of every writing i came across and eventually i could read all familiar words by shape-recognition (rather than identifying individual letters - the first time i saw "television" i thought maybe it was "telephone"), and then i learned what each individual letter "said" and very quickly was reading "properly". I started school two months before my 5th birthday, able to read at about a 9 year old level. I don't know what is different but i tried to take part in a study once for a friend's psychology dissertation on reading and word-recognition and my eyes didn't do what they were supposed to at all.

Originally Posted by DimitraDaisy

That may or may not having something to do with the fact that in general children read earlier in the UK. However, I don't agree with children waiting until 7 or 8 or even 9 to become independent readers. Waiting for those who need time is great, but keeping the others behind too is not so great. Children can go to Class 1 when they're six or seven (not seven or eight, as it sometimes happens) and they can begin to learn to read; spending a whole year doing uppercase letters only must be ever so boring. But this is a whole different topic in itself, too.

In fact the family are from Germany and lived in German Camphill, so there were no younger readers around, my friend just had a huge thirst for reading (still does ) and her parents followed closely the dogma of not teaching it, and i think i agree, missed the distinction between TEACHING a child to read and ALLOWING them to enjoy books, even if it "risks" that pre-reading period of time.

ema-adama

Reading through since my last post, I found reference to the intellectual or cognitive elements in child education and the mix up with intelligence. This is something that I had never really thought about and I am now curious about how this is addressed in a Waldorf setting. How do you manage a highly intelligent child in the classroom when they are streaks ahead of the class and just plain bored?

I understand your concerns about children being pushed to learn things they don't need to know and i agree!!! For me i suppose the trouble is what do you say when you're having water play and your child says "how many cups mama?" or "how many cups fill the big bucket mama?" I count them out with her, how else should i deal with these little interactions, they come every day! The decision i have come to is to answer her questions but to try very hard to ONLY answer what she asked. I don't test her or show her things like that she hasn't expressed an interest in, but she is just that kind of kid i guess. She isn't only interested in numbers, she can identify many many types of tree and plant, loves to dance and sing, knows dozens of animals and the differences between for instance different types of lion or zebra.

I don't know what a Waldorf teacher would do in the situation where you have a thirsty-for-knowledge child relentlessly asking the questions they oughtn't be ready for the answers to, but i can tell you what my teachers did. The good ones spent a little extra time finding something meaningful for me to do, even if that meant borrowing materials from older classes. The average ones expected me to do the class work and gave me more of the same level of stuff which occupied my time if not my brain. The bad ones expected me to sit still and shut up until everyone else was finished. There were 2 good ones in 12 years.

[Hope-Faith-Charity]

Waldorf school in Sierra Leone

Speaking of Waldorf schools adapting to circumstances (or not): Here is a YouTube video of a Waldorf school in Sierra Leone (and here is Part II).

[ema-adama]

Frogautumn - thank you so much for giving your summary! That is something I have been meaning to get around to - but it's gonna take a long long while before I have enough time. It's good to gather together all the issues and see just what has been coming out of this discussion. Again, thanks.

I would also like to repeat a request that people do not post links without giving a summary and their own take on what is in the link - essentially linking it to specific elements in the discussion here. I find it frustrating to be pulled out of the discussion here and not know exactly what I am looking for in the link. Thanks

I understand your concerns about children being pushed to learn things they don't need to know and i agree!!! For me i suppose the trouble is what do you say when you're having water play and your child says "how many cups mama?" or "how many cups fill the big bucket mama?" I count them out with her, how else should i deal with these little interactions, they come every day! The decision i have come to is to answer her questions but to try very hard to ONLY answer what she asked. I don't test her or show her things like that she hasn't expressed an interest in, but she is just that kind of kid i guess. She isn't only interested in numbers, she can identify many many types of tree and plant, loves to dance and sing, knows dozens of animals and the differences between for instance different types of lion or zebra.
I cannot imagine anyone avoiding a child's question or thinking how to steer clear of words or numbers. That sounds very silly. But I would be concerned by parents making flash cards and drilling their children on their numbers and letters. But that is me...Your daughter sounds delightful!!!

I still haven't caught up on all the discussion - but I've also gotta curb my time on the computer

[littleanniesky]

One recurrent question I keep hearing is..why are parents so upset, when they leave?
in my humble opinion..in response to the question "mama how many cups"?? You bring up such an important piece (because there ARE many pieces to this pie) of what causes the heartbreak and anger after folks leave. Our "parental" knee jerk response, is to answer the question simply, at the level the child can understand; for example a 4 year old might ask, "Mommy, how long 'til we get there?" and your answer might be "about as long as it takes you to brush your teeth." But we come to be very very hesitant that the answers we have are not "Waldorf" enough. We become all tangled up in what is "the right thing to say"? We bend and stretch and yes, often times the stretching is goodfor us, the pause we takes gives the child a chance to ponder. But sometimes self doubt sets in, and the resultant anxiety and insecurity can be counter productive. So fast forward to when things start to sour...there is a feeling of "I changed all of these things because I believed in you, I actually believed YOU knew more about my child than me, and NOW I am so angry at not only you for making me doubt myself, but at myself for losing my confidence in myself!" You see, we are all a little shaky on our feet when our children are little, and we defer to the masters, elders, parents, and our beloved teachers. WE GIVE that power over willingly at first, then when we want it back, our confidence in our abilities stronger, sometimes we get a slap on the hand.

all these thoughts are just things that bubbled up with the last post, NOT intended to inflame, but to show one piece of the process by which many get to such heartbreak at the end.

[ema-adama]

GoBecGo - this is all from one of your posts. I really found it very helpful for me to figure some things out to my way of thinking. Thank you.

As for the educational underpinnings (of anthroposophy) i am on the fence about it. If a child goes through all the MOTIONS of a dogma, does it matter?
I really liked this question

Steiner felt it did. He DID think that thought and deed made a difference to the world, but, i think, that thought was somewhat more important.
Yes, I agree that he did believe that thoughts/intentions make a difference... not sure about thought being more important - but anthroposophy is not my forte

So for instance eurythmy IS going to be far more effective when taken part in consciously (with the knowledge of the goals),
I am not sure if this applies to children... they have no knowledge of the goals, at least I did not. Until I starting asking - and then I got very annoying and problematic answers - essentially no answer

but there will be SOME benefit of even unconscious participation (i'm thinking of "wax on/wax off" as practiced by the karate kid in that old movie, rather than the eucharist).
This is what I find interesting about Eurythmy. I am sure there are benefits and it would be interesting to look at what those benefits are when the whole spiritual dimension is taken out - just looking at what the children are physically doing. This I am sure would be horribly painful for an Anthroposophist to contemplate - but I think it is interesting.

But does it matter? Going back to the Catholic example, if a child eats the wafer, confesses, speaks the rosary, but has no idea why or what they are doing, does it matter?
Again, to me this is an important question. I guess it would only matter if the meaning were applied - be it that a person freely chooses to attach meaning or whether the meaning is forced onto them... but chewing and swallowing a bit of bread is a pretty meaningless activity until all the religious underpinnings are attached. I think this is why I had a question with the comparison of eurythmy and communion. If you take the religious/spiritual element out what are you left with?
In communion you are left with a piece of bread
With eurythmy you are left with movement to speech and music (please feel free to correct me anyone who knows more about eurythmy). I think that there is more benefit to this type of movement than just any spiritual ideas that are put forward. But, again, this is my opinion and I am sure many people would disagree.
: this has been bugging me and I have not been able to put my finger on why. For me at least, this makes sense.

Action supports belief but it generally doesn't create it.


If i don't believe that the action of the eucharist does any GOOD (assuming because i'm not Catholic that i don't) why would i believe it did any HARM?
Nicely put. For me this links in with the concern about Steiner wanting to rule the world with anthroposophists in future reincarnations. I would assume this is only threatening to people who believe in reincarnation... but perhaps I am being a bit provocative here... sorry

But then i read so much here is about disclosure rather than the underpinning belief itself. I agree that disclosure should be important, and i'm lucky enough to know quite open anthroposophs (or perhaps they feel i'm ready for their truths?), but i also think it's important to find out why for one's self and one CAN. Yes, it should be far simpler to ask the class teacher and be enlightened, but if the class teacher isn't forthcoming one can find out in other places
Lots been said about this - but I think it is not always easy to find the answers

As far as I got!

[DimitraDaisy]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

This is what I find interesting about Eurythmy. I am sure there are benefits and it would be interesting to look at what those benefits are when the whole spiritual dimension is taken out - just looking at what the children are physically doing. This I am sure would be horribly painful for an Anthroposophist to contemplate - but I think it is interesting.

It is a little nasty but I have to admit I fell over laughing at that. I have to say though, it would not necessarily be painful for every Anthroposophist. But there definitely are a few would find it painful.

I've been trying to stay out of the Eurythmy discussion, mostly because I don't really know much about Eurythmy -- we did it once, for a week, and I quite enjoyed it, because the teacher gave the giggles and because I kind of saw the poetry in it. And I think that I would have seen it as a child too, but then I was that kind of child, I made up similar things on my own. We did discuss the reasons behind it, and I do have a vague sense of what it is all about, which I am satisfied with, but I don't understand / know this stuff well enough to explain it to others.

That aside, I don't think the Eucharist / Eurythmy comparison stands at all. Catholicism is a religion; Anthroposophy is not supposed to be one, although as I said it is often treated like one. I think it is a lot more reasonable to say that Eurythmy is like Yoga -- meaningful movement which has its origins in some set of spiritual/philosophical beliefs. I don't know all that much about Yoga so this might not be accurate but I do know that there are beliefs about the human being and its place in the universe behind it, which is really what Anthroposophy is (supposed to be) about.

The problem with Eurythmy seems to be a) the kind of people who tend to like it (not all, again, but a lot of them) and b) the fact that as far as I am aware it hasn't moved forward very much since Steiner's time. I may well be wrong about that but it is true that what goes on in the average school looks quaint and incomprehensible to most people to say the least.

[orangewallflower]

Yoga is an interesting comparison to bring up. Yoga is a religious practice (the Buddha founded his religion partly in reaction to the yogis of his time), but you are right, for so many people who do (and even teach) yoga it is strictly for the physical benefits. They probably know that it has spiritual underpinnings, but they don't know or care what they are. Anthroposophy is a religion as I define it. To say otherwise would mean that I would have to discount Buddhism, Scientology, Religious Science, Quakerism and other self-described religions as religions. I'm sure that I'd have more to add to the list if I knew more about them (Sufism and Bahai perhaps?) Anthroposophy has a theology, a cosmology and an ontology along with a set of ritualized practices with spiritual underpinnings. It is the only thought system like this I know of that doesn't call itself a religion.Just because it isn't prosylitic and doesn't discourage members from practicing other religions doesn't mean it isn't a religion. I would love to be challenged on this. How is anthroposophy not a religion in light of these other movements that are?

[DimitraDaisy]

Originally Posted by littleanniesky

But we come to be very very hesitant that the answers we have are not "Waldorf" enough, so we become all tangled up in "the right thing to say" and bend and stretch and often times the stretching is good to do, the pause we takes gives the child a chance to ponder, but it also the self doubt that sets in, the anxiety that parents trying to do the right thing get into, canh be counter productive.

Aaaaah... My favourite two pet peeves... Answering questions, and feeling like you're never 'Waldorf enough'

I became seriously convinced that there is something wrong with Waldorf as it is when I joined the EnkiExperience list (a list where people who are thinking of buying Enki ask questions about it to people who have been using it) and read the archives and discovered that there were numerous perfectly normal-sounding people who were not all that bitter, and who definitely weren't out to convince the world that Waldorf is evil, who, however, were turned off by Waldorf, largely because they had been made to feel inadequate as parents by (I expect, since they mostly had very young children) kindergarten teachers.

Now, I don't want to sound like I am blaming the teachers necessarily. Early years teachers, in particular, have the hard task of educating parents on what they think is essential for the children in their care... And some of it I do find pretty essential too, for example no/little tv, rhythm, not giving them too many choices. It's just that sometimes I feel that some of those people either were never children themselves, or they have completely forgotten what it was like. That, and they have lost all common sense.

Let's take toys for example. Steiner argued against 'pretty' dolls (here: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChi_essay.html - just search for 'doll'), because they don't get the child's imagination working. And I do get that point. But does every single toy that is not adequately open-ended ruin the imagination of every single child who plays with it? Of course not. I played imaginatively with many plastic toys, playmobil figures for example. I'm sure Steiner would have thought them beyond hideous. I loved them. I still remember a little girl dressed in white, she was the heroine in all my fairy-tales for a year or two. (And I don't think my aesthetic sense was ruined for a lifetime, either. It is just fine thankyouverymuch.) Some children are more imaginative than others, anyway, and some will need more help to develop their imagination, just like some children will need more help with maths, and open-ended toys are generally better, but they're just toys. A plastic doll or two won't harm anybody all that much. I really do believe that the problem is that people (at schools) don't really understand what they are talking about, and so they can't use their judgement on it, which is what makes them dogmatic.

The same goes for the curriculum (another huge topic, that I will try to stay away from if I am ever to go to bed tonight) and for answering questions. I'm not the only person I know who has said that, when they visit a school, they feel that the 'Waldorfness' of everything that leaves their mouth is measured. Of course that is partly insecurity on my part, but it is more than that I believe. We once had a whole one-and-a-half hour session on how to answer 'scientific' questions imaginatively. And it was an inspiring session in a way... I understand that you shouldn't start talking about masses of gas to a four year old if they ask you about the sun shining, but will a ten-year-old necessarily be harmed if you give them the facts about the tide? Does that apply to all ten-year-olds?

To make this even more annoying within a month of this session I found myself with a ten-year-old asking me why, if you put a seashell against your ear, you hear the sea. Now I could have said that it is because it remembers the sea, where it comes from. And the funny thing is that I actually kind of believe that. But I don't think that's what she was asking for, I think she wanted to know how it works. I tried giving her the imaginative version... but I realised I would feel fake doing it. So I just said I think it's the air as it goes in and out, and she went away. (Mind you, it was a handwork lesson and she shouldn't have been wondering around and asking me things in the first place, so leaving was good.)

Did I destroy her healthy appreciation of the natural world in those thirty seconds? Of course not. And is not the fact that the air coming in and out of the shell can sound like the sea (well, sort of) magical in itself? I think it is. But the most important thing is: should I have given the "right" answer, which didn't feel genuine, which didn't feel like it was my answer? Well, of course not, when the whole idea behind the curriculum (uh-oh) is that you teach (and, so, I think, you parent, too) out of yourself. Based on certain developmental principles, certainly, but out of your own understanding of the child or children in front of you and the world in general, above all.

You see, this is where Waldorf trips itself up. I have often felt I am being called to teach out of myself while also being called to make myself something different from what I am. They think people should teach out of themselves, but they also have a pretty narrow definition of what a teacher should be like. It doesn't add up. I do think nobody means to do this, it's just inadequate understanding, and the irresistible lure that tradition holds for some. Not that these excuse this kind of behaviour in any way. Quite the opposite, as reasons go, I think they're not very good...

As for the disappointment, while I did always understand that teachers are only people with opinions, I have been disappointed by the fact that teachers who are supposed to have been on a spiritual, self-improving path for decades can be so blind to their failings, sometimes.


PS I need to think about the religion thing a bit more.

PPS By the way, Steiner did say that you should give children imaginative answers to scientific questions, but he also said that the pictures you use should be in line with the natural phenomena. That bit often gets forgotten about, especially in the lower grades and in kindergarten...

[ema-adama]

Littleanniesky, I have to say that it was heart wrenching to read your post. It sounds like you were given some advice that might have been beneficial, but that you felt you could not question or make your own.
To me this is very sad.
I only can relate to being a parent to a small infant, but so far pretty much everyone has had an opinion to share and it has P*SSED me off! I really do not respond well to people passing off their opinions on me, especially if I am not asking. I just do not believe opinions, no matter if it is the doctor, the nurse, a grandparent, a friend a stranger. I will listen to what they have to say (maybe privately get annoyed/angry/interested) and then go and think about it and see if I would like to make use of the opinion or not. I refuse to accept that anyone knows what is best for me and my baby unless they are making a very informed decision.

I feel that it boils down to my responsibility. At the end of the day I am the child's mother and I will bear the responsibility for my child's health and happiness in a way no other person can (other than DH). So, the way I see it I have a responsibility to 'check' things and make sure I have as much information as possible before agreeing to what someone has suggested.
But that is me, and it is not always easy. It would be wonderful to just be able to trust people, but not realistic today.

You are right. There are no elders to rely on now, and that is really really tough when trying to sort your way through countless enticing options and ideas when it comes to being a parent. I rely on my feeling of "does this make sense to me?" whether it does or doesn't I usually try to understand why. My why, not necessarily the given why. If that makes any sense at all

So, I am really sorry you got caught up in what sounds again like a very difficult situation. And I honestly hope you are able to find some healing and make peace with what happened.

ETA littleanniesky - I see you edited your post. I am sorry if anything I wrote undermines anything you changed when you edited. I was replying to what I had read last night (my time) and did not reread your post before responding in either this post of the next one.

[ema-adama]

A couple more thoughts....

To make this even more annoying within a month of this session I found myself with a ten-year-old asking me why, if you put a seashell against your ear, you hear the sea. Now I could have said that it is because it remembers the sea, where it comes from. And the funny thing is that I actually kind of believe that. But I don't think that's what she was asking for, I think she wanted to know how it works. I tried giving her the imaginative version... but I realised I would feel fake doing it. So I just said I think it's the air as it goes in and out, and she went away. (Mind you, it was a handwork lesson and she shouldn't have been wondering around and asking me things in the first place, so leaving was good.)

I found this quite poignant (running out of words for interesting, illuminating, clarifying, etc - I chose poignant as it had an effect on me)
ANYWAY, I found myself relating to this with a bit of a laugh and a little nod. Yes, I would find it incomprehensibly annoying to have to avoid giving raw fact, particularly if that is what is being asked for. I have no idea what mental gymnastics my teachers had to go through (or my parents for that matter), but I do not remember feeling like my important questions did not get answers - as a small child that is!!!
I might be opening a horrible can of worms here, but I have a memory of the sister of a friend telling me that babys come from heaven or angels or something like that. I was about 8-9 and already knew that was not right. Growing up on a farm I had seen cows and bulls mating and knew this has something to do with little calves being born. Being a gentle child I guess I didn't want to spoil her image, but in my heart I knew she had it very wrong. Fast forward to me being a new mum and I think that there is the possibility we were both right. Obviously the facts of life are the facts of life and immaculate conception is not something possible (depends who you ask - I know). But, I find myself wondering if there is some sort of mystery there beyond my child having only a physical body...
How does this link with Waldorf? I think again it boils down to being sensitive to a child's question and trying to give the answer fitting to what the child is asking. Giving the child the raw facts on sex is not necessarily going to answer their questions when they want to know where their sibling has come from.... again, to my way of thinking... but not being anywhere near having to deal with that particular issue, this is all hypothetical.

Thinking some more about giving ones authority away. I had a mini falling in love with Attachment Parenting.... but was warned by my needing some sort of reassurance outside of myself and my situation. As soon as I felt the need to apply the principles and worry about whether I am applying them correctly or not - I found myself thinking AP has much to offer, but cannot be followed to the letter. So, I feel comfortable with having DS in a sling, being Exclusively breast fed, in bed most of the time with us.... all sorts of things that would be associated with AP - but I draw the line at feeling like I need to do it just right. (after some soul searching and posts here on MDC asking for advice and chats with friends asking for advice etc)...

One last bit. I find it fascinating orangewallflower that we keep coming back to the religious elements in Waldorf. And I think these are fantastic questions, for me anyway. I am enjoying trying to figure out some of the more challenging aspects about anthroposophy, without relying on anthroposophy to do that
I just wanted to add some definitions to the words you used to describe religion. I have never studied religion and found the words a bit confusing.

Anthroposophy has a theology, a cosmology and an ontology along with a set of ritualized practices with spiritual underpinnings

theology: Theology is a term first used by Plato in The Republic (book ii, chap 18). The term is compounded from two Greek words theos (god) and logos (rational utterance). It has been defined as reasoned discourse about God or the gods, or more generally about religion or spirituality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

cosmology: The study of the origin and evolution of the universe as a whole.
www.tifr.res.in/~sachi/glossaryC.html

ontology: In philosophy, ontology (from the Greek ὄν, genitive ὄντος: of being (part. of εἶναι: to be) and -λογία: science, study, theory) is the most fundamental branch of metaphysics. Ontology is the study of being or existence and its basic categories and relationships. It seeks to determine what entities can be said to "exist", and how these entities can be grouped according to similarities and differences. Ontology is distinguished from epistemology, the study of knowledge and what can be known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

and just for good measure so that we are all talking the same language:
religion:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion
1. A system of beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one’s body.
* He couldn’t abide by any religion that didn’t allow for wrongdoers to be punished after death.
2. A number of customs and rituals associated with such beliefs.
* When it comes to religion, she doesn’t believe, but she loves to attend the ceremonies.
3. Anything that involves the association of people in a manner resembling a religious institution or cult.
* At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion.
4. Any system or institution which one engages with in order to foster a sense of meaning or relevance in relation to something greater than oneself.

So... as I copy and paste all of the above I am wondering if this is a debate for this thread.... I am happy to go ahead if no one else objects.
Also I am happy for us to change definitions if there are more concise ones out there that everyone is comfortable using.

and for last measure,
anthroposophy:
Anthroposophy is a spiritual philosophy based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner (25 February 1861 – 30 March 1925) which postulates the existence of an objective, intellectually comprehensible spiritual world accessible to direct experience through inner development - more specifically through cultivating conscientiously a form of thinking independent of sensory experience.[1][2] In its investigations of the spiritual world, anthroposophy aims to attain the precision and clarity of natural science's investigations of the physical world.[1] Whether this is a sufficient basis for anthroposophy to be considered a spiritual science has been a matter of controversy.[3][4]
“ Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the spiritual in the human being to the spiritual in the universe…. Anthroposophists are those who experience, as an essential need of life, certain questions on the nature of the human being and the universe, just as one experiences hunger and thirst.[5] ”

Anthroposophical ideas have been applied practically in areas including Steiner/Waldorf education, special education (most prominently the Camphill movement), biodynamic agriculture, anthroposophical medicine, and the arts.[6][3][1][7] The Anthroposophical Society has its international center at the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy

I haven't read through all of this, but will be. This has the potential to be a very interesting discussion and I hope that people will add to the discussion in the clearest possible way using their own thoughts and contemplations...

As an aside, I am happy to go with this off shoot on the thread because a) I find it interesting, b) it could help clarify issues for people who are not anthroposophists. I think that this thread also has the potential to address these issues without all the emotive scary stuff that can be found and I would like this thread to keeps that integrity. And, I also think that it IS impossible to keep Anthroposophy out of the discussion. But, I also know that this will not be central to every families decision about whether to send their child to a Waldorf school or not.

ETA: orangewallflower, if we are agreed on definitions of what it is we are talking about, perhaps you can share your thoughts on what specifically fits where, ie what did you find in anthroposophy that made you think of theology, ontology and cosmology, as well as ritualised practices. Just my suggestion. Anyone is of course free to jump in (not to be too anal here - but of course the invitation stands for a reasonable discussion)

[orangewallflower]

Ema, I am answering with great trepidation, and I really hope that Dimitra and others join the conversation soon. One reason that I am trepidatious is that we are now in the land of Steiner quotes in terms of theology, ontology and cosmology. I will do my best to avoid them, and as someone who has not studied anthroposophy in earnest, I hope that others will bring light to the conversation. The theology one I can answer quite simply. Waldorf teacher trainers (I believe) all study about the nature of Christ. Ontology: the simple assumption that human beings have a soul along with a body and a mind is ontological. Cosmology: I know the least about this, but I know that it is there in anthroposophy. Atlantis is one word that comes to mind. (I know that you don't like when people spout off about anthro without knowing much about it, my trepidation continues.)

As for ritualized practices, I had the opportunity to sit in on a Waldorf faculty meeting one time. I feel deeply uncomfortable talking about the details because of the particulars of the situation, but it was deeply ritualistic. It was definitely, in Mircea Eliade's term, sacred space.

I feel much more comfortable examining a couple of the definitions that you came up with:

religion:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion
1. A system of beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one’s body.

and for last measure,
anthroposophy:
Anthroposophy is a spiritual philosophy based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner (25 February 1861 – 30 March 1925) which postulates the existence of an objective, intellectually comprehensible spiritual world accessible to direct experience through inner development - more specifically through cultivating conscientiously a form of thinking independent of sensory experience

This definition of religion is much more simple than mine, and I am comfortable with it. Doesn't the definition of anthroposophy fit right in with the first definition of religion?

[ema-adama]

I'm thinking I might have bitten off more than I can chew. I regret posting definitions - I think it is just taking us away from what we are trying to understand. Essentially complicating things.

I guess I was curious to know just what about Anthroposophy convinced you, orangewallflower, that it is a religion.... and I took it too far.

Perhaps a more fitting question is can I be a Muslim, Christian or Jew while being simultaneously a practising Anthroposophist, Buddhist, Scientologist, Quaker or Christian Scientist? (please be patient with me, while I might have religious feelings I most certainly am very ignorant when it comes to knowledge about beliefs specific to different religions).

Honestly it does not make sense to me that anthroposophy is a religion. I do not think that Christ or Jesus is essential to anthroposophy in the way that it is to Christianity. By saying that Christ/Jesus is the centre of the theology of anthroposophy, I would understand that to mean that anthroposophy is some sort of Christianity. I feel uncomfortable with that.
Dimitra's idea of "what Steiner said" being turned into a religion makes more sense to me

I would agree with the Cosmology idea as I think that there is a strong emphasis on the evolution of the universe from creation to the present day, with Steiner paying special attention to conciousness (I think, no quotes here).... and this also grooves with me. I remember hearing the Dalai Lama speaking in South Africa quite some years ago and he was commenting about people being down and out at the state of the world. He said he is not, he sees fantastic developments - people are thinking much more individually on a broader scale than ever before. (a small part of what he said - but it stuck with me). For me this does tie in with something that perhaps Steiner was trying to put his finger on... ? I also heard someone once say that Anthroposophy is nothing original - more like a conglomerate of ideas taken from all sorts of mystical streams. That appealed to me. Perhaps I am happy to take what makes sense to me and reject that which does not... but I do not consider myself an anthroposophist

Gosh - I can ramble...
Essentially, I think I would prefer to not get bogged down in trying to define things that I am guessing you would need time and resources to address (commodities I certainly do not have and I am guessing no one else has here on MDC)

I hope we can get back on track - or leave things as they are

[orangewallflower]

I can definitely dispense with definitions except to say that I would have to drastically alter my (and any I have ever seen) definition of religion to discount anthroposophy as a religion. The reason I think this is important to look at is that I think that the Eucharist/Eurythmy analogy can shed a lot of light on parents' disillusionment with Waldorf.

I guess I was curious to know just what about Anthroposophy convinced you, orangewallflower, that it is a religion.... and I took it too far.

Really, nearly everything about anthroposphy looks like religion to me with one exception: its practitioners reject that idea. But the only reasons I have heard are the following: anthroposhists are free to practice other religions, and anthroposphy is not prosilytic (in other words, they are not attempting to spread a gospel and to convert people.) With this I can easily say that anthroposophy is not mainstream Christianity or Islam. But what about Buddhism? Buddhism has no prophet or God like the Big Three. Buddhism, in most of its forms, is not prosylitic, and many Buddhist practice other religions. (Almost all Japanese people practice both Shinto and Buddhism, for example.)


Honestly it does not make sense to me that anthroposophy is a religion. I do not think that Christ or Jesus is essential to anthroposophy in the way that it is to Christianity. By saying that Christ/Jesus is the centre of the theology of anthroposophy, I would understand that to mean that anthroposophy is some sort of Christianity. I feel uncomfortable with that.
Dimitra's idea of "what Steiner said" being turned into a religion makes more sense to me

Steiner's project was to create a "science of the spirit." Spirits, the spiritual worlds, souls, reincarnation, karma: all of these things are religious. Because there is a body of people, with a specific name who believe in these things makes it overwhelmingly obvious that it is a religion. I did not (and would not without further study) say that Christ is at the center of anthroposophy. I will say that a whole course in a teacher training program I looked at examines the anthroposophical view of Christ. It may be uncomfortable to say, but this is theology. BTW, I have read some writings by a former Waldorf teacher who came to the conclusion that anthroposophy is "estoeric Christianity" and that this fact needs to be disclosed to all parents. This description (esoteric Christianity) makes a lot of sense and jives with most of what I have read. Christ may not be at the center of anthroposophy, but he is there.

I also heard someone once say that Anthroposophy is nothing original - more like a conglomerate of ideas taken from all sorts of mystical streams. That appealed to me.

I have heard that too. Mysticism is cool, and it is inherently religious.

I do hope some others more conversant in anthroposophy will chime in. I believe that it is central to the original question asked in this thread.

[DimitraDaisy]

Definitely feeling like ema-adama here, about biting off more than I can chew, but I'll give it a go...

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Anthroposophy has a theology, a cosmology and an ontology along with a set of ritualized practices with spiritual underpinnings

This strikes as an Atheist's definition of religion...

And by this definition, obviously Anthroposophy is one. But by my definition of religion, which is modelled somewhat on Orthodox Christianity, that being the religion I know the most about... it is not. A religion for me has dogma and sacraments and churches. With a religion you have to do some very specific things to belong -- for example with the Greek church you have to be christened, and in a very specific manner too. Apparently the Catholics do it well enough, despite their heathen ways, but the Protestants do not, which is why an Orthodox can't be married to a Protestant unless the Protestant is christened. People actually believe that the Holy Spirit comes down and enters into you (or whatever it is supposed to do, I have forgotten) if you get christened a certain way, and it accepts a few variations here and there, but if the differences become too big then it will not come down. (One thing I never understood is how people can believe that God is so petty.)

But at the end of the day it is all about your definition and it's not worth arguing about. I think it is a spectrum; and it the definition above is yellow, and my definition of religion is red, Anthroposophy is kind of orange. If we didn't have the word orange, and we had to describe the spectrum using only two words, red and yellow, we would probably disagree about where one ended and the other one started too. So now I am going to invent the word orange and call Anthroposophy a 'spiritual philosophy', which means that it concers itself with things that one might call religious, but it does it in a way that is more philosophical, than, well, religious. (I would not call spiritual science though; I think that was a very unfortunate choice of words.)

And, as I have said before, I think that above all what Anthroposophy was meant to be was a spiritual path of self-development, with different aims and methods for everyone involved. That may not be what it presents as most of the time, but I still believe this is what it is.

[I wrote all this just off the top of my head, but I found that it fits in somewhat with the Waldorf Answers page on whether Anthroposophy is a religion.]

But there is no point in arguing over definitions. I have no problem with people who consider Anthroposophy a religion, as long as they recognise it is a different kind of religion from the one most people have in mind when they think of the word religion.