The Rudolf Steiner Archive

5. The Women-Question

[ 1 ] It might seem strange that the anthroposophical worldview—that is, a worldview and philosophy of life that seeks to understand the highest mysteries of human existence—should address a topic as closely tied to current issues as the one we are discussing today. In many circles concerned with spiritual science, or in those that have heard something about the spirit of this worldview, there is a view that spiritual science is supposed to be something that pays no attention whatsoever to the issues of the day or the concerns of immediate life. It is believed—some by criticizing the Theosophical Movement for this, others by crediting it as a virtue—that spiritual science should concern itself only with the great questions of eternity, that it should remain aloof from everyday events. It is regarded, in both a positive and a negative sense, as something impractical. But if spiritual science is to fulfill a task and a mission in our time, then it must engage with what moves the heart; it must be able to take a stand on the very questions that play a role in our everyday thinking and in our everyday striving and hoping. It must have something to say about what fills our time. For how could it be otherwise that questions which come so close to the human soul—such as the women’s issue that is to occupy us today—should not be assessed precisely through a worldview that looks to the great problems of existence? This is precisely what is rightly often held against spiritual science: that it has not found its way to real-life practice. Nothing would be more wrong than if the spiritual science were to be steered more and more in an ascetic direction, in a direction hostile to life. Rather, it will prove its worth by forming a genuine foundation for practical living. It must not float in a cloud cuckoo land, nor lose itself in mere abstractions; it must have something to say to the people of the present.

[ 2 ] Just as we have spoken here about the social question, so too do we wish to speak today about the women’s question from a broad cultural perspective, from the perspective of the humanities. Of course, no one should imagine that the humanities must address the women’s issue in the same way as day-to-day politics or current-affairs journalism. But neither should one believe that only what amounts to parochial politics is practical. After all, those who have always proven to be the true practitioners are those capable of looking beyond the immediate present. Who was the practical thinker back when, in the last century, the postage stamp was conceived and introduced—a development that has since transformed our entire system of public communication and our entire social life? It was a little over fifty years ago. At that time, the idea for this institution—the practicality of which no one doubts today—came from someone who was not considered a practical thinker. The Englishman Hill was no postal practitioner. The one who was a practitioner uttered the witty remark: “One cannot believe that this institution could bring about such a great upheaval in the life of communications; but if that were indeed the case, then the post offices would no longer be sufficient to handle the letters.”

[ 3 ] Here’s another example. When the first railroad from Berlin to Potsdam was to be built, Postmaster General Nagler said: “If people are so determined to throw their money out the window, they might as well do it directly. I send out two stagecoaches every day, and there’s no one riding in them.” — And you’re familiar with the other incident, of course, the one that happened at the Bavarian Medical Association: There, the learned gentlemen were asked—purely from the standpoint of hygienic practice—whether building railroads was beneficial to the nervous system. The learned gentlemen said it would be highly impractical, as it would cause serious damage to the nervous system.

[ 4 ] This serves to illustrate the relationship between those who focus on practical matters—when it comes to the issues of the day—and those who look to the future with a more far-sighted perspective. The latter—the much-maligned idealists who do not cling to what has been customary since time immemorial—are the true practitioners. And from this perspective, the spiritual-scientific worldview also appears today as a driving force for the practical resolution of many issues—including our own. Therefore, those who address these questions from a higher perspective may calmly accept such a reproach and recall other examples where people who believe they have a monopoly on practicality have passed similar judgments.

[ 5 ] Few would deny that the women’s issue is one of the most significant cultural issues of our time, for it has now become a fact. There are opponents of certain views on the women’s issue, but no one will deny that the issue exists. However, if we look back to times not so long ago, even leading figures in academia and other fields viewed the women’s issue as a fantasy—something that had to be suppressed by any means necessary. An example: Let us recall the remarks of a truly eminent man, the anatomist Albert, who twenty-five years ago vigorously opposed the admission of women to the scholarly professions and who, from the standpoint of his anatomical —physiological science, sought to prove that it was impossible for women to enter the scholarly professions, that they would ever be capable of fulfilling the medical profession. Given the great authority of the natural sciences, it is hardly surprising that people trust the judgment of those who are knowledgeable about scientific views regarding human nature. Just recently, a witty pamphlet was published here in Germany: “On the Physiological Debility of Women.” This pamphlet comes from a man who is, admittedly, by no means an insignificant physiologist—Möbius, who has said many good things but who, on the other hand, has brought disgrace not so much upon himself as upon the science of physiology by gradually portraying all the great figures of recent world history—Goethe, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche—as pathological phenomena, and in such a grotesque and radical manner that one would have to ask of every genius of intellectual life: Where, exactly, does the madness lie? — Goethe, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche—they are all treated from the standpoint of psychiatry and psychological pathology.

[ 6 ] If one delves deeper into these matters, they all fall into a single category, characterized by the example of a famous naturalist who, some time ago, sought to deduce women’s inferior intellect from the lower weight of the female brain. This is no fable: The man claimed that the greatness of the mind depends on the size of the brain, and that women, on average, have smaller brains than men. And indeed, it happened—it was possible—that this scholar’s own method was applied to him. After his death, his brain was weighed, and it turned out that he had an abnormally small brain—one much smaller than that of the very women who had been considered intellectually inferior precisely because of their low brain weight. It would be somewhat malicious to attempt to examine a pamphlet such as this one—on the physiological mental deficiency of women—from a psychopathological standpoint, and to try, based on certain leaps of logic, to set a trap for the author in question just as one did for Professor Bischoff.

[ 7 ] So you see that the women’s issue does not exactly attest to the sound judgment of those who opposed it. The women’s issue is much broader than the question of admitting women to the academic professions or the issue of women’s education; it encompasses economic, social, and psychological aspects, as well as many other factors. But the issue of women’s education, in particular, has indeed borne wonderful fruit in practice. Almost all the judgments made on the basis of theory have been refuted by practice in this field. Little by little, against the opinions of the male-dominated world, women have forced their way into most male-dominated professions, including those of lawyers, doctors, philologists, and so on. Women have entered these professions under conditions that were significantly less favorable than those faced by men. One need only consider the unfavorable conditions under which women recently gained admission to the university. Following the standard course of preparatory education, this is no great feat; yet women arrived with a highly inadequate educational background. Through not only tremendous diligence but also comprehensive abilities, they have, for the most part, overcome all difficulties. In terms of seriousness, diligence, and intellectual ability, they have been every bit the equal of men, so that practice has resolved this matter in a completely different way than many had imagined in theory twenty to thirty years ago. Various professors, guided by their prejudices, have denied women admission to the university. A great many women who have graduated are now out in the working world, and they are by no means less discerning or less insightful than men.

[ 8 ] But that only sheds light on the external situation, and it shows us precisely that we must look more deeply into the nature of human beings, into the nature of women, if we want to understand the whole issue. For there is no one today who is not affected in some way by the significance of this question. Even though women have now forced their way into the academic professions and gained access to numerous other professions today, and even though a large part of the women’s issue has been resolved in practice: if we want to move forward consciously, clearly, and with insight, if we want to discuss this issue from every angle, then we must look more deeply into the nature of human beings.

[ 9 ] So much has been said about the difference between men and women! Today, you can read everywhere in brief summaries what various judgments have been made regarding the difference between men and women, and how people have sought to form an opinion on the women’s issue based on these judgments. Much has been written about the psychological aspect of the women’s question. As far as books on this subject written by non-theosophists are concerned, there is none better than that of a spirited woman who is active in contemporary literature: *A Critique of Femininity* by Rosa Mayreder. You can find these opinions documented elsewhere; let us just review a few of them. There is a man named Lombroso. He characterizes women by saying that the sense of devotion and dependence lies at the very center of their psychological character. George Egerton says that any woman who looks at a man with an unbiased eye sees him as a big child, and that it is precisely from this that women’s very own desire to dominate arises, so that this desire increasingly takes center stage in the female soul. A great natural scientist, Virchow, observes that when one studies women from an external—physiological—perspective, one finds at the core of their nature gentleness, mildness, and serenity. Havelock Ellis, an equally knowledgeable expert on the subject, states that the fundamental trait of the female soul is a quick temper, initiative, and daring. Möbius identifies conservatism as the fundamental trait of the female disposition. To be conservative, he argues, is the very essence of the female soul. Let us contrast this with the judgment of an old, wise connoisseur of the human soul, Hippel. He asserts that the true revolutionary in humanity is the woman. Go out among the general public, and you will find a very peculiar but fairly common opinion regarding the relationship between reason, passion, and emotion in men and women. Consider, by contrast, Nietzsche’s view. He says that women are primarily characterized by reason, while men are characterized by emotion and passion. Compare this with the common opinion: it is the exact opposite.

[ 10 ] We could go on at length, listing, on the one hand, those opinions that attribute all passive and weak characteristics to women, and, on the other hand, those that say exactly the opposite. Yet there is a certain lack of certainty when such divergent opinions are possible.

[ 11 ] The natural sciences have also devoted considerable attention to this question and enjoy a high degree of authority. Yet even the statements of natural scientists directly contradict one another regarding the true fundamental nature of women. And if we move from natural scientists and psychologists to cultural history and adhere to what is commonly said— “men are the true creators, while women are more the companions, the imitators”—then such a judgment would also be compromised by the fact that it takes into account a far too short span of time. One need only look a little at those peoples who represent remnants of ancient cultures, or at primitive peoples, and one need only trace the history of human development, to see that there have been times—and that there are still such peoples today—where women participate in a significant way in men’s work.

[ 12 ] In short, opinions vary in every direction. And what must strike us as even more striking is that the women of a given people differ far less from the men of that same people than they do from the women of another people. From this we can conclude that we should not speak at all in terms of “man and woman” or “male and female,” but rather that, alongside gender characteristics, there may be something that is far more important in human society than those characteristics and that is independent of them. Precisely when one looks at human nature with an open mind, it is usually possible to distinguish between what is necessarily connected to gender relations and what goes beyond these gender relations into entirely different realms. However, a materialistic view of the world and of humanity—which, at first, sees only what is tangible and obvious—naturally perceives in men and women only the major physiological differences, and anyone who remains stuck in this materialistic view will simply overlook what is far greater and more decisive than gender differences; they will overlook the individuality that transcends gender, as opposed to what is dependent on gender. But to shed light on this, to see human beings in the right way—that must be the task of a worldview oriented toward the spirit.

[ 13 ] Before we examine the women’s issue from this perspective, let us first consider what the women’s issue actually entails today. People speak of a “women’s issue” in general terms, but this, like the concept of “woman,” is an impossible generalization. One should not really speak of the “women’s issue” in general terms at all, for this issue varies according to the different social classes of humanity. Does the same “women’s issue” exist, for example, among the lower classes—the manual laborers—as it does among the educated classes? The lowest classes—the manual laborers themselves—strive by every means to remove women from factories and trades in order to devote them to the family. The higher classes strive for exactly the opposite. They seek to give women within the family the opportunity to participate in public life. This is part of the social aspect of the women’s issue.

[ 14 ] Alongside this, of course, is the general social issue of women, which demands that women have the same political and cultural rights as men. Today, the prevailing view is that we are actually talking about things that, fundamentally, should follow naturally from the very nature of humanity itself. But people fail to consider that human life is changing much more rapidly than a superficial glance would suggest. Naumann, a man who has also addressed the women’s issue from his political standpoint, took the trouble to study the 1848 Paulskirche debates in detail with regard to this matter, debates in which there was much talk of human rights. There was back-and-forth debate about the self-evident rights of human beings. Yet nowhere was there any mention that these rights should apply equally to men and women. It simply did not occur to anyone. It was not until the second half of the 19th century that the women’s issue began to be addressed in this way. And so it seems justified to raise the other question: Why is it that this aspect of the women’s issue has only been brought to the fore in our time? — Let us be very clear about this.

[ 15 ] Today, both men and women often portray the women’s issue as if women only now have to gain a certain significant influence in all areas of life. In some respects, these discussions are characterized by a great deal of short-sightedness, for one must ask: Did women have absolutely no influence at all in other times, in all earlier times? Were they always merely subjugated beings? It would be ignorance to claim such a thing. Let us consider the Renaissance and take one of the most widely read books on the subject—Burckhardt’s book on the Renaissance—as an example. There we see the profound influence women had, for instance, on the entire intellectual life of Italy; how women were at the forefront of this intellectual life; how they were the equals of men and played major roles. And finally, if one had spoken of women’s lack of influence in the first half of the 19th century to a figure such as Rahel Varnhagen, she would have been utterly astonished that such a topic was even raised. She would not have understood at all how anyone could come to think that way. But there are many today who exercise their universal right to vote, or even debate in parliament and deliver long speeches, who are truly insignificant when one considers the entire cultural process brought about by the woman just mentioned. Anyone who studies the intellectual life of the first half of the 19th century and sees what an influence this woman had on the men of the 19th century will no longer be tempted to say that women were insignificant figures at that time. The matter simply boils down to the fact that views have changed. Back then, people did not believe that one needed the right to vote, that one had to debate in parliaments, or that one had to study at a university in order to exert a major influence on the cultural process. Views were different in every respect. This is not said from a conservative standpoint, but as evidence that the entire issue is a product of our present-day culture and can only be posed today in the way it is, and can only be raised today in all areas of life, not just in the realm of education or higher intellectual development.

[ 16 ] Consider, for a moment, the relationship between men and women in earlier times, when economic conditions were different. Consider the peasant woman and the artisan woman of past centuries. One cannot say that the peasant woman had fewer rights than the peasant man, or a more limited sphere of influence. She had a certain sphere of responsibility to manage, and he had another. And it was the same in the trades. What has essentially become the “women’s issue” among the working classes today has arisen because, over the past few centuries—and particularly in the last century—our culture has, in the truest sense, become a male-dominated culture. The age of machinery is a product of male culture, and the very nature of this culture makes it far more impossible for women to participate than it was in the economic life of the past. Women do not fit into the factory, and this gives rise to entirely different problems than when they are employed on the farm, in the home, or in traditional trades as managers, successors, or co-workers. Our entire outlook has also changed with regard to the academic professions. The entire value placed on the academic professions has changed. It was not long ago that what is today regarded as an academic profession was, more or less, merely a higher form of craftsmanship. It was a way of pursuing a profession in law or medicine, and until relatively recently, it would never have occurred to anyone to derive a kind of religious worldview from what medicine, law, or the natural sciences had to offer. Today, it is the specialized science of what is researched in the laboratory—a field that has gradually become the domain of men—from which a higher worldview is derived, whereas in the past, religion and philosophy hovered, as it were, like a spirit over all these disciplines taught in the faculties, and higher education was to be sought only within them. That which was truly human—that which spoke to the heart, to the soul; that which told people what their longings and hopes for eternity were; that which gave them strength and security in life—that was shared by both men and women. It sprang from a source other than the laboratory or physiological research. One could attain the highest levels of philosophical and religious refinement without any university education whatsoever. One could do so at any time—even as a woman. It was only because the materialistic age made the so-called positive sciences, with their so-called facts, the foundation for higher questions that, alongside the general impulse arising from practical life, an impulse of the heart—a longing of the soul—had to drive women to look for themselves into the mysteries revealed to us by the microscope, the telescope, and the investigations of physiology and biology. As long as people did not believe that the microscope could determine anything about human life and immortality, as long as they knew that these truths must be drawn from entirely different sources, there could not have been such a drive toward scientific study as there is today. We must bear in mind that the spirit of our age has given rise to this drive toward scholarly education, and that the women’s issue, in general, has been raised by the very nature of culture in our time.

[ 17 ] Now, however, everything that this new era has brought us—everything that is based on a purely material foundation—is met, from the perspective of spiritual science, by a movement that has thus far received little attention. The spiritual-scientific worldview is what will have to resolve the question of life and will have to contribute to all cultural currents and endeavors of the future. One cannot misunderstand this worldview any more than one can believe that it is nothing more than the figment of the imagination of a few dreamers. It is the result of spiritual research by those who best understand the needs and longings of our time and take them most seriously; and only those who wish to know nothing of the needs of our time can still distance themselves today from this eminently practical and profoundly far-reaching global movement. Spiritual science is not something that indulges in fruitless criticism; it is not conservative. It regards this as a legitimate development and acknowledges that materialism has gained ground over the past century. It was inevitable that the old religious feelings and traditions would lose their validity in the face of the demands of the natural sciences. It understands how it came to be that the physiologist and the biologist—even if they do not admit it—have become deniers of immortality. It was bound to happen. But humanity will never be able to live without looking upward, without knowledge of truly supersensory spiritual matters. It will only be possible to carry on in this way for a short time, as is the case today with specialized science and with what often emerges from this field as a religious result—or lack thereof. But the time will come when people will feel that the sources of the spirit in life must be tapped. And spiritual science is the outpost for this struggle to tap into the true spiritual sources of humanity. On a much broader basis, spiritual science will once again be able to tell humanity about the nature of the soul, about that which transcends the transitory and the fleeting; on a broader basis than has ever been the case in the popular world, spiritual science will proclaim what gives security, strength, courage, and endurance in life, and what can shed light on those questions that occupy everyday life and cannot be resolved solely from a material perspective.

[ 18 ] It is a peculiar twist of fate—as some will appreciate—that a woman stood at the very beginning of the Theosophical Movement, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, and that it was precisely here that we witnessed the unprecedented example of a woman who, with the most comprehensive insight, the most compelling force, and the greatest intellectual energy, composed writings against which, in truth, everything else that intellectual culture has produced pales into insignificance. For all I care, believe nothing at all of what is written about so-called occult teachings or so-called insights into the spiritual world—for example, in *Isis Unveiled* or in Blavatsky’s so-called “Secret Doctrine”—believe none of it, if you will—but pick up the book and ask yourself how many contemporary thinkers have known anything more profound about so many things than Blavatsky did.

[ 19 ] The two massive volumes of *The Secret Doctrine* provide insight into nearly all areas of spiritual life, primordial culture, primordial religion, all possible branches of the natural sciences, social life, astronomy, and physiology. For my part, let what is said therein be false, but I ask you: Who today is capable of speaking knowledgeably—even if incorrectly—on all these subjects and thereby demonstrating that they have thoroughly familiarized themselves with all of this? You must take into account not only the accuracy but also the comprehensiveness of the mind—which you cannot deny—and then you will have presented the example of a woman who has demonstrated, not merely in some branch of human intellectual endeavor but across the entire spectrum of human intellectual life, what the female mind is capable of achieving in terms of a higher worldview. If one takes Max Müller’s treatises on the history of religion with an open mind and compares their content with the comprehensiveness of the “Esoteric Doctrine,” one will see how far the latter surpasses the former. It is thus a peculiar twist of fate that a woman stands at the starting point of this Theosophical movement. This may be explained precisely by those very things that have also revealed to us the women’s issue as a new development emerging from our present spiritual life.

[ 20 ] If we take a closer look at the course of human spiritual development, then what might otherwise astonish us may come to appear as a necessity in the history of the spirit. But in order to do this in a fruitful way, we must first briefly address the nature of the human being. Let us sketch human nature with a few rough strokes.

[ 21 ] What materialism and the everyday worldview of human beings recognize, spiritual science—theosophy—regards merely as a part of the human being. Today I can offer you only a few sketches—not fantasies or daydreams, but facts as certain as mathematical propositions are to mathematicians. So what human beings know through everyday perception and ordinary anthropology is one part of the human being: the physical body. This physical body of the human being possesses the same physical and chemical forces, laws, and substances that are found out there in so-called inanimate nature. The forces that form the lifeless stone out there and constitute the “life” within the stone—those same forces are also present in the physical body of the human being. Beyond this, however, the theosophical worldview recognizes other aspects of human nature, beginning with a second aspect that humans share with all plants. Modern science, based on its speculations, already speaks to some extent of what theosophy aims to elucidate—a special life principle—since the laws of materialism, which were still accepted by many as recently as fifteen years ago, have been overcome by those of discerning mind. But modern natural science will only deduce this second aspect of human nature from a kind of speculation. Theosophical spiritual research, however, draws upon the testimony of those who possess a higher capacity of perception—people who relate to the average person in the same way that a sighted person relates to a blind person. It draws upon the testimony of such individuals who know this second aspect of human nature to be something real and truly existent. Those who know nothing have no right to judge, just as the blind have no right to judge colors.

[ 22 ] All this talk about the limits of human knowledge is nonsense. We should ask: Can’t human beings rise to a higher level of understanding? Isn’t that perhaps what is truly meant by the “eyes of the spirit” and the “ears of the spirit”? There have always been people who have developed certain dormant abilities and who, as a result, can see more than others. Their testimony must be given just as much weight as the testimony of those who look through a microscope. How many have seen what the natural history of creation teaches? I would like to ask you: How many people have actually seen what they are talking about? How many, for example, actually have evidence of the development of the human embryo? If they were to examine themselves, they would see what kind of belief is controlling them. And if that is a legitimate belief, then equally legitimate is the belief based on the testimony of the initiates, who speak from their spiritual experiences.

[ 23 ] In the context of this spiritual science, we therefore speak of a second aspect of the human being. It is the same thing that we find described in the Christian religion by Paul as the spiritual body. We speak of the etheric—or life—body. A certain combination of chemical and physical forces would never crystallize into life unless it were shaped in a special way by that which permeates every living body as the life—or etheric—body. Thus, we designate this second aspect as the life body or etheric body. It is what human beings have in common with the entire plant and animal world. But a plant does not possess what we call drives, desires, and passions. A plant experiences neither pleasure nor pain, for one cannot speak of sensation when one observes that a being reacts merely to something external. One can speak of sensation only when the external stimulus is reflected internally, when it is present as an inner experience. That part of modern physiology which speaks of a “sensory body” in plants reveals nothing but a tremendous lack of expertise in the understanding of such concepts,

[ 24 ] Now, where animal life begins—where pleasure and suffering, where instincts, desires, and passions arise—we speak of the third member of the human being: the astral body. Human beings share this with the entire animal kingdom. Yet there is something within human beings that transcends the entire animal kingdom, something that makes human beings the crown of creation—and this is what we do well to keep in mind as we engage in a brief, subtle reflection.

[ 25 ] Throughout the entire German-speaking world, there is one name that stands apart from all other names. Anyone can call a table “Tisch” and a chair “Stuhl.” But this name cannot be used in that way. No one can say “I” to me in a way that would refer to me. “I” can never sound to our ears as referring to me. This has always been perceived as something essential. And even in the popular forms of the older religious creeds, it has been recognized that this is a crucial point concerning the soul. Where the soul begins to feel the divine within itself, where it begins, in this dialogue with itself, to say “I” to itself—to speak to itself in a way that cannot be spoken from the outside—there the divine essence of the soul begins its process of development within the human being. God within the human being makes His presence known there. The ancient Hebrew esoteric teaching had sensed this. That is why this name was called the unpronounceable name of God, the name that means: “I am the I-am.”

[ 26 ] According to Old Testament belief, the name signifies the manifestation of the deity within the human soul. That is why powerful emotions and sensations swept through the crowd whenever the priest proclaimed this name of the deity within the soul: Yahweh.

[ 27 ] This is the fourth member of the human being, where his outer nature ends and his divinity begins. And now we have seen how the human being is, as it were, guided by external forces all the way up to the “I.” There he stands, and from there he then begins to work within himself. This “I” works downward into the other three parts of the human being. Make the difference between human beings clear to yourself from this point of view. Compare a primitive with an average European, with a noble idealist, such as Schiller or Francis of Assisi.

[ 28 ] If the astral body is the vehicle of desire and passion, then you must say: The astral body of the primitive person is completely surrounded by the forces of nature, but the average European has worked something into his astral body. Regarding certain passions and drives, he tells himself: ‘You must not follow these.’—He has transformed his astral body. A personality such as Schiller has transformed it even further, and even more so a personality who stands in no relation whatsoever to the passions, such as Francis of Assisi, who was completely purified and, within this astral body, is master over all drives and desires. Thus, one can say of a person who has worked on himself: His astral body consists of two parts. One part is what is given by nature and by divine powers; the other part is what he himself has created within it. We call this second part—the one transformed by the “I”—the spiritual self or Manas.

[ 29 ] Now there are things that penetrate deeper into human nature, where the “I” works further inward than merely into the astral body. As long as you curb your vices with mere moral or legal principles, with logical principles, you are working on your astral body. But there are other means of cultivation through which the “I” works upon itself, and these are the religious impulses of humanity. What stems from religion is a driving force of spiritual life; it is more than external legal principles and moral foundations. When the “I” works on the basis of religious impulses, it works into the etheric body. Likewise, when the “I” becomes absorbed in the contemplation of a work of art and gains a sense that behind sensory existence there may lie something eternal and hidden, then the artistic vision not only acts upon the astral body, but the human being also refines and purifies the etheric body. If, as a practical occultist, you could observe how a Wagnerian opera affects the various aspects of human nature, you would be convinced that it is music in particular that allows its vibrations to sink deep into the etheric body.

[ 30 ] Now, the etheric body is also the vehicle for everything that is more or less permanent in human nature. We must understand the difference between the development of the etheric body and that of the astral body. Let us recall our own life course. Think about everything you have learned since the age of eight; it is an immense amount. Consider the contents of your soul: principles, ideas, and so on. These are changes, transformations of your astral body. But now consider how little changes in most people in terms of what we call habits, temperament, and what are generally referred to as abilities. If someone is quick-tempered, this became apparent early on and has changed very little. If someone was a forgetful child, they will still be a forgetful person today. A small example can illustrate this uneven development. This development is like the changes in the astral body being indicated by the minute hand of a clock and the changes in the etheric body by the hour hand. That which a person changes in their etheric body—what the “I” has made of the etheric body—is called Buddhi or, to use a German term, the “spirit of life.”

[ 31 ] Now there is an even higher stage of development that the chela undergoes. This is based on becoming a completely different person, even in the etheric body. When the ordinary person learns, he learns with the astral body. When the student of the occult science learns, he must become a different person. His habits and temperament must change; for that is what enables us to see into other worlds. Gradually, his entire etheric body is transformed.

[ 32 ] The most difficult thing for a human being is to learn to work into their physical body. One can also gain control over how the blood flows; one can influence the nerve currents, the process of breathing, and so on. One can learn this as well. When a person can work into their physical body and thereby learn to connect with the cosmos, they develop their Atman. This is the highest aspect of the human being, and because it is connected to the development of the respiratory process, it is called Atman. The spiritual human is then found within the physical human.

[ 33 ] Thus, we have seven aspects of the human being, just as the rainbow has seven colors and the musical scale has seven notes. Thus, the human being consists of: first, the physical body; second, the etheric body; third, the astral body; fourth, the ego; fifth, manas; sixth, buddhi; and seventh, atman. When the human being reaches the highest stage of development and creates his own physical body, then we have the true spiritual human being.

[ 34 ] Now, in relation to the question we are addressing today, we must take a closer look at this essence, this nature of the human being. Then a mystery concerning the relationships between men and women will be resolved for us in a unique way, arising from human nature itself. It is precisely occultism—or this intimate contemplation of human nature—that leads us into the physical body, the etheric body, the astral body, the “I,” and what the “I” has created.

[ 35 ] In every human being—and this is a fact—the etheric body consists of two parts, and the etheric body of the man, as he lives among us, manifests feminine qualities, while the etheric body of the woman manifests masculine qualities. A whole host of facts in our lives are explained when we realize that there is something of the feminine nature within the man, and precisely that which we have just discussed as being connected to the etheric body has more of the feminine nature in the man and more of the masculine nature in the woman. This explains why certain character traits can appear in men. In truth, in the physical, material human being, we never have before us anything other than a physical expression of a total personality. The human soul builds the body just as a magnet is built from two poles. It builds a masculine and a feminine part, sometimes one part as the physical body, sometimes the other as the etheric body. Consequently, with regard to those passions that are specifically connected to the etheric body—devotion, courage, love—a woman may apparently display masculine character traits, and a man may sometimes appear quite feminine. On the other hand, with regard to all character traits that are more closely connected to the physical body, the consequences of gender will play out in external life.

[ 36 ] It must therefore seem understandable that, when we seek to view a person in their entirety, we are faced with a phenomenon consisting of two parts: an overt, material part and a hidden, spiritual part. And only that person is a complete human being who is capable of combining an outward masculinity with a beautiful, feminine character within. This is precisely what the greatest minds—namely, the mystical natures—have always sensed in our past intellectual life.

[ 37 ] This is an important point. Men played a major role because materialism pushed toward an external culture. This external culture is a male culture because it was meant to be a material culture. But we must be clear that, even in the course of world history, cultural epochs succeed one another, and that this one-sided male culture must be complemented by that which lives within every man. This was felt particularly keenly during the era of male culture. That is why the mystics, when speaking from the depths of their souls, described the soul as something feminine. That is why you find everywhere the comparison of the soul—which is receptive to the world—with the woman, and this is the basis for Goethe’s statement in the *Chorus Mysticus*:

All that is fleeting
Is but a parable;
That which is inadequate
Here becomes an event;
That which is indescribable
Here is accomplished;
The eternal—feminine
Draws us upward.

[ 38 ] It is nonsensical to interpret this saying in a trivial way. It is correct to interpret it in Goethe’s sense and as true mysticism when one says: Those who have known something of noble spiritual culture have also pointed to the feminine character of the soul, and it was precisely from this masculine culture that the saying “The eternal feminine draws us upward” emerged. Thus, the great world, the cosmos, was conceived as male, and the soul, which allows itself to be fertilized by the wisdom of the cosmos, as the feminine.

[ 39 ] And what, then, is this peculiar mode of thought that has developed in man over millennia—logic? If we wish to look into the depths of its essence, we must see something feminine—the imagination—which must be fertilized by the masculine.

[ 40 ] Thus we see the higher nature of the human being—that which the “I” makes of the lower bodies—when we consider what transcends the sexual difference. Men and women must regard their physical bodies as instruments that enable them, as a totality, to act in one direction or another within the physical world. The more people feel the spiritual within themselves, the more the body becomes an instrument; but the more they also learn to understand human beings when they look into the depths of the soul.

[ 41 ] This won’t provide you with a solution to the women’s issue, but it will offer a perspective. You cannot solve the women’s issue with trends and ideals! In reality, you must solve it by creating that conception of the soul, that state of mind, which makes it possible for men and women to understand one another from the perspective of the totality of human nature. As long as human beings remain trapped in the material world, a truly fruitful discussion of the women’s issue will not be possible.

[ 42 ] It should therefore come as no surprise that, in an age that gave birth to masculine culture, the spiritual culture that originated in the Theosophical Movement should have been brought forth by a woman. Thus, this theosophical or spiritual-scientific movement will prove to be eminently practical. It will lead humanity to overcome gender within itself and to rise to a standpoint where the Spiritual Self and the Atman—which are trans-gender and trans-personal—stand as the purely human. Theosophy does not speak of a universal becoming human, but rather of the universally human, so that it may be recognized step by step. Thus, a consciousness similar to that which awakened in men during the era of male-dominated culture will gradually awaken in women. As one of those who have spoken from the depths of the soul said, “The eternal feminine draws us upward”; thus, those who feel within themselves the other side of humanity as woman and understand this in the correct practical sense through spiritual science will speak of the eternal masculine within feminine nature, and then true understanding and a true spiritual resolution of the women’s question will be possible. For external nature is a reflection of the life of the soul. We have nothing else in our external culture but what human beings have created—what they have transformed from inner impulses into machines, industrial objects, and legal systems. Just as the soul develops, so do external institutions. But an age that clung to this external reflection may have erected barriers between men and women. An age that will no longer cling to the external, to the material, but will instead be endowed with the knowledge of the inner, trans-gendered reality, will ennoble and beautify the sexual—without retreating into the ode or asceticism, or seeking to deny the sexual—and will live in the trans-gendered realm. And then people will understand what will bring the true solution to the women’s issue, because it will simultaneously offer the true solution to the eternal question of humanity. When speaking of matters of daily life, people will no longer say, “The eternal feminine draws us upward”—nor will they say, “The eternal masculine draws us upward”—but they will say with understanding, with deep spiritual insight: “The eternal human draws us upward.”