The Rudolf Steiner Archive

4. On the Question: How Can Anthroposophical Work Be Established at Universities?

[ 1 ] A meeting was held on the afternoon of April 9, 1921, at the suggestion of German students, to discuss how anthroposophical work could be established at universities. Dr. Steiner spoke at the end of the meeting.

[ 2 ] Dr. Stein, however, has pointed out the three most important considerations here: whether to have an organization or not, as desired. But above all, I would like to emphasize one thing: When you are part of a movement like ours, it is indeed necessary to learn a little from the past and to guide the movement’s next stages in such a way that certain past mistakes are avoided.

[ 3 ] What will matter most of all is surely this: that anthroposophy—to the extent that it can already be understood by the student body today, and to the extent that it is at all possible given the available resources or opportunities—be disseminated among the student body in its various branches as a positive spiritual content. Essentially, we have found that something real can only be achieved by truly building upon a foundation of the positive.

[ 4 ] Yesterday I had the opportunity to point out that years ago an attempt was made to establish a kind of World Federation for Spiritual Science, and that this World Federation—which actually intended to operate solely according to the rules of formal, external organization—never came to fruition. It ended, so to speak, as the Germans say, like the “Hornberg Shoot.” But because there was a need for cohesion and cooperation at that time, the existing adherents of anthroposophy had to be brought together in the “Anthroposophical Society.” These were, more or less, all people who had simply been engaged with anthroposophy. Only with an organization like this—one that already has substance—can anything actually be accomplished.

[ 5 ] Of course, it will be particularly important for the student body not only to work toward disseminating specific anthroposophical issues in the narrower sense, but also to develop general issues and the like, in the sense that Dr. Stein has just described. Of course, at first it won’t be all that necessary to work toward dissertations on such topics. It has happened often—really quite often—that I have been asked recently by younger students along the following lines: “Yes, we would actually like to integrate anthroposophy with our specific field of study. How should one go about this so as to work toward one’s goal of a doctorate or the state examination in the right way? What should one do?” How should one structure one’s work? — I have always given the following advice: Try to work your way through the official coursework as quickly as possible, to get through it as fast as you can, and I am always very happy to offer any advice to help you along the way. Choose any scientific topic that seems to emerge from the course of your studies—as a dissertation, state examination thesis, or the like. Whichever topic you choose, each one is, of course, diametrically opposed to other perspectives from an anthroposophical standpoint; there can be no doubt about that. Each one is diametrically opposed. But now my advice to you is this: Write your dissertation in such a way that you first include what the professor can evaluate—what he will understand—and take a second notebook; in that, write down everything that has come to you in the course of your studies and that you believe should actually be incorporated from the perspective of anthroposophy. Keep that separate. Then compile your two sheets—that is how long a dissertation must be—and submit them. And try to finish. Then, with what you have gradually acquired in the second notebook—in addition to what is in the first—you can truly and actively contribute to anthroposophy. For it is only when one is compelled to work scientifically on a specific topic and the like that one truly realizes what significant problems—specialized problems and those faced by specialists—arise. But a danger arises from, I would say, an unclear collaboration with the professoriate. And submitting dissertations to professors that are written “in the anthroposophical sense”—which usually do not suit professors—I do not consider this beneficial, because it actually slows us down in the pace that the anthroposophical movement should maintain.

[ 6 ] We need as many academically trained collaborators as possible. If there is one thing we are sorely lacking in the anthroposophical movement today, it is a sufficient number of academically trained collaborators. I do not mean by this the superficial notion that we need, let’s say, people with a certain label. That is not what I mean. But first, we need people who have learned to work scientifically from within. After all, the best way to learn this kind of inner scientific approach is through one’s own work. Second, however, we need—as soon as possible—collaborators who come from the student body and who are no longer held back by concerns about their future specialized studies. — You see, it’s not at all surprising that this is as difficult as it is, for example, in Switzerland. — As a student, of course, it’s easy to join such a group in the first few semesters if you’re open-minded enough. Then come the final semesters. By then, you’re preoccupied with other things, and that’s when things get more difficult. And so, time and again, the threads you’ve been pulling snap. That was just emphasized a moment ago.

[ 7 ] So this is what I’d like to say, specifically regarding academic collaboration: Even during such a transitional period, topics must be approached in two ways: one that the professor understands, and another that is set aside for later. Of course, I certainly do not mean to say that specific opportunities that arise should not be seized, or that these opportunities should not be closely monitored by the student body in the most eminent sense and truly utilized in the spirit and service of the Movement: On the one hand, I hope—and on the other, I fear almost silently—that our dear friend, Professor Römer in Leipzig, will now be inundated with a vast number of anthroposophical dissertations! But I think that would also lead to the very things he would likely most appreciate. And such a document of student trust would show that he does not belong to the group of professors just mentioned. That would, after all, be evident from the very foundation.

[ 8 ] Now, however, we need to build upon what has already been discussed here in Dornach—namely, some form of collaboration. You will work out among yourselves later how best to accomplish this from a technical standpoint. It would be good if, with the help of the Waldorf teachers—supplemented by other individuals from our ranks, such as Professor Römer, Dr. Unger, and others—a certain exchange could take place, particularly regarding the selection of topics for dissertations or scholarly papers, without in any way impeding the individual’s free initiative. All of this can only take the form of advice. Precisely for this reason, you should seek a closer collaboration—which need not necessarily be an organization, but rather an exchange of ideas—for this scholarly work.

[ 9 ] Economic considerations are, of course, a very, very important matter. It is certainly true that the university system in particular—but in fact, more or less the entire higher education system—will suffer extraordinarily from our economic hardships. The point here is that we must finally recognize clearly that real help can only be provided if it is possible to advance institutions such as, for example, “Kommende Tag” in Germany or “Futurum” here. In this way, these organizations can serve as a catalyst for reorganizing the economic situation of the student body. I can assure you that all the initiatives we are undertaking in this direction are, in fact, designed for rapid growth. We don’t have time to take our time; rather, we must indeed make rapid progress with such economic organizations. And here I must say: the members of the student body, perhaps with very few exceptions, will be able to help us above all by spreading understanding for such matters. After all, it has certainly happened before in other contexts that a student was able to persuade his father to support this or that, and was also able to persuade his relatives. Not everyone has only friends without means. And that’s when something truly happens that has the effect of an avalanche. Just let that sink in—how powerful, as experience shows, something like an avalanche can be: once it starts somewhere, it keeps going. This is precisely the kind of thing that gains momentum when you act from a positive perspective: Try to study these pamphlets published by “Kommender Tag” and “Futurum,” and try to foster understanding for such matters.

[ 10 ] It is this understanding that the oldest people, in particular, find extraordinarily difficult to grasp. I have seen how older people—I would say—have struggled to grasp the meaning of “the coming day” or “the future,” how they have fallen back again and again, like a cat landing on its feet, into their old economic prejudices—the very ones that swept them into economic decline—and how they cannot find their way out. That is why I believe that a clear understanding truly lives on among our dear fellow students, one that could also have some impact on the older generations. There is simply no other way for us to move forward. For I can tell you this: Once we have reached a point with regard to these economic institutions where we can take effective action—where, first of all, we have sufficient resources to act on a grand scale—for only then will it help— and, on the other hand, can overcome the resistance of the proletariat—which is so sharply evident in this very area and which is simply hostile to any economic improvement in the students’ situation—then it will indeed have to be the primary concern of these economic organizations of ours to work economically specifically on behalf of the student body.

[ 11 ] The “problems of the struggle”! Yes, you see, here’s the thing. The Anthroposophical Society—even though it wasn’t called that in the past—has existed since the beginning of the century, and it has actually always worked in a positive way, at least as far as I’m concerned. It let its opponents rant and do whatever they wanted. But of course, the opponents then come forward with certain objections. They say, ‘This was said here, that was said there,’ and indeed, ‘That hasn’t even been refuted.’ — It is true that it is difficult to get people to understand that the burden of proof actually lies with the one who makes a claim, not with the one against whom it is leveled. And we have truly witnessed, time and again, that peculiar views have emerged precisely among academics—I mean lecturers, professors, pastors, and those who have emerged from academic circles. Just consider, for example, that from those whom I would call “venerable” in the eyes of the outside world—though I say this, of course, only in quotation marks — professors put forward arguments against anthroposophy, anthroposophists, and so on, which are supported by evidence such that, if one examines this evidence with critical reasoning, it is a mockery—a bloody mockery—of every conceivable method by which one might make any kind of claim in science. That is why, in the case of someone like Professor Fuchs, I simply had to say: It is impossible for this man to be anything other than a completely incompetent anatomist! For am I to believe that he conscientiously examines his material when, after all that has been presented, he examines my baptismal certificate in the manner in which he did? One must, in fact, draw conclusions about one field from the way a person handles another. Such things simply reveal—through the fact that people occasionally step out of line and display their particular habits—the symptoms of how scientific work is conducted today. Even the ideas put forward today at universities and technical colleges are, when it comes down to it, hardly on a better footing than the claims made in this manner; it is simply that the generally extremely lax habits in academic life are revealed in this way. And that is what is needed: to raise the struggle, so to speak, to a higher level.

[ 12 ] And it is not necessary, as my fellow student, for example, would like—which I understand very well—to present ourselves as a “militant organization.” That is not necessary. Rather, there is only one thing: to avoid what has occurred so frequently in the Anthroposophical Society. In the Anthroposophical Society, this has always come to the fore—as unbelievable as it is—though of course not in every case, but very frequently: One was compelled to defend oneself against a baseless accusation, even to the point of using harsh words—for example, let’s say in the case where a Mr. von Gleich invents a speaker named “Winter” by reading that I myself have given lectures on winter, then invents a “Winter” figure, and brings this into the conflict in a very malicious way. Yes, you see, I don’t think one would be using overly harsh words in this case if one were to speak of “idiocy”! For here, even if it occurs in a general, we are dealing with genuine idiocy in its purest form. — And in the Anthroposophical Society, it was usually the case that people didn’t blame the one who acted like Mr. von Gleich, but rather the one who defended himself. Right up to the present day! We’ve heard it said a few times that one mustn’t become aggressive in this way. — For many people, “becoming aggressive” simply means defending oneself in this way. It is therefore necessary—without emphasizing that we are a militant organization or the like—to keep a watchful eye on things and to refute them. You must take a concrete, positive stand in such situations. And then the others must stand behind the one who is compelled to defend themselves. It is not a matter of us becoming fighting cocks ourselves; but it is a matter of ensuring that, should it become necessary to defend ourselves, the others will stand behind us. And it is a matter of truly keeping track of and taking an interest in the manifestations of ideological, scientific, religious, and other such tendencies in this regard in our time.

[ 13 ] Take this particular example: I was once compelled to characterize Count Keyserling’s philosophical—or whatever one might call it—writings—in my opinion, it makes no difference what one calls them—in this manner, because, in his incredible superficiality, he went so far as to claim that I had based my views on Haeckel’s ideas. This is, of course, not merely an objective but, in this case, a subjective untruth—that is, a lie—because one must demand that anyone who makes such a claim consult the sources; and he could have seen the chapter I wrote in the earliest years of my writing career, in my debates with Haeckel, in the introduction to Goethe’s Scientific Writings. You can all read about this very easily. — Now Count Keyserling has had a short treatise published through his publisher: The Path to Perfection. I do not wish to characterize this work further, but I recommend that one or two of you purchase it and pass it around; for if everyone were to buy it, it would be a waste of money; but I nevertheless recommend that you read it so that you can get an idea of what, so to speak, defies all wisdom in this work, The Path to Perfection, by Keyserling. It contains the following sentence, which he cobbled together, roughly as I recall it—it is not verbatim—: Yes, if I said something incorrect in that Dr. Steiner drew on Haeckel, then Dr. Steiner could simply have corrected that; he could have set the record straight with me, because I—and now I ask you to pay very close attention to this sentence—because I do not have time for specialized research into Steiner’s sources.

[ 14 ] Well then, you see, we have already reached a point in scientific ethics where someone who founds a “school of wisdom” considers it justified to put things out into the world that he admittedly has no time to research—and which he therefore does not research! Here one catches someone who apparently thinks highly of himself—for Count Keyserling has always invoked omnipotence in his writings; that is what is so impressive about Count Keyserling, that he always invokes omnipotence. All of today’s writing has reached a point where it is at its most bogged down and debased. And despite this omnipotence, there is a complete moral debasement of views here. And so people really need to be told: Certainly, no one is asking you to conduct research into Steiner’s sources; but then, if you’re not conducting such research—if you don’t have the time—then—with regard to all these matters about which you ought to know something: Keep your mouth shut!

[ 15 ] You see, it is essential that we not harbor any illusions, that we simply cast aside any principle of authority—and the like—that has arisen from convention, and that we confront what exists in our time with an open mind, truly, truly examining it. Then we will already be able to observe quite a lot of this today.

[ 16 ] I would advise you to take a look at some of the statements that the great Germanist Roethe in Berlin keeps repeating from time to time—purely in terms of their form; I will completely set aside the viewpoint behind them, which is certainly worthy of respect. Then you will find them instructive. We do not need to be a militant organization. But we must be ready and vigilant so that, when the things that are truly leading us so horrifically into decline actually arise, we can genuinely stand up against them. Do we really need to be an organization of anthroposophical students to do that? We simply need to aspire to be vigilant, decent, and scientifically conscientious people; then we can always—entirely from the most strictly personal standpoint—take a stand against such harm. And if, in addition, we are organized for positive work, then the number of those organized for that purpose can stand behind us and support us. We need the latter. But it would by no means be very wise for us to present ourselves as a militant organization. Rather, the point is that we work earnestly to improve our current circumstances. And this certainly includes paying attention to the terrible injustices that come to light in one area or another—and which are truly hard to ignore, since they exist on a massive scale—and having the courage to confront them in whatever way we can.

[ 17 ] You’ve already accomplished something if you can do just this: simply correct the misconceptions of a small number of your fellow students regarding such matters, even if it happens within the smallest of circles. Yesterday I said to one of our group here regarding the World School Association: I consider it particularly valuable, especially with regard to such matters, to begin by one person speaking to two or three others—that is, in very small groups—even if there are only two; and, to put it quite radically, if one cannot find anyone else, then let him at least say it to himself! So these things are certainly such that one can grasp what the individual is capable of. Individuals will be capable of much more, as has in fact already happened with a doctor who was a member, and whose fellow students proved to be very enthusiastic. The point is that we must not make enemies by acting like fighting cocks in a wild manner, but also that we must not shy away from the struggle when the others start it. That is it: we must always let the others start; and then the necessary support must be behind us, which does not allow a certain tactic to take hold—for a very specific tactic has indeed emerged: that we were the ones who started it. If the other side strikes first, then one is compelled to defend oneself; and then you can always read that, from the anthroposophical side, this or that was carried out as an attack in the struggle, and so on. The tables are always turned. That is practically a method employed by our opponents. We must not allow that to take hold.

[ 18 ] As for the World School Association, I would like to say just one more thing: In my view, it would be best if the World School Association could be established simultaneously and independently in Entente countries and in neutral countries, as well as in the German-speaking region of Central Europe. If this could happen simultaneously—so that, so to speak, things would spring up at the same time yet independently of one another—that would be the very best outcome. Of course, this requires a certain vigilance regarding what is happening. I believe that Switzerland, in particular, would then need to play a mediating role here. It would be good if we could set this in motion right now, at this very moment. I can assure you: things are on a knife’s edge—and if the same conditions for war existed today as they did in 1914, then, then we would have been at war again long ago. In terms of public sentiment and so on, things are on a knife’s edge. And we wouldn’t be able to get something like this World School Association off the ground if, for example, it were established in Germany now, and then the others had to follow suit, even if only a week later. It simply wouldn’t happen; it would be impractical to do so.

[ 19 ] On the other hand, however, we must by no means allow the impression to arise that we in any way deny our stance on these matters. This School of Spiritual Science is called the Goetheanum. We adopted the name “Goetheanum” here during the World War. The other nations, insofar as they have participated in anthroposophy, have adopted the name and accepted it. We have never denied that we have reasons to call the School of Spiritual Science the “Goetheanum,” and it would therefore not be appropriate if things in Germany were to be presented as some kind of imitation from the other side.

[ 20 ] So it would really be a matter of—forgive the harsh word—not being too clumsy in this regard, of handling it with a bit more skill in the broader sense of world culture! Switzerland would have to work on this with full understanding. So, in fact, it is absolutely essential that Central Europe, the Entente, and the neutral powers all work together to propel the matter forward.

[ 21 ] For now, I don’t yet know whether it will even take off in just one or two places. I received word this morning that the committee convened yesterday—which had intended to work so diligently—went to sleep just a few minutes after yesterday’s assembly had left the hall; it has been postponed until tonight. We’ll have to wait and see whether they meet tonight. We’ve already had some very strange experiences; and based on this knowledge—that we’ve already had a wide variety of experiences—I’ve now taken the liberty of speaking to you here about the need to take these experiences into account as the movement progresses.

[ 22 ] On the other hand, however, I am convinced that if the necessary strong impetus and the appropriate enthusiasm can be found—particularly among my fellow students—namely for what I myself and some of my friends have mentioned in the course of this class: enthusiasm for the truth—then the endeavor will succeed.

[ 23 ] I’d like to add: I recently read aloud an excerpt from a feature article, and I can assure you that what happened recently in Stuttgart is by no means the end, but only the beginning, and I can assure you that things will get much, much worse. I have said this to our friends here on numerous occasions—even a very, very long time ago—and I recently read aloud a passage from a cultural supplement that states: “Intellectual sparks, hissing like lightning after the wooden mousetrap, are thus abundant, and it will take quite a bit of Steiner’s wisdom to act as a conciliating force, lest one day a real spark bring an inglorious end to the splendor of Dornach.”

[ 24 ] I truly believe that the response required to such an action—which will only grow stronger and stronger—must be better organized and, above all, carried out more vigorously. And I believe that you, my dear fellow students, need to channel all your youthful enthusiasm in this direction—into what we have often referred to here during this course: enthusiasm for the truth. Youthful enthusiasm for the truth has always been a very positive driving force in the further development of humanity. May it, in a cause that you recognize as good, continue to be realized through you in the near future.