The Rudolf Steiner Archive

5. Anthroposophy and the Youth Movement

[ 1 ] Opening Remarks: First, on behalf of everyone, I would like to thank Dr. Steiner for organizing this gathering, which he made possible for us despite his busy schedule. The insights Dr. Steiner shared with us at Easter have continued to resonate with us in the meantime. We haven’t heard much from one another in the meantime, but when we gathered here again and discussed things, we realized that we had all made some progress. Some issues that were still problems at Easter are no longer problems today. We have already arrived at concrete conclusions. We believe that our unique position at the intersection of anthroposophy and the youth movement gives rise to special tasks for us—tasks that extend in two directions: toward the youth movement and toward the anthroposophical movement. We want to bring anthroposophy to the youth movement. This is likely best achieved through person-to-person interaction. However, this work should be supported and promoted by a more “official” effort organized collectively. Therefore, a network of representatives is to be established throughout Germany, with its center in Tübingen. The task of these representatives will be to establish contact with the young anthroposophists in their circles, attend conferences of the youth movement, and distribute writings by making use of personal relationships. In addition, an article on the youth movement and anthroposophy could be published in an anthroposophical journal. This work should be carried out in close contact with the main association. We regard the Catholic youth movement as our most determined opponent. We would ask Dr. [Name] to perhaps elaborate on this point. We envision our work within the anthroposophical movement as follows: We know that we must enrich our knowledge. But we regard our special task as fostering a sense of community. We want to continue our community life as before, with shared evenings, hikes, festivals, and so on. But we want to gradually allow it to be permeated and transformed by the anthroposophical spirit. Here we ask Dr. [Name] for some specific suggestions. We envision inviting, first and foremost, younger members of the Anthroposophical Society—students and others—into our communities. I would also like to add one practical question here: Is it possible for a young person from the youth movement to serve as a sponsor for admission to the Anthroposophical Society?

[ 2 ] Rudolf Steiner: Perhaps I should address the last point first—the question of introducing anthroposophy into the youth movement. To do so, it is necessary for you to have a genuine understanding of the conditions that prevail there, not only externally but also internally. You see, the anthroposophical movement—you are, after all, largely familiar with its history—could naturally not operate any other way than by focusing on the real possibilities from the very beginning. At the time the Anthroposophical Society was founded, humanity was not yet very ready for the anthroposophical movement. But one could not wait for general readiness in order to get the movement off the ground at all. Well, there were certain people who had long been searching for something—something arising from the indefinable depths of the soul—people, some of whom had not yet encountered Theosophy or mysticism, some of whom did not even know that such a thing as Anthroposophy existed, people who had a certain longing for something deeper than what life had to offer.

[ 3 ] For example, I was once invited to a club where people of all different backgrounds—in terms of talent and education—who shared this longing were gathered. And I went, because I had more time back then than I do now. Among these people, I discovered something curious. At the time, I was a teacher at the Workers’ Educational School in Berlin and had my own audience there. There—at that place—I was really just a guest and a newcomer, but to my surprise, I found a small number of my students from the Workers’ Educational School there. You see, this longing I spoke of was present everywhere, and one had to reckon with this longing; otherwise, the anthroposophical movement would never have made any progress at all. Things couldn’t be done back then the way they can be done today. The difficulty, however, was making things understandable to the people who had this longing. Many could not keep up; they wanted something else. Yet there were always a few individuals among them who joined in, and that is how this movement came into being. But as a result, the movement still bears the traces of its teething problems: vague, mystical aspirations, all sorts of things of this nature, as you have also been able to observe here.

[ 4 ] For example, all sorts of people want to hear something that speaks to them. Then someone meets an anthroposophist. They might be seeking an answer to a medical question and end up talking to someone who says, “You need to read such-and-such a passage from Dr. Steiner’s Seelenkalender.” It’s true that Steiner has a habit of always offering something different from what you’re looking for, but you’ll still find what you’re looking for; it will already be conveyed to you through that passage.

[ 5 ] This was to be expected. And we should not forget that the anthroposophical movement, at its very core, has something almost Kantian and angular about it, which can come across as highly unsympathetic. But all of this was to be expected. You can’t just charge headlong into things anywhere. That’s simply part of it, and you shouldn’t harbor any illusions about it. One certainly had to anticipate this longing that lies within today’s youth. But you must not lose sight of the fact—especially at the very moment when you wish to draw closer to the anthroposophical movement—that the anthroposophical movement is ready to break with all the old prejudices itself. It will certainly be possible to do without these prejudices; it is entirely possible to break with all that is philistine.

[ 6 ] That is what I wanted to say up front, so that you don't come at this from your own point of view and say that anthroposophists are such terrible people.

[ 7 ] The other point is that community-building—coming together and walking the path together—is by no means ruled out; on the contrary, it should be encouraged. Community-building, when sustained by the anthroposophical spirit, can take all kinds of forms. You must not forget that when you speak of community-building as something entirely new today, you must not forget that we older people were once young, too, and that back then there were always people who formed such communities. I still remember a circle we formed in Berlin, which, strictly speaking, was perhaps nothing more than a clique. But even those cliques had good goals, for every community is, of course, based on such a clique. The formation of our community naturally also had all sorts of peculiarities that were connected to the character of the individual members. Even the name of our community in Berlin was actually intended to annoy the philistines. I say this in quotation marks: This community was called “The Criminals’ Table.” Among others, Otto Erich Hartleben was a member. That’s not to say that we broke into places or anything like that. I’m only telling you this so that you can get a comprehensive picture of the fact that today’s youth movement is not the first such community to form. You’ve already expressed that, after all.

[ 8 ] But then there is certainly nothing wrong with members of the youth movement serving as sponsors for those within the youth movement who wish to become members of the Anthroposophical Society. This is definitely something that can be fully realized. And that brings me to the other question.

[ 9 ] The issue of the Catholic youth movement has, quite rightly, been brought into the debate. With regard to this youth movement, you must be extremely cautious and not lose sight of the possibility of being influenced in one direction or another. There are quite a number of people in the Catholic youth movement who are promising and capable individuals. But on the other hand, the biggest mistake you could make would be to somehow fall for the Catholic youth movement simply because it is the Catholic youth movement; your youth movement arises from the needs of the youth themselves. What I’d like to convey in just a few words is that the whole difficulty stems from the following. The entire youth movement has come together out of the needs of the individual, and its only binding force is the bond that rests in the hearts of the individuals. This is not the case with the Catholic youth movement. Namely, all movements that truly want to move toward the future do not today have the same opportunity as the Catholic youth movement, which safeguards with tremendous purposefulness something that is firmly established through the development of humanity, through tradition, and so on. The youth movement must be decentralized. The Catholic youth movement is thoroughly centralized. And the greatest danger that exists is falling into the Catholic foundations themselves. You must not take this lightly! Imagine a movement emerging that says: We want to be good Catholics; we want to do everything to lead people back to a living, active Christianity; we want nothing to do with the Jesuits. — To anyone hearing this, it might seem reasonable. But only those who know that such a movement can be well-organized with all its anti-Jesuit programs—yet that all of this can be skillfully orchestrated by a Jesuit priest—can truly grasp the issue. For it is very much part of the Jesuits’ strategy to create their own opponents. You would hardly believe it possible that so many would fall for this scheme. But look at the Young Catholic Movement, which formed many years ago in opposition to Jesuitism, and after just fifteen years, it had already sailed right into their camp. That is something that need not be left out of the agenda.

[ 10 ] If you do not realize that the Jesuit counts on the most powerful of his opponents and is thus, in a certain sense, magnanimous, you will never be able to see clearly. Otherwise, you would see that one cannot be too cautious about the Catholic youth movement as such, lest one slip into it. I have had close acquaintances who, back then, stood on the same ground as I did. But when I meet any of them again today, I notice that a large number have fallen under the spell of the Catholic Church. The spell of the Catholic Church is so powerful, and the Catholic Church exerts an immense pull. And when you take all this into account, you must always be on guard against a trap. That is why I believe you will only make progress if you maintain the absolute independence of the Catholic youth movement. You must be clear that all your strength depends entirely on finding people who are completely uninfluenced—people you can be certain have nothing hidden up their sleeves. You will find no stamp of approval from the Jesuits; you will not find them laying everything out for you straight and clear there. I am telling you this only to characterize the situation and to draw your attention to the fact that you could steer your cause into dangerous waters if you were lenient toward the Catholic youth movement, which is now also crying out against Jesuitism. But you must take another look at these people after fifteen years; then you will see which side they have ended up on.

[ 11 ] And the essay on the anthroposophical youth movement would accomplish even more. It highlights something very important—something I have often spoken to you about—namely, that much of what emerges from the youth movement is deeply rooted in the soul. Most of it can only be understood if one grasps what the youth movement is. I can very well imagine that such an essay could have a very positive effect, and it would certainly be good if young people were to write it. If this were to come about, then one would naturally have to be prepared for the particular opposition that can, after all, be associated with individuality—both in a positive and a negative sense. One must necessarily expect this, even if outwardly it does not appear to be the case. Although many say that anthroposophists only do what they are told, in practice individuality is nowhere as pronounced as it is in the Anthroposophical Society. There, everyone does only what they truly want to do. This does, in fact, have its disadvantages.

[ 12 ] It is certainly true that there must be a sense of unity wherever a movement is involved. And if you are now electing representatives, it is essential that you take care to ensure that these representatives do not start disputes, but are truly people who put the greater good above their personal interests. That will always be necessary in the youth movement. So I think you need to take a good look at your people, because you have to know them if you want to trust them. That’s all I wanted to say in response to your questions.

[ 13 ] Question: How should fellowship be nurtured?

[ 14 ] Rudolf Steiner: You see, once you have grasped the spirit of anthroposophy, you will come to think that the specific way in which individual communities are to be nurtured is by no means the primary consideration. It may well be that the individual communities that already exist will continue to be nurtured in accordance with their own nature and will also do what they have always done. It is not a matter of setting out a program stating that this or that must happen. Anthroposophy can only work in such a way that it can be incorporated into any form. It is best if you do not set out to change the existing arrangements externally, but rather if you remember to bring anthroposophy as such into them. Anthroposophy is a secret power that could gradually permeate everything.

[ 15 ] A participant: Anthroposophists always hold it against you that these journeys lead to fanciful daydreaming.

[ 16 ] Rudolf Steiner: Well, don’t you think that hikes as such are not the kind of activity that encourages enthusiasm? Hikes are enthusiastic when the participants are enthusiastic.

[ 17 ] A participant: People—especially those from the anthroposophical side—are always accused of thinking that the youth movement does nothing but go on hikes and throw parties.

[ 18 ] Rudolf Steiner: This is connected to what I have assumed, which also applies to the anthroposophical movement. After all, it arose among people, and the people who proved themselves within it from the very beginning are, of course, more of the type who are not so inclined toward hiking, but are instead engaged in entirely different working conditions. Therefore, you cannot expect them to have much time for the Wandervögel. I mean, it’s only natural that one must understand that all sorts of objections will be raised against you. Now, you can certainly continue with the hikes. All of this is something you need not let bother you. The anthroposophical movement could just as easily have arisen among the Wandervögel. With all these matters, one must speak in such a way that one truly takes into account the full breadth and comprehensiveness of anthroposophy and does not limit oneself to trivialities. One cannot demand that the anthroposophical movement accommodate every form of wild fanaticism. I can imagine that one might say one need not think at all, but only go hiking. This does not mean that all community formations must take on such a wild form, but it is the case with many. The anthroposophical movement was brought to prominence by people who, of course, had feelings quite different from those of today’s youth; it did not arise among the youth. It will be fitting if it can be nurtured by the youth. But it arose with a certain senile quality; from the very beginning, it had nothing youthful about it. I always had to reckon with this senile quality. What I once encountered during my early lectures is characteristic of this “old-man-like” quality. I was speaking there as I am accustomed to speaking, and then an “old-man-like” person approached me and said: “If you speak so loudly, you will drive away the spiritual beings. You mustn’t speak that loudly; after all, it is called ‘esoteric science.’” — Incidentally, this person later became one of the most loyal followers of anthroposophy until his death. It is best not to take offense at this kind of old-fashioned thinking at all. One need not take offense, but should simply stick to the subject matter.

[ 19 ] Question: What does Dr. von think of solstice celebrations? Could you perhaps say a few words about that?

[ 20 ] Rudolf Steiner: You see, I already said at Easter that you must hold fast to what is a fact for those who are deeply immersed in anthroposophy—a fact that can, however, be experienced everywhere. I mentioned then how something emerged in human development at the end of the 1880s that particularly forms the foundation of today’s youth movement—something that manifests as a longing and so on, as something that actually rises up from the deeper recesses of the soul, and whose effects we can see.

[ 21 ] People in earlier times regarded things that existed as very real forces, and these forces were such that they continued to influence people well into the year: effects that were set in motion at the summer solstice. You will understand what I have said to its fullest extent if you transport yourself back to ancient times. In those days, people were connected to the laws of nature in a completely different way. When they are thus connected to the whole of nature, the thoughts conceived at the solstice are the most fruitful for assimilating those laws. One must resort to rather radical expressions if one wishes to form one’s own thoughts about what people experienced back then. People used to say that just as the bull is led out for mating at certain times of the year, so too must the human soul open itself up so that it may be fertilized at certain times of the year. Now, it is a fact that the Earth sleeps in summer; that is to say, the Earth is in a state similar to that of a human being when he or she is asleep. The Earth sleeps in summer and wakes in winter. And just as the etheric body is most active during sleep, so too is the Earth in this state. It was then that people in the past felt most connected to it. You know how they held their greatest festivals around the summer solstice. In contrast, in the south—in Africa and so on—people regarded the winter solstice as their greatest festival. There, they sought to come into contact with what emanated from the Earth’s awakening etheric body; this is based on a polar opposition in the human spirit. And ultimately, all seasonal customs can be traced back to this.

[ 22 ] All of this initially resurfaced as a feeling in people at that time. For him, all of this is connected to the fact that there is a certain regularity to it. It is certainly true that these things resurface. I was pained when a professor came up with the idea that Easter should no longer be celebrated according to the heavens, should no longer be guided by the heavens, but should always be moved to April 1. This idea seemed so clever to him that we should no longer have a movable feast, but should always celebrate it on April 1. But this completely tears the human being, with his or her sensibility, away from the entire unfolding of events in the universe. This human sensibility would surely wither away if it were to step outside the unfolding of events in the universe, whereas this coexistence within the universe possesses something that keeps human beings alive and young. If there is a sense of experiencing the spirit of the solstice—so that one knows it was once observed out of the highest feelings—then it would be good to encourage that. But one should remain grounded in concrete life, so that one knows there is something different about the summer solstice than about the winter solstice. This way of thinking should be cultivated on such occasions.

[ 23 ] The question of how to live one's life.

[ 24 ] Rudolf Steiner: Isn’t it true that this can only be achieved if the anthroposophical movement as such is successful in what it sets out to bring into all of social life? Of course, as long as the anthroposophical movement still has any sectarian elements within it, it will always be viewed in such a way that people call it a sect. |

[ 25 ] Anthroposophy has now developed healing methods. People will come seeking healing; but then certain individuals will step forward in the name of a political party and rail against the law that permits anything like the anthroposophical movement at all. Let me cite a specific case! People would like to practice anthroposophy on the sly, but they shy away from appearing in public. Yet anthroposophy can and must indeed work on a large scale; only then can it prevail. But people must also have the courage to bring the anthroposophical spirit to the wider public. From the very beginning, I always strove to make this a reality by founding a therapeutic institute, a research institute, and so on. We must work in such a way that we truly stand on anthroposophical ground. Of course, if things continue as they are now, that will not be possible. Of course, the impact of the endeavor always depends on the will of those who stand on anthroposophical ground and how strongly they influence the public. And of course, if one speaks of this in purely abstract terms, one can say that it will not be possible in the coming years.

[ 26 ] When I first presented my concept of the threefold social order, some people said: “It could take another hundred years for this to come to pass; the timeframe is poorly chosen.” — I can only say that if people thought this way about everything they did, then nothing would ever get done. That is not the right attitude; for me, the question is this: What should one do? — I must say that the anthroposophical movement would not be as far along as it is today if I had not repeatedly asked myself that question back then. When one stands on anthroposophical ground, it is also a matter of developing the will. The more people we have who stand unreservedly on this ground, the better. Our task now is not to wonder how long it will take for people to be ready for our ideas, but to work toward making them ready. That is why we must do everything possible as if that readiness were already there. We must proceed as if that readiness were already a reality. People always think: “Can we really do that?”—This is a certain kind of fear. One is afraid to do it, just as when one wonders whether one can approach the “thing-in-itself” through thought.—I can imagine it like this: There is a bowl of soup, and next to it lies a spoon. The spoon is thinking; the bowl of soup is the thing-in-itself. Now, if you ponder whether the spoon that was brought to you has a real relationship to the soup, or if you ask yourself, “What will happen if I now pick up the spoon and eat?”—then you won’t be satisfied; instead, you simply have to dig in!

[ 27 ] Question regarding the adult education movement.

[ 28 ] Rudolf Steiner: I have come to the conclusion that no progress can be expected from adult education centers. The teachers accept everything that has developed from the older culture without question, and this is then regurgitated in the adult education centers. Will things improve if adult education centers are established based on the content of contemporary culture? Of course, one can only say this and mean that one should do it in a similar way to how I did it when I was called upon. As much as one can bring in of what is alive, one should do so. But these are wasted efforts. After all, one cannot withdraw completely. But one must be clear that one is not working within a movement of ascent, but rather within a movement of decline.

[ 29 ] I didn’t object to this merely because the instructors are currently choosing lecture content that isn’t sustainable. My point was to show that we must move beyond the very method by which teaching is being conducted there. The spirit that must underlie it matters more than one might think. One might say that adult education initiatives are also guided by lofty principles. But principles have no effect. People believe that if ten or twelve people get together and devise an ideal educational program, something good will surely come of it. These people are all smart—terribly smart. They draw up the most wonderful programs for what the adult education center could be. But you see, that’s not what matters. When someone starts something, it’s not the program that counts, but rather doing the best possible with the people involved. Isn’t it true that people come up with idealistic programs everywhere? But in a school, you first have to take into account the people who are actually there—the ones with whom you can’t stick to the program. We really need to break out of this way of thinking and get back down to the reality of everyday life.

[ 30 ] Now one might say: “All right, I just want to work somewhere. I have a mission field, and I want to bring this message to people with whom I can reach a cultural level of, say, A.” But anyone can see that A is not the highest level one can reach; rather, one must reach both A and B. But you don’t have the people with whom you can achieve that. So then, people say, it’s better to just achieve A. If you think that way, you don’t just fail to achieve A—you end up with A minus B.

[ 31 ] One must draw a sense of what is real in life from spiritual science. One must not live by programmatic concepts. One must, of course, express oneself in concepts, but the concepts themselves are not what matters. What matters is that what life truly is is brought into everything, not that something lifeless is brought into the adult education center.

[ 32 ] Question about Muck-Lamberty.

[ 33 ] Rudolf Steiner: These things happen everywhere. I need only mention Häußer, who is up to his old tricks here. This man has been roaming around here, much to the horror of various people; he showed up at the SiegleHaus and also delivered all sorts of vehement speeches to the crowd. But I would like to warn against this—above all against those who do not act in a healthy way through their intellect, but who act in a suggestive manner. These people possess a strong power, but it cannot be the kind that comes from a healthy person; rather, it comes from a madman. And this must not be overlooked. Things must be sound if they are to encompass broader spheres. And if the youth movement wishes to serve humanity, it must remain sound. This brings us to forces that generate power. But this particular force is a force of madness, the kind that animals also possess. It is not the force itself that matters, but rather what is expressed through that force. The fact is that we can truly penetrate a matter from an anthroposophical spirit only if we eliminate everything suggestive. One must not allow oneself to be overwhelmed by this force. For I must say, I have witnessed very limited people accomplishing colossal things through this force. One must guard against spiritual intoxication, especially in a youth movement. One should indeed adopt this attitude toward such things.

[ 34 ] You see, I believe there is something that, as simple as it may seem, can offer you a great deal of protection, and I would like to draw your attention to it. In every movement, including the anthroposophical movement, there are people who are terribly mystically inclined. An old friend of mine, a woman from Rome, once said to me: “Oh, the anthroposophists are all so ‘sublime’; they all have faces that go ‘all the way down to their bellies.’” — And there are people of that sort everywhere. That is one extreme. The other is the boundless superficiality with which many people gloss over everything. But isn’t it true—to be fair—that the point is not to place oneself too firmly under the power of others, but rather to keep one’s own people together? And there is only one means to achieve this, though it is necessary for everyone, and that is humor. Both “faces down to the belly” and all superficiality are harmful. What you need to arrive at a proper assessment is humor. You can form the right judgment about such phenomena if you can also laugh at them. This isn’t about being ironic, but about letting what they have sink in. Humor is what you need everywhere to make a sound judgment. The youth movement should not become like those with faces down to their bellies; rather, it should truly cultivate a healthy sense of humor. I know a surprising number of pessimists in the youth movement who, because of their pessimism, are vulnerable to everything. People today are so clever that they don’t even realize how the entire culture is going mad. If you ask true “mystics,” they describe the influence of the outside world on human beings as dangerous—how people are at the mercy of every breeze. If that were really the case, then all people would be the most terrible hysterics. If people were truly that dependent, only hysterical people would exist. They would be powerless, at the mercy of every breeze. But, thank God, human beings are not like that. There you have these people. So that is really what matters: educating oneself to be able to feel on a higher level, to perceive every breath, and yet not be overwhelmed by it.

[ 35 ] Question about Fidus and Gertrud Prellwitz.

[ 36 ] Rudolf Steiner: People write books and present themselves to the world, yet they stand there without any real experience. Fidus and Gertrud Prellwitz are prime examples of this. Such people know absolutely everything. For example, they also know what it’s like to be a true anthroposophist. They are simply the archetype of the contemporary intellectual. Gertrud Prellwitz is no different from the rest, which is why one must take the whole thing with a sense of humor.

[ 37 ] The same goes for the other situation, where you’ve seen people come up every so often and say: “Oh, something terrible has happened! My child is developing completely unnatural sexual behavior.” — If you then ask about the child’s age, you find out that he or she is only five years old. Just believe that sexuality only emerges with maturity, and that it really makes no difference whether a child tickles its nose or scratches itself somewhere else. Please don’t read eroticism into everything, lest we end up spouting those dreadful theories. To view a five-year-old child through an erotic lens is utter nonsense. When it comes to this issue, sound judgment matters far more than coming up with a multitude of theories. For most of what is currently being theorized on this subject is simply nonsense. Really, people just need to consider how terribly short-sighted these ideas are. There have been cultures where eating was accompanied by feelings of shame. Similar theories about eating could now arise from that. You’ll find that if you truly engage with the big questions of life, you won’t have any time left for such theorizing. |

[ 38 ] A participant: These issues should be taken more seriously.

[ 39 ] Rudolf Steiner: You phrased the question in such a way that one has to say: It is phrased as if one wanted to build a house but did not yet have the ground to do so.

[ 40 ] One participant: Muck-Lamberty incorporates the earth into his craft through art and so on. And then they—the “Neue Schar”—want to completely transform life from the ground up.

[ 41 ] Rudolf Steiner: But what matters is reality. One cannot grow backward in the world, but only forward. Reflecting on eroticism does not lead to progress. If one develops healthy foundations, then one’s erotic life will naturally become healthy. The nature of erotic life is such that it must be properly integrated into one’s life. Just as it manifests in human beings at a certain age, so too does it develop within a specific cultural context. One can only let it emerge naturally. If other aspects develop healthily, a healthy erotic life will develop as well. A rigid, program-driven approach in this area does the most harm. In social life, too, it will develop as it must under healthy conditions. Healthy conditions are necessary everywhere. Countless people have come to me and asked me about prenatal education. The “theories” that have been put forward on this subject are something truly dreadful. For what comes to light here is a mindset that is entirely like that of a greenhouse. What is necessary is for the mother to be healthy and to live a proper life. The child’s organism is dependent on the mother. If the mother keeps herself healthy, the child will be born healthy on its own. There are certain questions that make no sense to ask. It is only because we live today amid an abundance of intellectual output that these questions are asked at the wrong time. People need topics to discuss. They do not want to wait for experience to speak for itself. They write, and this can then give rise to movements that lead nowhere.

[ 42 ] A participant: The movement didn't arise from thought, but rather quite unconsciously. People live together in small circles and seek a certain naturalness.

[ 43 ] Rudolf Steiner: What does that mean: a certain naturalness? — Suppose you have a circle here, and one there, and another there; here a circle of farm boys, here decadent aristocrats, here healthy people. Each circle expresses itself in a completely different way. You can’t just say, “Some theory is useful!” — The point is really that certain things can only develop if a foundation is in place. I don’t want to be ironic about these things. You can’t sit around thinking about how a newborn child expresses its sexuality. You simply have to have the courage to find what’s possible and right at the right moment. That’s precisely why you have to try to develop a sense of humor in this area—to truly walk the middle path between philistinism and debauchery, a path already pointed out by Aristotle.

[ 44 ] A participant: A strict distinction must be made, because Muck-Lamberty and Gertrud Prellwitz are two completely different things. What people have learned about this, they learned from their elders. Stammler and Fidus have spread falsehoods about Muck. Muck sought out young people with whom he wanted to demonstrate that there is something that exists on an equal footing between one person and another. As one of the outward forms of this, they introduced dance—folk dance. People flocked to it, but just as quickly drifted away. The suggestive effect quickly faded. Those who remained represent a true spiritual force. The artisans’ community is one of the healthiest movements. The people in Naumburg are trying to build up the entire economy in a spirit of brotherhood and want to be independent of what they reject. In the process, a healthy erotic life developed until Gertrud Preillwitz introduced her theories. However, the crisis has now been overcome. The people there have now moved beyond Gertrud Preillwitz. Their spiritual movement is now flowing into anthroposophy.

[ 45 ] Rudolf Steiner: The fact is that one can approach everything from its positive side, and there is no need to doubt that. But it is still important to maintain the necessary perspective here. For example, it is indisputable that some of the people who supported the anthroposophical movement came from spiritualist circles, and something worthwhile did come of it later on. However, that does not mean one can defend spiritualism. With regard to the events in Naumburg, one must consider how it came to be that, in Naumburg of all places, things turned out the way they did. There have always been such movements in Naumburg that eventually fade away. A strong one-sidedness can creep into such things. The Naumburg case is no more conclusive than the fact that people joined a student movement. Although I will not defend spiritualism, capable people have emerged from it. Of course, something can emerge from all sorts of things. So one cannot draw the basis for a view from such factors. Muck-Lamberty wanted to bring happiness to humanity; he advocated purity and craftsmanship, and so on. The itinerant teachers he appointed had a circle of boys around them with whom they lived. He advocated purity and had two illegitimate [but wanted] children.

[ 46 ] [What follows is a jumble of speech that could not be transcribed. ]

[ 47 ] Rudolf Steiner: It is therefore certainly necessary that we pursue anthroposophy as such, and that we cannot expect anything of the sort to be a cause for concern. The beginnings that were discussed today will, after all, have to be the beginnings.

[ 48 ] Question: An educational question. What is the position of anthroposophy and the Waldorf school regarding existing independent school communities and rural boarding schools where teachers act as friends and fellow human beings? I received the following answer from anthroposophists: These schools should be avoided because they seek to realize a bygone educational ideal and because they are “Greek-ifying.”

[ 49 ] Rudolf Steiner: The point is this. The Waldorf school is based on a pedagogy that arises entirely from an understanding of the human being derived from anthroposophy, placing primary value on the principle that a person should be treated only as he or she desires deep within. This is the foundation of the Waldorf school, without the need for set curricula. It is built on an understanding of the human being; the child is not asked directly, but in a certain sense is still asked what he or she wants. The main point is that the Waldorf school is truly a democratic, inclusive school. It places children from working-class families alongside children from the highest social classes. It fulfills to the highest degree what can be called a democratic, inclusive school. Moreover, the standpoint taken is that we say: We live in a world that can achieve healing only by absorbing great, comprehensive cultural impulses—a healing that cannot be attained through remedies that remain exceptions. So the point is to accept what already exists. I adapt my pedagogical approach to the specific circumstances, such as those of a city. If I have the opportunity to found an anthroposophical school in a city, I establish it based on the city’s specific conditions.

[ 50 ] As far as educational methods are concerned, it goes without saying that one cannot object to a rural educational institute that adopts this approach. However, I believe that this does not constitute a social act, because it removes young people from the life in which they are immersed; they are educated in isolation. People don’t take this into account. I know an outstanding physician who came to me and said, “This person doesn’t have a normal heart; something must be done.” I replied, “If you cure this man’s heart, he will no longer be able to live, because his entire organism is adapted to it.” For one must always keep the whole picture in mind. Sending young people out to the countryside may well foster a good sense of community—which can be cultivated in isolation—but these institutions would only prove their worth if these people were later able to prove themselves within the entire social organism. I have certain reservations about that. What matters is making the entire organism healthy. It cannot be a matter of discussing things on an anthroposophical basis in the same way that people generally discuss things; that cannot be our concern. I have appointed an excellent teacher from a rural boarding school to Stuttgart. He likes it better here; he must surely find something here that goes beyond that; the man must surely be able to compare the two. From this you can also see that we are not one-sided, for otherwise I would not have appointed the teacher. The point is to find the good everywhere. One must not believe that one has to impose the program everywhere.

[ 51 ] A participant: In these schools, where young people live together, a way of life should emerge that is not detached from the real world.

[ 52 ] Rudolf Steiner: But an individual! The individuals must, after all, act as individualities again later on. This is something—if you were to look into it, you would find that self-centered personalities easily develop in rural boarding schools, people who think things should be just like that everywhere. They become terrible critics, dreadful naysayers, for whom nothing in the world is good enough. There is something in this that resembles a socially eccentric spirit. One must be careful not to demand the impossible.

[ 53 ] What should I have done? If I had started from an abstraction, I would never have founded the Waldorf School. Reform schools in the sense envisioned by Wyneken and Lietz, where everything can be created, are actually quite easy to establish. A rural reform school can essentially only be established on the basis of what is drawn from society. Furthermore, there will not be many children from working-class families in rural reform schools.

[ 54 ] A participant: I myself was a teacher at an independent school that has since closed. But we had more tuition-free spots than other schools. The wealthy paid extra in tuition, which allowed us to offer tuition-free spots to poor children.

[ 55 ] Rudolf Steiner: But that is the antisocial aspect of the matter, even with the Waldorf school. It, too, must be commercialized. This can only be improved if we implement the threefold social order.

[ 56 ] A participant: Boarding schools offer a family-like environment, whereas the structure of today's families is not always the most conducive.

[ 57 ] Rudolf Steiner: These are judgments based on reality. For example, boarding school life has always existed in English circles. People there are familiar with boarding school life, with all its ups and downs.

Rudolf Steiner concludes the discussion.