Rudolf Steiner

Heiner Ullrich, Richard Bailey

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781472518897
• eBook ISBN: 9781441174574
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Rudolf Steiner is one of the most controversially judged educational reformers of the twentieth century. Although he received little recognition within his field, his educational thought has had a sustained and profound influence, not only in the development of the Waldorf Schools, but also in healing, socially therapeutic work, psychosomatic medicine, biological-dynamic agriculture, corporate organisation, fine arts, and architecture. Heiner Ullrich paints a concise and well-grounded portrait of the creator of the anthroposophic doctrine and Waldorf pedagogy. The text describes a wide arc from the intellectual biography of Rudolf Steiner, across his basic ideas on human development and education, to include discussion of the organisation, curriculum, methods and success of the Waldorf Schools.

Part One

Intellectual Biography

1. Childhood and Youth Abroad: Scholastic Success and Intellectual Curiosity

Steiner was born on 25 February 1861 in the village of Kraljevec (in what is today Croatia, but at the time in Hungary), the first of three children of an Austrian railway telegraphist. He was born into a modest, uneducated environment and was baptized as a Roman Catholic. Just as little Rudolf was born, in the distant United States of America the civil war was beginning and in neighboring Italy unification had just been completed. The English throne was in the midst of its third year of political domination over India. At approximately the same time, prominent fellow citizens of the Austrian Danube monarchy were born, such as Sigmund Freud (1856), Edmund Husserl (1859) and Gustav Mahler (1860). Among his contemporaries in the broader sense were philosophers such as Henri Bergson (1859) and Benedetto Croce (1866) in Europe and John Dewey (1859) and George Herbert Mead (1863) in North America, as well as the sociological classicists Emile Durkheim (1858) and Max Weber (1864), the educational reformers Jane Addams (1860) and Maria Montessori (1870) and the Spanish architect Antonio Gaudi (1852). In contrast to most of his famous contemporaries, Rudolf Steiner did not grow up in the artistically aware, educated middle class, but rather in the rural and unpropertied lower middle class of the German-speaking diaspora. Rudolf Steiner experienced his childhood as an Austrian born abroad, as a foreigner in his village, and – because of his intellectual curiosity – as a stranger in his own family. Geographical and social unrootedness also characterize his life beyond his childhood. The eleven stages of Steiner’s life, which took him via Vienna to Weimar, Berlin, Stuttgart, and finally to Dornach (Basel) in Switzerland, did not allow him to establish a true home. Nowhere did he set up a permanent residence, buy his own home or work in a solid middle-class profession. Neither of the marriages he entered into later in life produced any children.

Steiner’s love of learning and his interest in education were decisive for the road his life took. His success in school allowed him grow out of his small-town milieu and provided access to the zeitgeist. His social ascent and career were built on his scholastic performance. His father recognized his son’s talent at an early age and saw to it that he received extra instruction in addition to that offered at the elementary school. So that his son might later attend the (more prestigious) academy and become a railway engineer, his father agreed to be transferred to a train station near Wiener Neustadt (near Vienna). Achieving good grades in school, Steiner was accepted as a pupil at the non-Latin ‘Oberrealschule’, a type of secondary modern school, on a scholarship; his parents therefore had to pay no tuition. At 15 he began to contribute to his own sustenance by earning money through tutoring. He passed his final exams (Maturität) with the grade ‘outstanding’ and thereby acquired the prerequisite for a scholarship to study at a technical post-secondary institution. Despite his scholastic success, the cultural horizon of this up-and-coming star had to this point been very limited. At home, literature, art, and religion played no role at all, and he had no access to music. At his secondary school, math, physics, and chemistry dominated at the expense of classical and modern languages. Steiner found his own way to literature and intellectual history.

As a passionate autodidact, as a pupil he became acquainted with philosophical works of German Idealism (Immanuel Kant and Johann Friedrich Herbart, among others). In his later autobiography, Steiner traces his interest in philosophy and religious worldview issues to his transcendental-intellectual experiences. These began with the telepathic perception of his aunt’s suicide at the age of seven (cf. Lindenberg 1997, p. 31), but this skill is not recognized by his family. From that point on, the reality of the intellectual world is as certain as the sensory world.

I would have said that the objects and events seen by the senses exist in space, the space outside the human being; but a kind of soul-space exists within as the setting for spiritual beings and events. I could not see anything in thoughts that was like pictures we form of things; rather they were revelations of a spiritual world on the stage of the soul . . . I had two mental images that, although still undefined, played an important role in my inner life even before my eighth year; I differentiated between things that are visible and things that are invisible.

(Steiner CW 28, 1999, p. 23)

This tension between his spiritual-emotional inner world and the sensory-material world is found thereafter in his life, work and influence, like the principal theme of a symphony.

2. Studies and Work as a Tutor in Vienna: The Basis for an Idealistic Worldview

In 1879 Steiner registered with a scholarship at Vienna’s technical university to study math, natural history and chemistry. He was educated in sciences and technology but was much more interested in philosophy and literature. He undertook this ‘Brotstudium’, (a German term for studying subjects one is not particularly interested in but which should allow one to make a living once studies are complete) with the goal of becoming a teacher at a secondary modern school.

The gates to the philosophy faculty at the University of Vienna, to which he was much more attracted, remained closed to the talented young student because he did not have the necessary prerequisites of Latin and Greek.

As a poor, second-class student from a rural area, Steiner only found limited access to cultural life in the metropolis of the Danube monarchy. The world of the aristocracy and industrial bourgeoisie, in which Johann Strauss was celebrating resounding triumphs with his operettas at the time, remained closed to him just as it did to members of the proletariat in the workers’ suburbs. Steiner delved deeply into political issues of his time, which were strongly shaped by emerging nationalism in the multinational state of Austria. As a regular patron of concerts and operas, he partook in the outstanding events in the world of classical music, which at that time were dictated by Johannes Brahms, Anton Bruckner and Hugo Wolf.

For his ‘Brotstudium’ Steiner completed a comprehensive series of lectures and was able to secure his scholarship by regularly passing his exams with the grades of ‘excellent’ and ‘very good’, thereby proving his scholarly success. However, he did not complete his studies, but rather devoted more and more time to his philosophical interests, probably in the hope of later graduating and earning his doctorate at the university’s philosophy faculty. In 1883 he left the technical university without having graduated. He was now penniless, but in the period between 1884 and 1890 he earned his living as a tutor and educator in Vienna in the upper middle-class family of the Jewish cotton importer Ladislaus Specht. He was responsible for the education of four boys and was given special responsibility for the education of the youngest of them, who was impaired by hydrocephaly (an abnormal buildup of cerebrospinal fluid in the ventricles of the brain). In time he was able to help the boy to such an extent that he completed his education at elementary school and regularly completed grammar school (Gymnasium) level work. The Viennese literary and worldview circles that the intellectually inquisitive young Steiner was associated with were largely shaped by backward-thinking, idealistic and national (istic)-Romantic views. Steiner, who also dabbled as a theater critic and editor for a nationalistic political paper/magazine, was therefore highly skeptical of many of his progressive contemporaries, Sigmund Freud for example, who was developing the basis of psychoanalysis in the same period in Vienna. In Steiner’s last years in Vienna he had his first contact with theosophists, of whom he initially had a mixed view that even tended toward outright rejection of their ideas.

During his studies and work as an educator in Vienna Steiner began to grapple with the zeitgeist on a philosophical level and to develop his own worldview, which can be described as evolutionary-objective idealism. In order to understand the young Steiner’s thought within the context of his time, his contemporary horizon shall now be briefly introduced. In simplified terms, philosophical thought in the second half of the nineteenth century in central Europe was shaped by tendencies toward materialism and scientification. Since the end of idealism in the wake of Hegel’s death, rational metaphysics had been questioned. Among the philosophical teachers of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, right through to Freud’s psychoanalysis, the accepted view was that reason was not the first and most powerful force in controlling behavior, but rather the will, in the sense of dark urges, longing and desire. This meant that it was no longer the spirit but rather the body which dictated, because it was the body which carried the will. It was no longer spiritualizing (‘Vergeistigung’), but rather embodiment of the spirit (‘Verleiblichung’) which was man’s task. Even in Karl Marx’s materialistic interpretation of history it was no longer developing reason which dictated history (as it was with Hegel), but rather only the level of productive power, which can be objectively determined by the science of economics. Behavior relevant to history no longer stemmed from the individual’s consciousness, but rather from the material interests of the social classes. Parallel to this dethroning of idealistic metaphysics, within the nineteenth century the relationship between philosophy and science also changed with a mutual drifting apart. Until the philosophy of idealism of Hegel and Schelling, the sciences had always been seen as a unit together with philosophy because the goal of both was the perception of truth or, more specifically, eternal world order. The sciences only came to prominence once they had been given a solid foundation through philosophy.

The triumph of exact science in the nineteenth century – which was largely based on a departure from idealistic systems and a loss of interest in the question of being – marks the parting of ways for the sciences and philosophy. The increasing dynamic in the sciences after the midway point of the century was experienced by those involved as an ever-accelerating progress in insight and discovery and as an explosion in specialized knowledge, which, unlike in Goethe and Hegel’s time, was no longer easy to keep track of. Philosophy only appeared possible as a theory of cognition (epistemology) or of science. An all-encompassing scientific worldview was now only for dabblers and the scientific populists who wrote for them. In order to satisfy philosophical needs, which could not be met by specialized and professionally-generated scientific knowledge, new worldviews arose. In contrast to existing religious doctrine, these had scientific requirements. The most popular scientific worldview of the last third of the century was Darwinism, which was based on an evolutionary principle. At the time Rudolf Steiner was studying, many of his contemporaries were convinced that it was no longer religion and philosophy, but rather science that was the thinking man’s terrain. The humanizing of culture through scientific thought was considered the meaning of history, which, in turn, stemmed from the evolution of all living things. From a worldview perspective the principle of evolution was a link between science and metaphysics because it made the notion plausible – as did the earlier historical philosophy of progress – that there is development which leads ‘upward.’ However, this development is not guided by supernatural powers, but rather emerges empirically from the workings of nature itself. Darwin’s book The Origin of Species, whose influence stretches beyond biology right through to the general consciousness, shows the universal meaning of the evolutionary principle in an instructive manner. Even though for evolutionary theorists, development is a fact of natural history and is not teleologically developed for humans, Darwinists see it as a meaningful, higher development toward a comprehensive humanity. The most successful proponent of Darwinism was the zoologist Ernst Haeckel, who taught at the University of Jena. Based on Darwin’s theory of evolution and his own studies, Haeckel developed an evolutionary worldview which was closely connected with Goethe’s view of nature and the monistic notion of a material and ideal substance as the basis of all life. In Haeckel’s popular scientific writings, the term Monism is used to describe a free religious worldview in which modern science and religiosity of man (boiled down to its basic core) are set to bring man back to true harmony.

Rudolf Steiner and many others were strongly impressed by Haeckel’s Monism as a merger of science and religion, as well as by the basic idea of evolution as a higher development and as an ideal and material basis. His first philosophical notes and reflections show that he is still bound to an older, idealistic monistic thought. In this respect he goes against the zeitgeist as an intellectual partner in discussions of German Idealists such as Fichte and Schelling. Shortly before his twentieth birthday he wrote to a friend about his fundamental philosophical intuition. ‘It was the night from the 10th to the 11th of January in which I did not sleep for a moment. I had been occupied with some philosophical problems until a half hour before midnight and then I finally retired to bed. The previous year it had been my goal to investigate if Shelling’s words were true:

We all carry a secret, wonderful capability of pulling ourselves back from the changing of the times, from everything that came from external sources, to our own naked selves, and from there to see the eternal in us in the form of unchangeability. I believed and still believe I have definitely discovered that capability in myself – I have suspected it for some time – the entire idealistic philosophy now stands before me in a significantly modified form. What is a sleepless night against such a discovery.

(Steiner, cited in Lindenberg 2004, p. 25)

In his Viennese years the mystic-religious dimension of this thought was expressed genuinely. In ‘Credo – The Individual and the Universe’, which he writes at the age of 27, the outline of his idealistic worldview, reminiscent of neo-Platonism, is still clearly perceivable. Central statements include:

The world of ideas is the original source and principle of all being. In it is endless harmony and spiritual calm . . . The idea is, in itself, the clear and self-content spirit . . . If man awakens to his full consciousness, he feels and recognizes only himself as an individual. The craving for ideas is planted within him . . . Leave aside details and follow the voice in you because only it is the Divine! . . . If one acts ‘in spirit’ then one experiences the general workings of the world in oneself. The killing of ‘selfness’, that is the basis for higher living. Whoever kills selfness lives eternally . . . There are four spheres of human activity to which man devotes himself completely to the spirit with the killing of independent existence, science, art, religion, and loving dedication . . . When one man has passed through one of the spheres and out of individuality, and has settled down into the divine life of the idea, then he has achieved that which lies within the seed of aspiration in his breast; his union with the spirit, and this is his true destiny.

(Steiner GA 40 1981, p. 274 f.)

In coming years Steiner would record the opportunity and the need for experience with the eternal world of ideas, both through the example of the nature researcher Goethe’s idealistic morphology, as well as through his own epistemological writings. Terminologically he follows the zeitgeist, but also presents his outdated philosophical mystic-pre-critical objective idealism as a ‘modern worldview’ which can be empirically proven through ‘observation results according to the scientific method’ (cf. the cover of his work The Philosophy of Freedom (CW 4) from 1894).

His mathematic-scientific studies at Vienna’s technical university did not provide Steiner with the necessary room for the development of his philosophical-worldview issues. This room he found in the lectures of the literature professor and folklorist Karl Julius Schröer. He had earned a reputation as a dialectologist who studied dialects and folk tales in German-speaking isolated areas in the Balkans. Schröer’s great passion was Goethe and his times, however. In his lectures he focused solely on this former German classical period and took the young and easily-enthused student on a voyage into this world. Through Schröer’s eyes Rudolf Steiner saw the greatness and sublimity of Goethe’s time and, just like his teacher, sees his own age as one of decline. Schröer’s idealistic views also played right into Steiner’s attempts to find a reflexive explanation for his own spiritual experiences. Schröer is not only the academic teacher with the greatest influence on Steiner; he also became aware of the talented young student through his outstanding exam results and brilliant seminar presentations. Steiner was allowed to visit him for personal discussions more frequently. Schröer developed a plan which led to an unexpected turn in Steiner’s life. At the time, Schröer was working as an editor on an edition of Goethe’s plays in the monumental anthology German National Literature. He knew that the editor Joseph Kürschner was looking for an employee for the planned five-volume edition of Goethe’s works. Schröer suggested Kürschner take on the 21-year-old Steiner for the job. After Kürschner had agreed, Steiner started working on the project with great enthusiasm. He finished the first volume in the spring of 1833 after only five months, complete with an introduction and notes. By taking on the editorial position for Goethe’s scientific writings, Steiner inwardly distanced himself from his original goal of becoming a secondary-level teacher. In light of the massive support for his work from Schröer and initial successes with publications, the philosophical autodidact and philological layman Steiner decided to set out on a scientific career, one which from the beginning carried the risk of destitution.

As early as 1886 Steiner, who had earned his living as a private teacher after having left university without completing his studies, was asked to work on the most comprehensive Goethe edition, the Weimar or Sophien Edition. In 1890 he took the job. He was expected to critically edit six volumes of Goethe’s morphological writings. In the summer of 1889 he traveled to Weimar for the first time, the city of the classical German writers Goethe, Schiller and Herder, in order to get to know his new place of work and tasks there.

3. Archivist in Weimar: The Philosophy of Goethean Natural Science

From 1890 to 1896 Steiner did poorly paid freelance work at the Goethe and Schiller Archive in Weimar, a small Thuringian city. In only a few years he edited Goethe’s – until then unedited – scientific writings for the Sophien Edition. It was very philological work: Steiner had to compare manuscripts with various printed editions, prepare variation indices and publish writings which until then had not been published. He found the work interesting at first, but the archival tasks soon become torturous because he did not see himself as a critical philologist, but rather primarily as a philosophical guardian of Johann Wolfgang Goethe, whose idealistic nature research was diametrically opposed to contemporary experimental and quantifying science. While this was either hardly respected or already forgotten by Steiner’s contemporaries, for him Goethe is ‘. . . the Copernicus and Kepler of the organic world’ (Steiner CW 1, 2000, p. 95). Goethe did indeed devote more time to his scientific writings (which are primarily interesting today from the standpoint of scientific history) than to his classical writings. One may t...

Table of contents

• Cover-Page
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Contents
• Series Editor’s Preface
• Foreword
• Prologue
• Part One: Intellectual Biography
• Part Two: Critical Exposition of Steiner’s Philosophical and Educational Work
• Part Three: The Reception and Influence of Steiner’s Work
• Part Four: The Relevance of Steiner/Waldorf Schools Today
• Epilogue
• Bibliography
• Index
• Copyright