Volume 10 Number 2 pp. 68-72 Research on Steiner Education Hosted at www.rosejourn.com Rezension / Book review Johannes Kiersch Helmut Zander: Anthroposophy. Rudolf Steiner’s Ideas from Esotericism to Weleda, Demeter and Waldorf Education. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2019) Strange as it may seem, to this day an open dialogue tion that Steiner’s advocacy of the super-sensible was between those who follow Rudolf Steiner and rep- simply the imposition of an ideological superstruc- resentatives of mainstream academia has never got ture left out of account what for anthroposophists properly underway. Why is this? The widespread was the heart of the matter. Nor did anyone won- opinion is that the cultural historian, Helmut Zan- der how such an apparently questionable construct der, is currently the author best placed to give a well- as Steiner’s spiritual world could possibly have pro- founded answer to such a question. He is credited duced such an astounding abundance of things that with having proved that the founder of anthroposo- worked – a fact which, then as now, can no longer phy was simply a collector of cultural curiosities, a be denied. May I at this point insert what for me was charlatan with an over-active imagination, who in the single most significant objection I had at the first the spiritual miasma of the early twentieth century appearance of the two volumes of “Anthroposophie gathered around himself a gullible coterie of truth- in Deutschland”: “The powerful personality that seekers, mainly using motifs from Anglo-Saxon the- one quite naturally assumes to be behind any long- osophy, which he amateurishly laced with outworn lastingly productive spiritual movement is nowhere ideas from the philosophical tradition of German to be found in Zander’s pages. Instead, his volumi- idealism (Zander 2007). Zander’s findings have been nous work is haunted by a diffuse shadow, a pitiful, sharply criticised in anthroposophical quarters. Prob- morally dubious featherbrain, driven by insecurity ably the weightiest criticism comes from the Stuttgart and ambition. How such a creature is to display philosopher, Jörg Ewertowski. He questioned the the energy and competence required to start such a narrowness of Zander’s historical perspective with its movement remains a complete mystery. Zander has leanings towards the thinking of Otto Gerhard Oex- performed the feat of totally eliminating from his le (Ewertowski 2007; 2008, p. 100ff.; 2011, p. 221). narrative the genius of Rudolf Steiner.” But that would have been of little interest to anyone except a few specialists. To all intents and purposes, In his new book, “Anthroposophy”, Zander portrays the monumental work of Helmut Zander had de- in a sequence of loosely connected essays, a “bouquet tailed the activities of the Theosophical Society in of selective impressions” (p. 12), the current picture Germany with acerbic precision and located Steiner of the movement inaugurated by Steiner. Since the firmly at the centre of them. A very satisfying out- well-known SPIEGEL article of more than thirty come, if only for the fact that it reinforced what ev- years ago (Brügge 1984), this is the first attempt, eryone already knew. Hardly anyone noticed that the from an external perspective, to risk a critical survey conclusions Zander came to had less to do with the of the whole range of anthroposophical activities as precision and abundance of his observations, than they have developed since Steiner’s death. Evidently with the countless presumptions, insinuations and the question his original work of 2007 left unan- mocking, often malicious comments with which his swered as to the connection between Steiner’s teach- imposing work was peppered. Equally unremarked ings and their practical effectiveness would not let was the fact that Zander’s freely admitted assump- the author be. While here he has still not managed to www.rosejourn.com RoSE - Research on Steiner Education Vol.10 No.2 2019. ISSN 1891-6511 (online). Johannes Kiersch | Review of: Rudolf Steiner’s Ideas from Esotericism to Weleda, Demeter and Waldorf Education by Helmut Zander 52 shed any light on the subject, the reader is nonethe- cal movement, receives as much as a mention. For less encouraged by an impressive abundance of care- Helmut Zander, who as a theologian has thoroughly fully researched and meticulously backed-up infor- researched this tricky subject, the latter would be an mation, some of which will be new even to insiders, ideal person to discuss it with. But apparently such a to at least think about it. Zander has organised his person is not supposed to exist. observations under alphabetical headings, from Al- natura to Waldorf education and worldview – religion One obvious candidate for inclusion here – Goethe – science. We learn about Judith von Halle, about the – is missing entirely. The impressive profusion of constitutional debate within the Anthroposophical publications about Steiner and the “Copernicus and Society, about races and racism, about sexuality and Kepler of the organic world”, which anthroposophi- the relationship between men and women within the cally inclined experts and other scholars have been anthroposophical milieu. There is also up-to-date in- churning out for decades, is resolutely ignored by formation on topics that would interest the editors Zander. As with his major work of 2007, however, of BILD (the German equivalent of the SUN). Par- the most glaring omission remains his failure to ad- ticularly impressive are the short pieces on anthro- dress Steiner’s theory of knowledge, as contained posophical banks, on universities set up by followers in the book “Von Seelenrätseln” (“Riddles of the of Steiner, on bio-dynamic (Demeter) agriculture, Soul”), his fundamental declaration of epistemo- on medicines, cosmetics, curative education, hospitals. logical principle of 1917, in “Die psychologischen In the essay looking in general at anthroposophy in Grundlagen und die erkenntnistheoretische Stellung practice there is a, for me, stunning remark about the der Theosophie” (“The psychological principles and diversity of these activities: “Every Waldorf school, epistemological status of theosophy”), a lecture (oft- every bio-dynamic farm and every anthroposophical quoted by anthroposophists) given at the Interna- clinic has its own profile. Indeed anthroposophists tional Philosophy Congress in Bologna in 1911, and insist that every practical enterprise is an ‘individual- in the collections of later essays on anthroposophical ity’. And the fact is that outsiders rarely manage to research methods (Steiner 1961 and 1965). All these get a proper idea of this intra-anthroposophical plu- texts, by which Steiner brought his 1905 project of ralism. Anthroposophy commands a rich range of a “theory of esoteric scientific knowledge” to gradual facets, the like of which other small religious or like- realisation, deserve much more thorough discus- minded communities can only dream about” (Zan- sion than they have hitherto been granted (Kiersch der 2019, p. 187). With as much clarity as could be 2016). wished, this observation contradicts the widespread cliché that all anthroposophical establishments are In “Riddles of the Soul” Steiner delineates the re- regulated by a monolithic, central authority, located lationship between empirical research, which takes largely in Dornach. sensory perception as its point of departure (and which he somewhat arbitrarily designates as “an- A rich seam of Zander’s new work are the numerous thropology”), and his own “anthroposophy”, which footnotes, with their references to further material begins from super-sensory experience. These two in the internet. Here are quoted a number of dis- research methods seem, at first glance, to be as dif- sertations and masters theses dealing with problems ferent as black from white and completely incompat- in the anthroposophical milieu. At least studies of ible. Both, however, arrive though logical thinking this kind seem now to be permissible, albeit tucked at a picture of the human being, and if we proceed away in inconspicuous corners. Zander himself in an impartial way the pictures thus achieved are, continues to shy away from the key question of the he contends, compatible in every detail, like positive anthroposophical “super-structure” supposedly in- and negative photographic plates (Steiner 1983, p. vented by Steiner. He almost entirely overlooks all 11ff.).1 the thorough consideration devoted to this subject by anthroposophists themselves. Under the heading reincarnation, for instance, neither Emil Bock’s clas- sic study (Bock 1996) nor the well-founded “Phi- 1. Possibly the first anthroposophist (certainly in the English- losophie der Wiederverkörperung” (“Philosophy speaking world) to draw particular attention to the significance of “Riddles of the Soul” was Owen Barfield. A new edition of Reincarnation”) by Renatus Ziegler, one of the of his “The Case for Anthroposophy”, which incorporates his most competent philosophers of the anthroposophi- translation of Steiner’s text, came out in 2010 (Barfield Press). www.rosejourn.com RoSE - Research on Steiner Education Vol.10 No.2 2019 Johannes Kiersch | Review of: Rudolf Steiner’s Ideas from Esotericism to Weleda, Demeter and Waldorf Education by Helmut Zander 53 This makes particularly clear that with his whole ignoring others, how discussion among experts grad- approach Steiner had no intention of replacing the ually clarifies what is important and out of this arises open-ended,