Kingdom of Childhood Comments and Closing in Essays

Steiner’s advocacy for the truth and value of empiricism is belied by the methods he employs in discovery of, and support of empiricism. Steiner fails to uphold his assertions that empiricism is the utmost superior way to interact with the world by claiming unverifiable and dogmatic mysticism called Anthroposophy. My impassioned question is why? Why not remain true to empirical evidence in support of empiricism? Why resort to esoteric explanations that defy all logic and common sense? This self referential belief system excludes itself from the methods of empirical inquiry; one cannot be both an Anthroposophist and an Empiricist.

So, it is very interesting that Steiner so energetically and prolifically holds these contradictory opinions. He again and again criticizes the use of abstractions and dissociated learning. He champions the use of the senses to ground thinking and to bring concrete thought back into schooling young children. Steiner also highly praised physical movement, and the doing form of learning.

This stark inconsistency can only harm Steiner’s credibility. And through Steiner, the credibility of the Waldorf system of education is harmed. It is a tragedy that Waldorf Education as a whole cannot point to rigorous scientific inquiry, and instead can only sheepishly admit it’s foundation is mysticism. While it is true that advances in child development and research into learning has amply supported Steiner’s instruction, the instruction itself does not claim such support. In fact Steiner takes a rather religious approach to his knowledge base- claiming that anyone my verify his conclusions if they pursue Anthroposophy.

My suggestion is that Steiner was a product of his time, and did not critically examine his level of self awareness. The highly religious and mystical Germans believed that children were born in sin; only to be purified and saved through religious instruction. Children therefore, were not valued as innocent, impressionable and developing human beings. They were to the Germans of the time vessels of evil inclination which needed to be treated with strict, harsh and unyielding authority. This is of course an environment of extreme antagonism to all indications that children deserved love, respect, and autonomy.
Yet Steiner does remark on the utter needlessness and harm of the cruelty and punishment that virtually all children suffered. So Steiner recognized that the way children were treated was a principle cause of their illness, in-capacities, and suffering throughout their lives. Yet he shied away from shining a light on those responsible; instead he retreated in the acceptable rhetoric of the time; mysticism.
The problem of Steiner’s refusal to call out the actors of violence and child abuse, and his admonishment of the conscientious to put forth greater effort to attain the qualities of virtue and justice that he says are necessary to overcome the harms of evil, is forefront in my mind.
I ask “why should we listen to you, Steiner? If you yourself refrain from addressing the obvious cause of the problem you are striving to solve, why should anyone take you seriously, or indeed your solutions?”
The principle of judging the medium of the message before the message, is one that has infrequently been employed. In fact I’d argue that it’s the principle most ignored and disregarded among educated people- those many who feel competent because they are fed and accept their methods on authority. The evidence for this is the ubiquitous talent for lying among politicians, the total acceptance of government violations of the non-aggression principle, the slack and obedient subservience to petty officials.

I regard Steiner’s works as a curiosity; his evident great empathy gave him immense insight into effective methods of educating them. I would advocate for reading Steiner and any Waldorf or Anthroposophical text with the attitude of, “I wonder if current knowledge supports this?”