Talk:Waldorf education

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

“Discuss on talk page if you disagree”

I read through those news articles that were cited after “he asserted a hierarchy of races with a white race at the top” and the statement of “a white race at the top” is found nowhere in Steiner’s actual books or lectures and is just a very cherry picked statement, it’s also worded very strongly, as if it was actively trying to convince people that the reality of all Steiner schools is entirely racist. Either fix the wording or find some better sources. 94.199.30.34 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That for Steiner white race was the top race is not in doubt. However, Steiner's take was humanitarian, and this distinguishes him from racists. So, he did not say that the white race has to oppress other races. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly i have not seen any actual steiner books/lectures that even contain a heirarchy of races, and "he did not say that the white race has to oppress other races" is fine i guess in context but at first glance it looks extremely racist and in my opinion comes off as extremely biased. 2A00:23C4:DD8C:CB00:9C09:FDD5:BA9C:DC18 (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is weird, given his general humanism, but he really did echo the racial hierarchy thinking typical of his period. And also sometimes say that everyone was equal, regardless of race. Some cognitive dissonance there. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzing Steiner's own works is prohibited by WP:OR. We simply WP:CITE WP:RS written by experts in their field (e.g. religion studies). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think some article with a overarching negative tone wrote to incite clicks and emotions is written by an expert on religious studies, and even if the articles were they are clearly not written in a Wikipedia:IMPARTIAL way. There's obvious bias in these sources. 2A00:23C4:DD8C:CB00:596B:CAB7:2B00:BABE (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, we are biased against fringe views and pseudoscience. It's true that Steiner had a racialist worldview, but it is also true that he was well-meaning towards people of other races. I mean: both are true, and dodging one of these is not done. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Journal of Educational Studies

A citation to this journal was removed by @Headbomb: as predatory, but Citefactor states "European Journal of Education Studies is an international peer reviewed journal that presents high quality, original and recent research focused on a wide range of thematic areas from traditional to contemporary, from formal education to alternative, examining and comparing various education policies, trends, reforms and programmes..."  ??? Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Citefactor is meant to be a reliable guide? Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CiteFactor is a purveyor of fake impact factors. It's a front used by predatory journals appear legitimate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's on beall's list of predatory publishers as it is published by EUROPA which has a bad track record for accuracy, retractions, and being "pay to play" [1] [2] [3] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was Steiner a racist?

I think this deserves serious discussion:

  • Steiner was a racialist, meaning he believed in substantial differences between human races and in a hierarchy of human races;
  • Steiner was not a racist, since he was well-meaning towards different races.

So, yeah, his worldview was racialist, but his ethics wasn't racist. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a distinction without a difference. A belief in a hierarchy of human races is by definition racist. newmila (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you have to keep in mind, though, is that almost everyone who lived back then would be considered racist by modern standards. Partofthemachine (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or, as my professor Olga Amsterdamska said, at that time one was either a Socialist or a racist. (Socialists were seen as creepy or underclass.) tgeorgescu (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is helpful:
  • Steiner ranked races hierarchically in regard to various qualities (notably, not always the same hierarchical order).
  • Steiner believed that people should be treated as individuals, not based on their race (or gender, etc.)
From a modern perspective, these appear to be obviously conflicting ideas, but this was less evident in his historical context. 108.58.97.50 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is genuinely not thinking of the word hierarchy in the same way you are. He teaches that there is a hierarchy in terms of roles each subrace (he specifically teaches that modern humans are one race) plays in our spiritual evolution at different time periods. Steiner's views on race, gender and warped political ideologies are progressive for his time, or any time. This link insinuates he is racist for merely having a coherent opinion on differences between races, which in the grand scheme of his worldview don't carry nearly the same significance we attribute them today. It's trying to paint a picture that simply isn't true. 2603:6080:3002:4D99:899F:4C75:C6AA:A3E7 (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion doesn't matter, and mine doesn't matter, either. That's why we WP:CITE mainstream WP:RS for the claims made in Wikipedia articles.
But if you want to know my take: Steiner was both a racist (loved racial purity, as attested by multiple WP:RS), and an anti-racist—he simply wasn't being coherent, again as attested by a WP:RS.
Namely:
"Steiner's collected works, moreover, totalling more than 350 volumes, contain pervasive internal contradictions and inconsistencies on racial and national questions." Peter Staudenmaier, "Rudolf Steiner and the Jewish Question" Archived 2017-09-16 at the Wayback Machine, Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, Vol. 50, No. 1 (2005): 127-147.
Italian Fascism exploited "his racial and anti-democratic dogma." Hill, Chris (2023). "'Gustavo Who?' — Notes Towards the Life and Times of Gustavo Rol; Putative Mage and Cosmic 'Drainpipe'". In Pilkington, Mark; Sutcliffe, Jamie (eds.). Strange Attractor Journal Five. MIT Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-1-907222-52-8. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
Wieringa, Tommy (8 May 2021). "Groene vingers". NRC (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 7 February 2023. Het was een ontmoeting van oude bekenden: nazi-kopstukken als Rudolf Hess en Heinrich Himmler herkenden in Rudolf Steiner al een geestverwant, met zijn theorieën over raszuiverheid, esoterische geneeskunst en biologisch-dynamische landbouw. — It was a meeting of old acquaintances: Nazi leaders such as Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler already recognized a kindred spirit in Rudolf Steiner, with his theories about racial purity, esoteric medicine and biodynamic agriculture.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
See also Munoz, Joaquin (23 March 2016). "CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: THE CHALLENGE OF WALDORF EDUCATION FOR ALL YOUTH. Waldorf Education and Racism". The Circle of Mind and Heart: Integrating Waldorf Education, Indigenous Epistemologies, and Critical Pedagogy (PDF) (PhD thesis). The University of Arizona. pp. 189–190. Retrieved 8 February 2024.
Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant to post this under "Is He Racist?"
Nonetheless, it's sad that this is the primary discussion here. Steiner's own writings reveal his views on racism, sexism, and hate of all kinds are unequivocal. I'd love to point anyone who's interested in one direction or another. Wildebeestmode (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, anything but unequivocal. Again, we WP:CITE WP:RS to that extent, we do not WP:CITE our own opinions. Steiner's writings are not WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Loved racial purity? Steiner's view was that the races are constantly evolving.
Wieringa notes vague "theories of racial purity" which, if they exist, have never been published. Munoz writes about racist incidents at a Waldorf school. To say these sources are evidence of "Steiner's connections to racist ideology" is a serious stretch. They are evidence of "speculations of racism".
If you want more concrete evidence, check out his Sept. 1 1906 lecture from "At the Gates of Spiritual Science" (from his Collected Works 95), a short (for Steiner) overview of what he calls the Aryan Race. It's almost comically different from Hitler's vision. It includes all humans alive today and its purpose is to learn to love and understand one another.
Here's one of the closing statements of that lecture:
"Love is higher than opinion. If people love one another, the most varied opinions can be reconciled. Hence it is deeply significant that in Theosophy no religion is attacked and no religion is specially singled out, but all are understood, and so there can be brotherhood because the adherents of the most varied religions understand one another." Wildebeestmode (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, ignore my citations in the comment below in that case. My personal beliefs about Steiner aside, the sentence in question, "Many Waldorf schools have faced controversy due to Steiner's connections to racist ideology" remains poorly worded and not well supported by the internal link. Wildebeestmode (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that prove? That Steiner wrote a mixed bag about racism.
From Wieringa: "Je oren deden zeer van alle quatsch over de superioriteit over het blanke ras, de invloed van etherische en astrale lichamen op onze ontwikkeling en de biologisch-dynamische voedingsleer waaruit slechts een vreugdeloos soort sadisme sprak."
Translated: "Your ears hurt from all the nonsense about the superiority over the white race, the influence of ethereal and astral bodies on our development and the biodynamic diet that only expressed a joyless kind of sadism."
I'm not called to write my own opinions inside Wikipedia articles, so, again: my opinion does not matter, your opinion does not matter, the opinion of any other Wikipedia editor does not matter. What matters is WP:V in WP:RS. Take it or leave it, it's part of the package. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow about the mixed bag.
And yes Wieringa is clear in his description of Steiner, but that is not evidence of the latter's racism. I won't go further on that point here since as you said our views are irrelevant.
Since we're now talking strictly semantics, I'd offer this alternative: "At least one Waldorf School has been associated with racist incidents, and some critics say Steiner's views amount to spiritual racism." Something along these lines seems to better reflect the corresponding information provided both on this page and WP:RS.
I will now stop harassing you. Wildebeestmode (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mixed bag" means that he wasn't coherent. He wasn't either racist or anti-racist, he was both at the same time.
Rudolf Steiner was meek and gentle—at least while he wasn't preaching that Jews and Freemasons have caused WW1. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Many schools"...or just a few?

Querying the word "many" in this sentence in the lead: "Many Waldorf schools have faced controversy due to Steiner's connections to racist ideology and magical thinking."

Only a very few are mentioned in the body, and any conclusion like "many" should be confirmed by a reliable source. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

There have been positive and negative aspects of Waldorf education's reception. The last paragraph of the lede looks only at negative aspects. These critiques should rather be integrated into the Reception section, where both sides can be presented in a balanced way.

If desired, a brief, balanced summary of both sides of the reception could then be added back into the lede. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While integrating these critiques, I discovered that one referred only to a single school's being unable to serve challenged children, and another was on a topic better sourced to an educational scholar than a lay person (Sacramento controversy). I did not add these back into the article; please discuss here if there is a sense they should be restored. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education"