It’s About Anthroposophy

Posted to the waldorf-critics list by Waldorf teacher Baandje

From: baandje <bangus>
Subject: RE:’Childhood is not magical’ ~ Diana
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:39:16 +0000

IMO and as I said, Anthroposophical Waldorf often fails to address the
needs of the individual child and family. Diana’s comments regarding
childhood, joy and magic touch upon a major problem that’s at the heart
of Anthroposophical Waldorf in general.

The reason many Anthroposophical schools exist is because of the
Anthroposophy, period. It’s not because of the children. It’s because a
group of Anthroposophists have it in their minds to promote
Anthroposophy in the world. That’s the Michaelic spiritual task.
Educating children is secondary in these schools; or, it’s the means by
which these many Anthroposophical and cosmic Christian impulses are

In Anthroposophical Waldorf schools, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING centers
around the task of implementing Steiner’s spiritual scientific theories.
Educating children is looked upon in much the same way Anthroposophical
spiritual concepts are embraced: children are “temperaments” or “stages
of human development”; they’re vessels for purpose of receiving cosmic
wisdom in the form of an Anthroposophical curriculum. One could go even
further and say children in an Anthroposophical Waldorf school are
looked upon as “the future initiators of the Christ Impulse”. Again,
EACH INDIVIDUAL CHILD’S EDUCATION takes a back seat to the spiritual
scientific and cosmic Christian tasks and ideals of the Anthroposophical

The idea of “magical childhood” is more than just a banal
generalization; it’s simply more spiritual theory and word play along
the lines of all those many other typical Anthroposophical spiritual
sayings: We must “strengthen our will” or we must “overcome our fear of
the future.” But what does any of it really mean, other than something
having to do with the way Anthroposophists conceptualize?

Does any of this spiritual conceptualizing and generalizing actually
have anything to do with the individual child, and with educating the
individual child? Maybe “the individual child in relation to
Anthroposophical theory and pedagogy”, or in relation to “the cosmos” or
“the Christ”. But that’s the issue here — that all of these grand
“magical” sayings and words are first and foremost about instilling and
reinforcing Anthroposophical spiritual theory, and nothing more. It is
not about educating the “individual child”.

dottie zold wrote:
> Banjee:
> > Dig deeper into this issue and you’ll unearth the
> > foundational reasons
> > as to why Anthroposophical Waldorf often fails the
> > individual child and
> > family.
> And that’s your opinion. I get there were many things
> you didn’t like about Waldorf or the teachers college
> and whathaveyou. There seem to also be quite a bit
> your not happy with in Anthroposophy as well. Doesn’t
> mean your opinion is correct nor does it mean it is
> invalid. Just that it is your opinion. And I have just
> encountered way to many families and young people to
> make such a broad statement as’waldorf often fails
> the individual family and child’. Broad Banjeetmon.
> Waldorf like any school system has lots of room for
> improvement. That would be normal.