An Ahrimanic analysis

"Sun at Midnight" is a book by Geoffrey Ahern, a scholar of comparative religion who spent most of his career studying the Anthroposophists, arguably the strangest religion ever conceived (at least by our root-race). I admit that I didn't like the book - it's too scholarly, too "esoteric" in the ivory tower sense of that word. It's immensely boring, too. Reading it, I felt as if enwrapped by a permanent dusk. No "sun at midnight" around... In fact, I somehow suspect that Anthroposophy might have subtly influenced the author to become just as mysteriously nebulous as the object of study itself. Another problem is Ahern's constant attempts to psychoanalyze Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Anthroposophy, in a pseudo-Freudian fashion.

But yes, I got a few insights even from "Sun at Midnight". Thus, it seems that the mysterious, elusive and almost impossibly complex character of Anthroposophy is deliberate. Anthroposophy is not a creed you can learn by heart, or a collection of scholastic dogmas you can learn at the seminary, but an adventure for life in a deep, dark forest. The forest metaphor comes from an Anthroposophist interviewed by Ahern. The author retorts that Anthroposophists seem to miss the forest for all the trees! They don't see the underlying structure of their own worldview, even to the point of regarding such a perspective as "Ahrimanic". Ahern therefore jokingly calls his book "an Ahrimanic analysis of Anthroposophy". (In Anthroposophical cosmology, Ahriman is the negative spirit-being of materialism.)

From one angle, Anthroposophy comes across as a mushy, flower-powery movement whose members are deeply immersed in an animistic, magic and pantheistic worldview. They really do believe in gnomes and other elemental spirits, carry out magical rituals to enhance their bio-dynamic farming, consider TV and other forms of modern technology "Ahrimanic" (Ahern couldn't use a tape-recorder when interviewing Anthroposophists - it made them nervous), and favour a form of schooling which emphasizes painting, dance and myth over academic excellence. But from another angle, Anthroposophy does resemble a sect or cult. Rudolf Steiner was the sole authority within the movement during his lifetime, often exercising his charismatic leadership during one-to-one conversions with individual members about their personal problems. Even after his death, Steiner has continued to be *the* font of wisdom within the movement, due to his voluminous writings about everything from Waldorf schooling and medicine to meditation exercises and the future of mankind. Ahern doesn't consider Steiner to have been malevolently manipulative, but he does feel that Steiner created the movement very much in his own image. Indeed, the convoluted and complex teachings must have made Steiner the only possible authority within Anthroposophy - there was nobody else to go to, if you wanted the latest news from the spiritual realm.

"Sun at Midnight" also describes the organizational structure of the Anthroposophical movement. The General Anthroposophical Society is open for everyone, including people who don't agree with Rudolf Steiner's revelations, provided they don't actively oppose them. Ahern himself (!) joined the Society to get easier access to its supporters. The really convinced Anthroposophists have a separate organization, the School of Spiritual Science, which acts as the inner core of the Anthroposophical Society. Steiner originally wanted the School to have three classes in an ascending hierarchy, but at least officially, only the First Class exists. The Second and Third Classes were cut short by Steiner's death in 1925. The Anthroposophical Society also has offshoots, including the Waldorf schools, the Camphill movement and the Christian Community. These seem to be led by members of the School of Spiritual Science, i.e. by the really devoted supporters of Steiner's worldview. The Anthroposophical movement has a strong sense of community, and it seems you can quite literally belong to it from the cradle to the grave: Waldorf kindergartens exist, and so do old people's nursery homes. The Camphill communities are the most tightly knit part of the movement.

Over the years, the Anthroposophists have been the centre of much controversy, something that started already during Steiner's lifetime. Strangely, Ahern's book deals with this only in passing. Steiner's political proposal for a "three-ordered society" in the aftermath of World War I didn't endear him to the German political groups, and in 1922 the Goetheanum in Switzerland was destroyed by arson. Many suspected the Nazis. (The Goetheanum is the international headquarters of the Anthroposophical Society, but also a kind of temple.) The conflicts with other religious groups and general society have continued after Steiner's departure. Waldorf education in particular has been controversial, including in Sweden. I remember my math teacher in senior high being upbraided by the 17-year old star student for having placed his son in a Waldorf school. Apparently, the star student's father was a cult-buster. Was I surprised ten years later when this ex-student turned out to have become an investigative reporter? Not really, but she apparently never did anything on Waldorf schooling! Sorry for the digression, but it strikes me as somewhat strange that Ahern doesn't mention the constant conflicts between Steiner's followers and the outside world - surely this must have some kind of effect on the movement? Or are the Anthroposophists so insulated from the rest of us, that they couldn't care less? I doubt it, since even these mushy people have websites defending Waldorf schooling or Steiner's revelations. (Isn't the web Luciferic?)

I really don't want to recommend "Sun at Midnight", but it seems to be the only readily available study of this strange new religion from an outsider perspective. Somewhat reluctantly, I give this Ahrimanic work the OK rating.