“Inspirerad
av Antroposofi” (Inspired by Anthroposophy) is a Swedish book with somewhat
surprising contents. The editors have collected generally pro-Anthroposophy
articles from a number of non-Anthroposophists, some of which used to be well
known personages in Swedish cultural life. I was surprised to find
contributions by Göran Rosenberg, Maria Bergom Larsson, Agneta Pleijel and
Annika Åhnberg. Of these, perhaps only journalist, author and editor Göran Rosenberg
is known outside Sweden. There is also an article on Rudolf Steiner and his
place in intellectual history by Ronny Ambjörnsson. I admit that my own view of
Anthroposophy is more negative, and I can´t say this book changed my impression…
The usual
entry point into the occult world of Steiner´s Anthroposophy is Waldorf
schooling. Many of the contributors placed their children in Waldorf schools.
Maria Bergom Larsson was actually a teacher at the Waldorf school at
Ytterjärna, where the Anthroposophists have built their Swedish headquarters. Biodynamic
farming and, in Rosenberg´s case, the Camphill movement (care of children with learning
disabilities), are two other points of entry. The contributors like the “practice”
of Anthroposophy, while finding the “theory” (i.e. Steiner´s clairvoyant
revelations) hard to believe or even incomprehensible.
Personally,
I was apparently very Ahrimanic as a child (as behooves a guy with three
planets in Capricorn), since the Waldorf system of pedagogy would probably have
driven me nuts: “create your own textbooks”, artistic drawing, fairytales,
eurythmy, clothes made of wool, blaaaah. (Not mentioned in this book, the
Anthroposophists are also anti-vaxxers.) But sure, I suppose this could work
for a certain kind of autistic and special needs children, something also
emphasized in the book. Curiously, many Anthroposophists seem to be very
left-wing, while the occult philosophy of Steiner is more “conservative” in
nature. I suppose the ecological and decentralist angles attract a certain kind
of leftists, as does the counter-cultural angle more generally. Maria Bergom
Larsson was allowed to be a teacher at the Waldorf school despite not being a
true believer in Anthroposophy, which must have been quite the attitude test,
since the teachers are supposed to meet every Thursday to study Rudolf Steiner´s
lectures – like everything else in this movement, the Waldorf pedagogy
(supposedly) comes from the spirit-world as revealed by the sixth sense of
Steiner. It was interesting to note that the Waldorf schools have a strong confessional
streak, with the children setting up pageants based on the Biblical creation
story or Steiner´s speculations about the archangel Michael (who plays a
prominent role in his cosmology).
The most
bizarre contribution, perhaps inevitably, is written by an actual
Anthroposophist who tries to explain the occult theories behind the movement´s
alternative medicine. She seems to be suggesting (it´s not entirely clear) that
hay fever isn´t caused by allergens from actual plants, but is a psychological
condition! For completely opaque reasons, lemon juice cures hay fever. The
author also claims that homeopathic mistletoe can cure cancer – an illegal
statement in Sweden, but perhaps only in the context of actual prescriptions?
The reasons for why mistletoe has this property is, once again, very opaque. The
contributor also expounds at length on what a wonderful learning opportunity
many diseases, including potentially fatal ones, can be… Yeah, haven´t we heard
that one before!
Ambjörnsson´s
article (co-written with Kerstin Thörn) attempts to place Anthroposophy´s
founder Rudolf Steiner in a broader perspective. It´s quite interesting.
Somewhat surprisingly, given the seemingly original speculations of this man,
the Austrian polymath turns out to be very much a child of his time (the early
20th century) – or perhaps just a few decades behind it. Anthroposophy
could be regarded as a synthesis of occultism, Romantic philosophy and evolutionary
theory. Theosophy, a strong occult movement at the time, gave Steiner the
template to work from. Goethe, Schelling and Herder were other influences – as was
Hegel, not mentioned in the article. Steiner´s biodynamic farming was inspired
by the Romantic-vitalistic humus theory. His pedagogical and aesthetic ideas,
while more original, also had affinities with contemporary reform movements. I suppose
somebody could argue that the “practice” could be separated from the “theory”,
after all.
Above all,
I get the impression from “Inspirerad av Antroposofi” that Anthroposophy is at
bottom harmless - in the wrong kind of way. These people will never change the world, let alone initiate
some kind of revolution. They are simply a spiritual safety valve for the privileged
middle classes. After spending some time in Green Anthroposophy land, it´s back
to high modernity (and capitalist) main frame. With that comment, I end this week´s
Anthroposophy-bashing session.
Live long and prosper.
En intressant sak är att medan teosofin liknar en viss typ av radikal vänster i och med att den förökat sig genom delning. verkar inte det stämma på antroposofin.
ReplyDeleteTeosofins historia är fylld av spännande fraktionsstrider, som ofta lett till bildandet av nya organisationer. I jämförelse är antroposofins historia nästan helt stillsam, lugn och tråkig...
Inte enligt Peter Staudenmeier, författare till den klassiska dissen "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" (finns på nätet). Han har någonstans beskrivit de tyska antroposoferna som "an unusually fractuos bunch" som bara är överens om enda sak: att Staudenmeier har fel!
ReplyDeleteJag tror att skillnaden kan vara något annat, nämligen att antroposoferna trots sina sektliknande drag nästan aldrig utesluter eller förföljer dissidenter. Jag har recenserat böcker av flera "alternativa" antroposofer, inklusive en ryska som var väldigt kritisk till det nuvarande ledarskapet i Dornach, men ingen av dem verkade ha lämnat rörelsen.
Det stora undantaget som bekräftar regeln är förstås Sergei Prokofieffs ständiga fördömanden av Valentin Tomberg...
Jag undrar hur antroposoferna drar gränsen? Om man stenhårt citerar Steiner, inte försöker tvinga någon att ansluta sig till dissidentgruppen, och aldrig kritiserar Waldorf eller homeopatin, så kanske det är okej att ha ett delvis annorlunda perspektiv? Det skulle ju också förklara varför utomstående kan bli Waldorf-lärare, t.ex.
Var inte Håkan Blomqvist (han med UFO-arkivet) ett tag medlem av både antroposoferna och hylozoikerna?
Antroposoferna är faktiskt gåtfulla...
ReplyDeleteBlomkvist har varit med i båda, men jag tror nog inte det var samtidigt.
ReplyDeleteFast det är klart - rent formellt kanske han var med i Antroposofiska sällskapet även efter han gick med i den nämnda sekten. I alla fall i ett år, tills hans medlemsavgift inte längre gällde. Men jag har inte koll på alla turer i Blomkvists bana. Han verkar ha hunnit byta åsikt fler gånger än du och jag sammanlagt...
ReplyDeletePS. Det finns ju en annan Håkan Blomqvist. som inte bör blandas ihop med den vi diskuterar här. Jag var en gång och hade ett tillfälligt jobb på Prinkipo Offsettryck, som ägs av Socialistiska Partiet. Vi bladade tidningar, som de hade tryckt- och lade dem i kuvert. En av dessa tidningar var - hör och häpna - New Age-tidningen Sökaren. Så upptäckte jag att ett av kuverten var adresserat till en viss Håkan Blomqvist. Jag insåg genast VILKEN Håkan B det var men så plötsligt kom den i sammanhanget helt oskyldige trotskisten med samma namn förbi.
Jag kunde inte låta bli att hejda honom, le ett mångtydigt leende och säga "oj, jag visste inte att du prenumererade på Sökaren".
Han såg lite ställd ut... som man kan göra när man blir oskyldigt anklagad.
Detta kallas "meningsfullt sammanträffande" och hade imponerat på Jung... ;-)
ReplyDeleteNågot om motsättningar inom antroposofin:
ReplyDeletehttps://ashtarbookblog.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-case-of-sergei-prokofieff.html
https://ashtarbookblog.blogspot.com/2018/08/another-anthroposophical-heresy.html
https://ashtarbookblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/barking-mad.html