--- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Rawlings" <downfromfog@...>
wrote:
>

I've been thinking some more about the terrible situation described in the
article Zooey posted.

I wrote, yesterday, about the danger implicit in Waldorf authoritarianism. This
danger is accentuated by other factors, IMO.

The conception of human nature preached by Steiner is utterly bizarre and
unrealistic. As a result, devoted followers of Steiner may have great difficulty
understanding their own motivations. Who knows what was going through Roger
Graham's mind when he wrote to, and later caressed, his "luminous darling"?
Think of the spiritualistic meaning an Anthroposophist might find in such words,
or in the phrase "heart of my heart". Did he think the young woman was his
spiritual soulmate? Did he think his karma and hers were intertwined? Did he
find his own passion to be a form of spiritual exaltation? Did he fail to
realize that he, like all men, can be excited by a nubile young woman in ways
that are entirely earthly, not in the least spiritual?

The sense of moral and spiritual superiority within Waldorf communities also may
play a part. Anthroposophists believe they possess truths that most of the rest
of us don't. They have, in their own opinion, a superior vision. Perhaps they
are more highly evolved than other humans. Perhaps their spirits are purer.
Perhaps the rules applying to the rest of us don't apply to them. Certainly they
feel justified in lying to outsiders, disguising their real intentions, and
blurring mere societal lines, such as the distinction between secular
tax-supported schools and private religious schools. If the morality and laws of
the secular world don't apply to Waldorf teachers in some matters, maybe they
don't apply to them in other matters as well -- such as sexual predation. At the
least, note that other faculty members pleaded for Roger Graham: "When the board
dismissed him, two female teachers came to me, weeping, and begged me not to do
it." They apparently considered Graham to be above sanction.

This reflects the enclosed, cult-like culture of many Waldorf schools. Waldorf
schools are often spiritually incestuous. Deeply committed members of the
faculty may only look within the tiny Waldorf community for friendship and
support. They think they see in one another qualities they cannot spot in
outsiders. "When we today -- permeated even a little with anthroposophical
consciousness -- take a walk in the streets, we no longer see human people;
rather we see moles that move about in the smallest of circles...." [Rudolf
Steiner, EDUCATION FOR ADOLESCENTS (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 92.] It
isn't surprising, then, if Waldorf teachers look only within their cult for
sexual partners, even if the partners they find would be off limits when judged
by the rules of blind "moles." Indeed, forbidden sex may be all the more
exciting if it is interpreted (perhaps just in one man's mind) as being
entirely, spiritually proper within the uniquely glorious society of a cult.

To my mind, one of the most troubling elements in the "culture" of the Waldorf
School at New Castle is shown in this: "While not accredited to teach years 11
and 12, the school regularly invites its more promising students - the
"culturally worthy" - to stay on as 'colleagues' ... Called the College of
Students, the practice has led to an unusual level of fraternisation between
students and teachers." This reflects an extraordinary degree of
self-approbation and elitism. The teachers of the Waldorf inner circle (usually
called the College of Teachers) select the most "worthy" students to join them
in a fraternity that considers itself superior to the world outside the school.
This is a cult recruiting new cult members. It is a disaster waiting to explode
-- and at that school, the explosion occurred.

- Roger