Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: a theory of racial prudery

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    ... and that this applies to institutions as well. I liked the whole theory of repressed sexual energy-I think it beats the excessive wind theory by a mile-but
    Message 1 of 38 , Apr 6, 2008
      To Val, who wrote:

      >>I think it's true that we reap what we sow
      and that this applies to institutions as well.
      I liked the whole theory of repressed sexual
      energy-I think it beats the excessive wind
      theory by a mile-but have you ever asked
      yourself why Waldorf Schools would sow such
      seeds of hostility in the first place?<<

      Robert writes:

      We have already had this conversation once,
      haven't we?

      Anyway; briefly: I haven't had any direct
      experience with Waldorf Schools, but since
      Waldorf people are just that -- people -- and
      since people are just human, I would expect
      that Waldorf people make mistakes sometimes.
      But, even so, I think that Waldorf schools in
      general could hardly be worse or do more damage
      than do public schools, especially in the USA.
      And Waldorf pedagogy at least has the potential
      of being able to educate children into
      adulthood without maiming their souls in the
      process; but anyone who passes through the
      public educational mill comes out more or less

      So, the relevant question is: why are some
      people so hostile to Waldorf education when
      they are not so hostile to public education?
      If they were really concerned about the
      educational well-being of children, it would
      seem that the "Waldorf Critics" would direct
      most of their "hostility" in the direction
      where the most damage is being done. But they
      don't. So the next question is: why don't
      they; why are they so hostile to Waldorf
      education in particular?

      The obvious answer is that Waldorf pedagogy
      derives from the Anthroposophical understanding
      of Man and the world; the "critics" hate
      Anthroposophy; ergo, they hate Waldorf
      education. And they want to destroy it, root
      and branch. A more reasonable critic might try
      to correct whatever human mistakes might take
      place in the Waldorf schools, and thus to
      reform Waldorf education, to make it better.
      But to the WC people, all of Anthroposophy is a
      "mistake" and so is all of Waldorf education.
      So they devote their energies to destroying
      Waldorf education and, in effect, accept the
      routine atrocities of public education.

      That's the short answer. Whatever "seeds" that
      the Waldorf schools sow or don't sow, those
      such as the WC people (I mean the dedicated,
      core people) will still hate Waldorf education.

      Robert M

      You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
    • val2160
      ... Me, I m still hung up in the sexual energy angle that Robert introduced. I d say that there is a sense of camaraderie or dare I say communion that is
      Message 38 of 38 , May 15 10:05 AM

        --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "eduardo" <edwardudell@...> wrote:
        > I see several sources of hostility to Waldorf Education. I think some
        > of the reasons people have are partly justified, and should be
        > acknowledged. I say this as someone who thinks Waldorf is often
        > wonderful and a huge blessing for kids.

        Me, I'm still hung up in the sexual energy angle that Robert introduced. I'd say that there is a sense of camaraderie or dare I say communion that is developed by critics of Waldorf Education. Then maybe it's like the song says,

        When you lay your dream to rest
        You can get what's second best
        But it's hard to get enough

        Anyway, I don't think it's any substitute for sex but I spent some time there and I have to admit that there were certain aspects that were, what can I say, kinda fulfilling.

        > Some people are hostile to Waldorf mainly when it enters the public
        > realm so that you have Waldorf-inspired public schools. I agree with
        > the movement for increased school choice, so I disagree with the
        > opposition raised by people like Dan Dugan to Waldorf-inspired public
        > schools.

        I would rather see school vouchers rather than public Waldorf Schools.

        > Others are hostile to Waldorf because of a phenomenon I´ve observed in
        > religious and spiritual settings. In such settings, people who are in
        > authority, and must make decisions, sometimes base those decisions on
        > arbitrary personal choices dressed up in spiritual garb and
        > pseudo-spiritual justification. That is done not necessarily
        > intentionally, but because of a lack of self-knowledge and an
        > abundance of self-deception. To be at the sharp end of such
        > "spiritual" decisions, which one perceives as being in reality
        > entirely arbitrary, arouses justifiable outrage and disgust.
        > Again, this is a phenomenon that seems to be prevalent in spiritual
        > settings -- when there is a dispute or a conflict, the thing is
        > sometimes not resolved in an open way according to some kind of
        > transparent due process. Why is that? Because one is in a spiritual
        > setting, and everyone has or seems to have idealistic intentions, and
        > as a result sometimes too little attention is paid to the shadow side
        > of authority and of the human person. Thus when a conflict emerges
        > between teachers and parents or teachers and children, there may be no
        > commonsense structure for airing the conflict and resolving it fairly.
        > Instead the whole thing proceeds in an entirely arbitrary manner
        > according to the "spiritual insight" of some authority or authorities
        > "meditating" the problem. I don´t actually think that Waldorf is so
        > bad on this score, but I´ve no doubt the abuse of authority, masked
        > with supposed spiritual justifications, happens sometimes.
        > Few people can be counted on to judge fairly when their own interests
        > come into conflict with the interests of others. Nor in any truly
        > enlightened setting, surely, should a party to a conflict at the same
        > time be the judge and jury over that conflict. But that is what
        > happens sometimes in spiritual settings, because everyone coming
        > together for spiritual purposes feels so pleased with their motives
        > for what they are doing, and the lack of sufficient doubts or
        > suspicions or awareness of the dark side means that sometimes no
        > objective accountability structures fair to all parties are set up.
        > Ironically, if you go to many an ordinary, crass, business
        > corporation, however, where people are naturally very suspicious of
        > motives, you often find extremely enlightened due process arrangements
        > in place, and all kinds of protections for employees against
        > employers, precisely because no one is under any illusions about the
        > saintliness of everyone involved. How ironic that in anthroposophic
        > and spiritual settings, the standard of an ordinary crass business
        > corporation are sometimes not even reached!

        Well, I think that's one side of the coin-and this side costs the schools alot of $$$$ so it does tend to improve over time if the school is to be financially viable. But the other side is that WS's can appeal to "new progressives" or "cultural creatives" who have rejected organized religion and rituals and who feel an affinity initially with you know-"the vibe." I've told this story, I think before, but years ago my children's school had this nationally renowed independent school marketing guru guy come to spend like a weekend with the Board. He'd never even heard of Waldorf before so he wasn't a Waldorf guy. So what he said was:

        A. you are the entire top of your market-whatever authentic education, or real education is-that's your identity and

        B. the good news is that you own the entire left of your market but the bad news is that there's no money there.

        So, I'm like cool-we could be kleenex, or better yet, coke-let's spend the weekend figuring out how to brand this sucker. But the consensus was that we should re-position ourselves to the right-go after the money-a capital idea!

        So that's what we did and the school's been working toward re-positioning themselves in the local marketplace ever since.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.