The Fateful Year of 1923

GA 259 — 19 August 1923, Penmaenmawr

Address at a Discussion Regarding the Future of the Anthroposophical Society in England

Dear attendees,

On the subject of today's discussion, it would be advisable if I could speak again in the next few days or towards the end of the discussion evenings, after one or other view has been expressed for general clarification. Today I would just like to make a few preliminary remarks, so to speak.

There are indeed some difficulties in the spread of the anthroposophical movement, of anthroposophy in general. But these difficulties can be overcome if there are as many people as possible who really take to heart the conditions of such a movement as anthroposophy is. The anthroposophical movement cannot spread in the same way as any other movement through external organization or formal organization. For someone who simply hears about the anthroposophical movement in general as a person interested in spiritual life in the present day and then asks himself the question: Should I participate in this anthroposophical movement? will very often be confronted with the fact that it appears as if the anthroposophical movement carries certain dogmas within it, to which one must profess one's belief, as if it demands that one must commit oneself to these or those sentences, I would even say, with one's name. Often one heard from within the Anthroposophical Society: Oh, he or she cannot be regarded as a true anthroposophist, because he or she has said this or that about this or that! - Then it looks as if the anthroposophical movement has something to do with orthodoxy or even faith. And that is precisely what does the most harm of all to a purely spiritual movement, as the anthroposophical movement wants to be.

Of course, such a movement must also have an organization; but what it must have in addition to the organization is the greatest possible broad-mindedness. This broad-mindedness must live more in the feeling, I might almost say in the rhythm, of those who already feel themselves to be the bearers of the anthroposophical movement, than in any principles. That is why it has always seemed questionable to me that the Anthroposophical Movement has continued to hold on to the three so-called principles that were taken over from the Theosophical Society – at the time, of course, quite rightly, when the Theosophical Society existed – but which could actually still give rise to the prejudice that the Anthroposophical Movement is somehow sectarian. The fact that this opinion can not only arise in the world, but that in many cases - forgive me for saying this quite openly - something comes from the Anthroposophical Society itself that shows the movement in a sectarian light, makes it so extraordinarily difficult for outsiders to approach the Anthroposophical movement. You only have to compare the anthroposophical movement with itself.

The day before yesterday in Ilkley, I said: I myself would prefer to have a different name for the movement for eight days just to make a change! If it were easy to do, organizationally, then that would be my favorite, because the name is something that people don't want to dwell on at first, because they think about it at first: Anthroposophy – what is that? – They form a name for themselves from the principles: one, two, three – and then profess all sorts of things, but not what really flows through the anthroposophical movement.

You see, here in England it is not yet so evident, but on the continent you would soon be able to experience how strongly the prejudice still persists that the anthroposophical movement is something sectarian, a sect. The writings that have appeared about anthroposophy on the continent today have indeed appeared in enormous numbers; one can say: every time you go to a bookstore and have the writings that have appeared in the meantime shown to you, there is bound to be some writing about anthroposophy among them. But when one reads all the writings that have been published in opposition to Anthroposophy, sometimes even by people who believe they have Anthroposophy's best interests at heart, then one is truly forced to ask oneself: What have these various writings actually done to Anthroposophy! I must confess that often, when I read not only the truly abominable opposing writings (of which there are, of course, many more), but when I also read writings that apparently want to objectively judge anthroposophy, and then I ask myself what picture emerges of anthroposophy, what picture one or the other theologian or philosopher or even a layperson in all directions has formed about anthroposophy, and I imagine this picture, then I say to myself: I really don't want to become an anthroposophist! Because the fact is that you take this and form opinions from what you have read and what your opponents have said, and also from all kinds of short reports about lectures. These opinions are then as inaccurate as possible. What it is about is that such opinions, which are the main obstacle to the spread of the anthroposophical movement, should be replaced by the real content of anthroposophy. That is what it is about. And this content of anthroposophy should actually be presented to the world in such a way that it can be seen that This is not a sectarian matter, nor is it something that can be summarized in a name. One must really face the fact that anthroposophy is now gradually spreading to all possible fields, in contrast to those brief presentations that discuss the essence of anthroposophy in four or five pages.

Take the area we have been discussing in the last fortnight in Ilkley: the educational area. This educational area is treated in such a way that only the educational and didactic methods are to be worked out in the best possible way from the anthroposophical movement. The Waldorf School in Stuttgart, where this education, this didactics, is put into practice, is not a sectarian school, not a dogmatic school, not what the world would like to call an anthroposophical school. For we do not bring anthroposophical dogmatics into the school, but seek to develop purely didactic-pedagogical methods in the way they are generally human. And in this way, from these areas, anthroposophy is pointed out in a very specific way. It is indicated in such a way that one can say: There are many movements in the world today — almost every person is starting a movement, and it cannot be said that all these movements are not very reasonable, because, above all, it is the characteristic of the present human being that he is reasonable. — We have brought it to the point that reasonableness has become a general characteristic of human beings. Therefore, I can easily imagine that today 5, 10, 15 people get together who are very clever and work out a program with 12 or 30 paragraphs that are extremely reasonable and sensible about the best pedagogy that can be had - I can imagine that there would be nothing at all to be said against such a program. But in practice, in school practice, you can't do anything with such programs; you have to know how the child develops each year, how to meet the needs of each individual child. And even that is not enough: such a very sensible program on progressive education could, for example, state how teachers should be. Yes, I could imagine could paint incredibly beautiful, glorious pictures of the nature of the teachers in such a school — but if the teachers are not there as they are portrayed in these program series, and if there is no prospect of these teachers being able to be as described in these sensible programs, then you have to take the teachers you have, the ones you can get, and do the best you can with them. That is practice — practice that also extends to the choice of people to put in any position. And so it is that at the moment when anthroposophy wants to intervene in life, it wants to be only humanly general, wants to disregard all dogmatics, wants to take hold of life itself, wants to present. One might say that the other reform movements also want this; but to see whether they want it, one must look at them today, for it is precisely today that people who believe they are most practical are in fact the strongest theorists, because they make everything dependent on theory, on the program. As paradoxical as it sounds, the strongest theorists today are to be found in the commercial and industrial and especially in the so-called practical professions. No one, if he is in a practical life today, sees real practice, but rather what he imagines.

It is therefore no wonder that the established systems of economic interrelations, which are entirely theoretical, are gradually collapsing. What we need today is to work directly in life, to see what is in people and what they can become. And this difference between the anthroposophical movement and other movements should be made clear to the world: its comprehensiveness, its impartiality, its lack of prejudice and its freedom from dogma: that it wants to be merely a method of experimentation with the general human and the general phenomena of the world.

And so we can say: in the artistic realm – yes, when you see the Dornach building, which ended so tragically, when you see the eurythmy performances – what is it that is connected with any dogmatics? In the case of the Dornach building, the forms that could be brought forth from the wood as the best, most vivid forms were used. A style of building that could arise out of the immediate life of people in the present! In eurythmy, it is not shown how, or rather, how should one say, anthroposophical dogmas should be realized, but how one makes the best movements that arise out of the human organism, so that these movements become a real, artistically designed language. And so one could say: for the most diverse fields, anthroposophy strives for knowledge and practice that is deepened by the spirit. This is what distinguishes anthroposophy from the rest of what is in the world today.

And so one would actually like anthroposophy to be able to have a different name every week, so that people cannot get used to all that follows from a naming. Just think that it is precisely this naming that has, in recent times, brought about such terrible civilization nonsense. I do not know whether it was the same in England, but in the field of painting, for instance, in the course of the last few decades all kinds of “schools” have been experienced on the Continent. There were, for example, the plein-air painters, the impressionists, the expressionists, the futurists, the cubists, and so on, and people got used to it because such names implied that they had everything to say, but only not to say anything about painting when they painted. When you are painting, it is not really a matter of whether you are a Cubist or an Impressionist or some other -ist; what really matters is that you can paint! And so it is also really a matter in life of grasping life in the right way, where it is found. And so I would like anthroposophy to be given a different name every eight days, because then people would not get used to any name at all and would approach the thing itself. That would be best for anthroposophy!

Yes, well, you have to express such things so extremely, so radically. But you will understand what is meant: it is really a matter of tactfully asserting the comprehensive nature of anthroposophy before the world and certainly not of harnessing it to anything that can evoke belief: You have to come to terms with some dogma when you have to sign your application for admission. - It is really desirable that this broad-mindedness take hold in the representation of the anthroposophical movement; then we will really be able to get over the other questions more easily than seems to be the case.

Recently, the events that have taken place within the anthroposophical movement in all countries have shown that it is best, so to speak, for anthroposophists in different countries to join together to form national societies. If, for example, a British society were to be founded, then all these individual societies would in turn join together to form a general society that would be based in Dornach. The one thing that makes it extremely difficult to bring such an international society to a certain level of satisfaction is communication. With regard to the teachings themselves, I believe that the means for this communication are really developing. We can see that here in your journal Anthroposophy, which was founded by Baroness Rosenkrantz, a very beautiful mediator between Dornach and here has been formed. But what we would need would be an international means of communication. Whether it is a single journal or whether the individual journals for the countries take care of it - it really does not matter what the external form is - but we should have the opportunity to receive something from time to time through which we can learn about the anthroposophical movement in the world.

Of course, the teachings must flow through the Anthroposophical Society; but individual Anthroposophists should have the opportunity to get a picture of what is happening here or there in the world in relation to Anthroposophy. I have been asked about this more than anything else in the most diverse countries! Again and again, people say: what is lacking in the Anthroposophical Society is that you never know what is going on in other areas, that there is no connection, no communication. Yes, you see, it can't be done that way through an organization, because organizations always dissipate an enormous amount of energy. When you set up something, you make committees and subcommittees; then each committee sets up a secretary, and then each committee needs a secretary, and then you need an office, or even a palace, where correspondence is carried on with the whole world, where addresses are written and countless letters are written that are then thrown into the wastepaper basket or otherwise never read, and an enormous amount of human energy is expended on this every day and, above all, — which must sometimes be borne in mind in the Anthroposophical Society — an awful lot of money is lost. Organization certainly achieves [many] things and all credit is due to it. It is true that if one has lived in German civilization, one does not have much time for organization, because there one does not love organization so much, but that is only an aside. So before organization, I would like to say that I have all due respect. But to set up an organization, you need to have as many people as possible who are actively developing an interest in something: then the rest will fall into place. If there were a center in Dornach where news from all countries is collected, that would be very good. There should be people from all countries who can write in all possible languages; in Dornach they will already be taken care of so that they can be read and distributed.

But it is necessary to develop interest in the anthroposophical movement in the world! It is a little bit in the whole anthroposophical movement that this is more difficult than for others. If you found another movement, you have a starting point for such goals; in the case of the anthroposophical movement, although it is something universal, it is also something that goes beyond the individual. To have something for the individual, for his heart, for his soul, is completely justified, of course; it must be so. But on the other hand, today we see the anthroposophical movement as one that has to solve the problems of civilization! And that is why it is important to really take an interest in the movement as such; then the rest will follow naturally.

Time has now progressed so far that I would like to break off the discussion for today; but I will continue it in more concrete terms in the next few days, when the opportunity arises.