Current Social and Economic Issues

GA 332b — 25 July 1919, Stuttgart

On the Establishment of a Cultural Council

Lecture at an Assembly of the Federal Council for the Threefold Order of the Social Organism

Rudolf Steiner: I don't want to interfere with the debate for too long, because I think it is better if suggestions come from the most diverse sides today, which can then lead to further fruitful work. But I would like to say a few words at least to suggest what is needed to summarize what has already been very gratefully put forward by various speakers today and what will hopefully continue to be put forward in the course of this evening. Above all, it is a matter of such small circles, which, I might say, can work out of expertise, that such small circles, more or less small or large circles, are formed. But then it is a matter of ensuring that a certain merger of these circles, which must be organized, really does give rise to the cultural council, if we want to call it that; that the cultural council as such performs a kind of work, that small circles do not merely cause a fragmentation of the work. The words I have just spoken are not meant to be in any way opposed to the active work of the small groups, but I would just like to draw attention to the fact that a network of connections of the most diverse kinds must exist between these individual groups. We must never lose sight of the great tasks that actually have to occupy us in the whole threefold social order and in particular in one part of this threefold order, in the work of the cultural council.

You see, in order to really organize the work, we have to focus our attention on the main thing that matters at the present time. This main issue can be described symptomatically by this or that. In his introductory remarks, Dr. Unger emphasized a very harsh symptom, “the school compromise,” and similar compromises, but we actually have the opportunity everywhere to observe how such symptoms of a fundamental decline in our intellectual culture in particular are etched on people's faces. We are suffering today only from a very significant moment of decline in our intellectual life – that is the fragmentation, the atomization of our intellectual life. I beg you: there is actually not so much lack of people today who know the worst damage to our intellectual cultural life and also scourge it, but they remain alone, their circle does not care.

Take one case: it is indeed the case that the constitution of our technical universities, for example, has been castigated in a truly magnificent way by individual lecturers at these technical universities, who have pointed out how the constitution of these technical universities is actually something other than what they should be. There are some really excellent critiques of this impossible university system in the trade journals. But let's ask ourselves this question: Who is taking care of these things from the general public? - Something that should be known in the widest circles is written by individuals, and not even those who are fellow professionals read it. They subscribe to the journals, have them bound, put them in libraries – if they are industrious, they might make a card index so that they can find individual items when they need them – but on the whole these things are not written today to be read, but to gather dust in libraries. In this field, we have intellectual production, but no intellectual consumption. And so it happens that only the narrowest circles are aware of the damage to our cultural life, but that one is powerless to do anything to improve it.

There is an essay – I believe it is by Professor Riedler of the Technical University in Charlottenburg – that severely criticizes the damage caused by the technical universities in particular. Yes, once again, for the umpteenth time, something is being pointed out that is not only harmful with regard to the structure of the technical university, but is detrimental to our entire moral life. It is said that freedom of teaching and learning prevail at universities. People get carried away by the idea that when they move from secondary school to university, they enter the realm of freedom of teaching and learning. What, for example, does freedom of learning consist of? Well, it consists of buying the university program and finding in it: If you want to become an engineer, or if you want to become this or that, then you need this timetable; if you want to become a mechanical engineer, then you need this timetable, which you have to follow, otherwise you cannot pass the exam. — That is to say: on the one hand, the phrase 'freedom of learning' is elevated to a cultural element, but on the other hand, the most terrible learning compulsion is made reality. I could go on telling you how these people actually know what the damage to our cultural life is, and how they also express it, but there is no common ground for a, I would say, human discussion of the question, and people in the broadest circles do not care about it.

In general, I had to say that there are people in bourgeois life who do not know that trade unions exist and how they have worked, so there is no common field of discussion about our cultural damage. The cultural council would have to create something like that. That is, we would have to take care of what those who understand it have said about our cultural damage. We would have to collect all the criticism that exists, and we would be convinced: the most terrible criticism exists, for example, of how the economy is encroaching in a terrible way into intellectual life.

I will illustrate this with an example. You know that there are doctors of theology, doctors of medicine, doctors of philosophy, and now even doctors of engineering. But the technical colleges have invented a very special doctorate; they whisper this doctorate from ear to ear – it is the “Dr. mammoniae”. How does it come about? It comes about because the professors at the technical college, at the colleges in general, are paid extremely poorly, and because the state has very little money to pay its cultural workers. You can find them everywhere if you just look for them. In particular, the technical colleges and those colleges that have somewhat emancipated themselves from the old - yes, how should we describe them, with an “epithet ornans” - from the “old respectability”; they have their honorary doctor, for which you don't need to take an exam, very often set it up so that they send this honorary doctorate to the room of this or that rich man, an industrialist or commercial, on the condition that he makes an endowment in one direction or another for this university. And such doctors are called “doctores mammoniae” from mouth to ear. These “doctors of mammon” clearly show that something immoral is even crossing over from economic life into our intellectual life.

I could give you countless examples of this if only people wanted to be bothered with such things. The fact is that there is a terrible lack of interest in what is going on in the broadest circles, that it is necessary to ensure above all that people really get to know the damage. If people get to know the damage, then they will become open to the only solution to the problem. And for this solution to the problem, we must indeed win people over. That is our primary concern.

You see, one of those who has written quite strong reviews about the damage of the technical colleges shows how students come from secondary school with only a philological education – which was only aimed at a certain training of intellectual life, but not at a real education of the mind - so that the university has to take over the young people and use the first year, and sometimes even longer, to unlearn what they have absorbed in secondary school, so that they are better trained for what they will have to learn later in the actual technical colleges. A man like that, who sees this, wonders: how can this be remedied? Yes, he says to himself: those who know what the damage is, the technicians themselves, are not seen. You don't see them in parliament, you don't see them in public life. At most, they write for trade journals. They do not give their expert opinion for the public to see - nor does the public ask for it. You won't find the technicians where an expert opinion should be given. For example, one of the sighing people writes: “You don't find the technicians there, you only find the lawyers.” These are the stragglers of the old state system.

Some people are already aware of these issues and also highlight them, but there is currently no inclination to summarize them. And where does this critic, who actually has a fairly good knowledge of the prevailing problems, at least in his field, in the field of technical colleges, where does he summarize his judgment? He says: We, as professors at the technical colleges, are already sighing for the days of enlightened absolutism in the state. - Then he says: Yes, but who is enlightened, and who still puts up with absolutism today? - You see, that's where the saddest thing begins: people see that the conditions are untenable; they sigh for change. But they still look to the unitary state; and if they do not like the present form of the unitary state, they long for the restoration of the enlightened absolutism of the eighteenth century. There they believe in what they call the “strongmen” - this expression had somewhat penetrated into the audience during the war. Yes, and that is why it is important to show, starting from what we find today if we only look for it, that the only remedy is to break away from the state and really find our way into the threefold social organism. That is the answer to all these things.

The questions are being asked and have been asked – we just need to collect the material, so to speak. Therefore, it would be good if, above all, the positive material that is already available were collected, and small groups also looked at how people have already recognized and repeatedly criticized the situation here and there. From there, the starting point should be taken to justify the threefold social order. The only way to make progress is to say: Why we want the threefold social order is almost whistled from the rooftops, even if people plug their ears. But that is precisely what our public life is like today, our life spoiled by the plague of newspapers, we plug our ears to this, we know nothing of the world, we do not care about what is really there. That is what it is about, to gain interest in what is there, and then show people: we no longer need criticism, we only need to repeat the criticisms that are there. But we know the means that the others do not come up with: that is the threefold social organism, that is the position of intellectual life on its own ground and so on - how things are has been emphasized often enough here and in other places, so that you recognize them.

That, my dear friends, is what the organization must provide. This must lead to a situation in which what can be found by one group is communicated to the other groups, so that there is a lively exchange and unity among the groups in that they are all imbued with it: this is how today's historical answer to the big question must be given – which actually flows from the judgments that have always been there.

Then it is indeed the case that we are in a somewhat different situation with regard to the questions that arise here in the area of the cultural council than we are, for example, in the area of economics with works councils. In the economic sphere, the works councils are to be elected from the individual companies and are to create, so to speak, what can be called the socialization of economic life. So in the first phase, we will have to deal primarily with a works council made up of producers. This does not have to be the case with the cultural council. This is a matter concerning all of humanity. We might even do better if we don't just make the individual producers or the people who currently have the initiative in this or that field the main focus of this cultural council, but if we really proceed on a broader basis here, if we say: Fine, we listen to the small group of doctors on the one hand, but on the other hand to the other group that comes together, the group of patients. —So here, perhaps to a much greater extent, consumers come into consideration, especially in the field of cultural life.

You see, ultimately we have already had the most diverse experiences. We have approached teachers' circles, and one question keeps coming up: who will pay the teachers in the future? Yes, who pays them today? It really does not depend on the path that the money takes, which comes out of people's pockets, but on the fact that it only ends up with the one who has to eat from it. We will also find this in a different way than through the detour of the present state, the unitary state. Today, anyone who is involved in a profession is to a high degree biased in that profession. This must be corrected by those who are, so to speak, the consumers of that profession. And so I believe that if a large number of our intellectual consumers would pull themselves together, something much better would come out in some individual fields than if, in turn, those who are the producers pull themselves together. For this reason, Dr. Herberg's proposal is to be welcomed, because it may allow the consumers to have their say to a greater extent than the producers. That is how it will turn out in practice. The realization of the proposals will be quite good.

It would only be bad for certain professions – we have to be clear about that – to hear the producers, for example, the newspaper writers. You see, we could say some very strange things today to show how great the damage is in this area. For example, at a meeting this year, where it was a matter of considerable things, but which were not treated in a considerable way, there was also talk of how to remedy the slander of the press. During these deliberations, when the slander of the press was discussed, someone also stood up and said that a very strong correction of the press damage was indeed needed. For example, a large number of people tried to get to the bottom of the real events surrounding the killing of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht in Berlin. A manifesto was written that – I don't want to say how many – signatures bore, with a description of this event. It was sent to the newspapers. No newspaper wanted to take it, no newspaper of the reactionary direction, no newspaper of the Social Democracy or the Communist Party and so on – it was simply not taken. That is a matter in itself, it is a mundane matter. But there was someone at this meeting who was a newspaper writer and he said: “Yes, that's not how it was.” And when he was cornered, he said: “Well, a journalist doesn't need to be braver than the government itself. The government itself didn't publish it – why should a journalist publish it?” There are many, many such stories. It is not very helpful to ask a newspaper writer about what should be happening in the press; instead, we should ask the people who are supposed to be reading it. Once again, it is the consumers who are concerned.

I do believe that we should draw attention to the fact that the Cultural Council is a matter for all of humanity. But above all, it is important that we do not place ourselves in this cultural council in order to “have also signed”, but that we also work in it, above all working on the development of that which has been most neglected and whose neglect has driven us most into the present situation.

In Berlin, a professors' association has been founded; a professor said in a speech: Oh, if only the time would come - those are roughly his words, they are not exaggerated - if only the time would come back when one did not have to worry about German politics, when one could just devote oneself to professorial work, when German politics was taken care of by the Hohenzollerns, who cared for us so fatherly, and the Prussian state. That is roughly the gist of a speech made by a group of professors at the University of Berlin. And the person who spoke in these terms is not some obscure individual, but the first professor of German literary history at the first German university, Gustav Roethe. And this was spoken in a circle chaired by Wil amowitz, the famous Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, admittedly the blasphemer of the Greek tragedians, but the Welt says, the one who first incorporated the Greek tragedians into the German language.

What I would particularly like to point out is that this interest in the whole of cultural life should not be neglected. Today you are a painter, today you are a professor or a shoemaker or a laundress or an Egyptologist or a lawyer or a pastor and so on, but you are only interested in what is pastoral, what is in the field of laundry, what is coffee gossip and the like, and not in the general affairs of humanity. They are happy if they don't have to deal with it. If we continue in this mood, we will not achieve a real cultural council. A real cultural council can only come about if we open the windows to the whole of human life as wide as possible, if we can really understand it, otherwise we will look at all the monstrous things that happen in the same way as we look at them now. Such monstrosities occur that two groups of people, the Social Democrats and the Center, unite, and that people look at this without being outraged by this monstrosity. They take it with a certain indifference, even though it means that nothing could be more strongly ridiculed than what would be a recovery of German intellectual life. Such things are quite simply there.

We have a nice example in the special edition of our newspaper that is at least symptomatically significant. You see, the current great man is Herr Erzberger. Well, some people already seem to be starting to care a little about this man, about this individual swarming around in today's political sky, but this concern does not go deep enough. It is said that the Landjäger (a special police force in the German state of Württemberg) appeared in Weimar and demanded Mr. Erzberger. When they were asked, “What do you want with him?” they replied, “We want to hang him.” A Württemberg newspaper responded somewhat brashly, although brashness is otherwise popular in other parts of Germany: “We want to hang him too, but a little lower!” The matter is beginning to dawn a little; people are beginning to realize what Germany has in this man. But anyway, take a look, there is a nice symptom described in our current special edition of the Federation for the Threefold Social Order. There you will find a record of the entry that Mr. Erzberger made in a kind of family album on June 14, 1919, the day it was announced that the terrible Treaty of Versailles had to be signed. On that day, this German “government furniture” wrote in a family album: “First get your act together, then drink and laugh!”

You see, I do not want to criticize these things here, because I want others to criticize them, but I want to point out that we will not make progress if we do not take care of these things, if we do not take care of them, especially if we do not go deep enough into our souls. We have to look deeply enough into our soul. If we just let these things pass us by like the images in a kaleidoscope – that soon the political kaleidoscope will be thrown together in such a way that there were images like Bethmann, Ludendorff and Hindenburg, then you shake a little, and other stones come, and if we now observe these kaleidoscopic images, if we behave like this, then we will never have what we need in the Cultural Council: a real power of transformation, a real power of renewal. But we can only get that into it if we overcome this terrible lack of interest around us, if we open the windows wide and take an interest in what our fellow human beings are doing. What is going on in this or that field? That is not difficult if you just don't shut yourself away in that terrible selfishness that can't get beyond what you're forced to take an interest in. If you can develop a little sense of freedom within yourself, then this sense of freedom will very soon be able to extend to opening the windows wide to what is happening in the world. And only by doing so is it possible to make progress.

That is what I wanted to draw attention to. Only when you pay proper attention to this will you find the organizational plan we need for a cultural council. But this organizational plan can only arise out of life itself, and this life will show that if we look at the individual damages, we will find from them a concrete observation of what is there. Those who want to do this or that must be particularly open to this. Today we must not swim in abstractions, but we must engage with the concrete. We have to get involved, for example, in saying to ourselves: how terrible it is that the denominations do business and conduct their various horse-trading with other groups of people, and so on and so forth. We have to concern ourselves with these things and bring them so deeply into the inner reaches of our soul that our inner emotional experiences are involved, that we do not pass by them indifferently.