The Impulse for Renewal in Culture and Science
GA 81
8 March 1922, Berlin
4. Anthroposophy and Pedagogy
My dear venerated guests! To render the Anthroposophical world view understandable, it is always accused of having its ideas and results as based on research by people who first need to be schooled for it, therefore results of Anthroposophical research can't be verified from the outset by anyone and that nevertheless these observations are presented to unprepared people.
Yet this accusation, however justified it seems, belongs to the most unjustified ones that can be made against the Anthroposophical Movement, because it doesn't stipulate that every single person is to be immediately directed towards becoming a researcher in a supersensible area, but it deals with their research results being presented in such a way that every other individual can prove it for themselves, simply with ordinary human understanding and ordinary healthy logic. In any case this doesn't make it unnecessary that at least the first steps towards supersensible research must be striven for, and therefore there are indications in various publications which have been mentioned here already. Everyone can to a certain degree become an anthroposophical researcher—simply out of the conditions of present civilisation—but as proof of results of anthroposophical research this is not necessary because this proof can simply come through a healthy human understanding. One of these areas in which results can really be practically proven, is in the pedagogical area.
Dear friends! The Anthroposophical world view for a long time had to work purely through people coming continuously closer to ideas about the supersensible, before it became possible to bring them into present-day cultural conditions, into practical life, where they felt themselves particularly ready to actually penetrate. This was only possible in a limited area—and also only to a small degree—when Emil Molt founded the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, whose office was given to me. Already before that, as shown in the small publication “The education of the child from the point of view of spiritual science”, the attempt was undertaken to represent certain educational principles from the basis of Anthroposophy. Only through the founding of the Waldorf School did it become possible to apply these things in practice, and since this time it is also possible to carry out the pedagogical-didactic side of Anthroposophy in detail. It will of course not be possible for me to give more than a few indications in this introductory lecture, but I think other lectures during these days would be able to accomplish more.
Whatever is taken up through anthroposophic ideas, when they are simply verified through healthy human understanding, is not merely theoretical observation, are no mere ideas of abstraction which one can have in order to satisfy some or other need for theoretical knowledge. No, these conveyed ideas are being created out of an anthroposophical source, this is real human power; this is something which passes into the whole person, this makes love more intense, transforms human vigour. While the ideas and thoughts of usual science, which only draw on the sense world, have their peculiarity by being in the service of theoretical interests, and being of the sense-world its characteristic is to only relate practical interests to the sense world, by contrast it is characteristic of the ideas from anthroposophic research that their results work on the entire human being, on his empowerment, on his—if I might call it so—life skill, on his understanding of life, and it is this understanding which enables him to grasp the most varied of life's opportunities. If one takes on this life and fructify it through anthroposophical ideas, one can see how the actions of people, when they allow themselves to be directed by these ideas, acquire greater power, greater urgency and so on. This is what must be especially treasured in the pedagogic didactic sphere.
When we founded the Waldorf School we didn't have the opportunity to choose the outer conditions for the education and teaching of our children. In the present it is repeatedly asserted that for a satisfactory education, satisfactory teaching to be established, then some or other place for the school, for the educational institute or its equivalent, must be chosen. Certainly, much is said about these claims and in practice they are to some extent successful. We didn't have all of this. The next thing was the attempt to use the given circumstances and start with the children in the Waldorf-Astoria Cigarette factory. Next, we had a very specific kind of material environment for the children, we had to house ourselves in a place which was obviously hardly suited—it had previously been a tavern—to begin our teaching and education. So we couldn't rely on anything but on what began on a purely spiritual basis for the pedagogical and didactic aspects themselves.
Here it must be stressed again: while Anthroposophy doesn't strive for an abstract head knowledge—if I might use this expression—but an insight into the world and its secrets, it involves the whole human being, possibly leading to self-knowledge, to a self-understanding which one can't achieve in some or another theoretical sphere. In the end all education, all teaching is based on the understanding of the human being, which is proven in the relationship of the teacher, the educators to the emerging, growing adolescent, to the child. For this reason, our Waldorf pedagogy is developed upon an intimate knowledge of the growing person, the child. I only need to give one detail in which it can be seen how true insight into the whole human being must prove in practice.
Today we have a psychology which has more or less been proven by recognized science. However, this psychology theorizes around many questions which always leave unsatisfactory results. They pose the following question, for example: what is the relationship between the soul-spiritual and the physical-bodily aspects of the human being? They have developed all possible kinds of theories about this. Here we have three types of theories. The one tries to come from the soul-spiritual and try to define this in some way, to formulate an abstract concept and then to try in how far the soul-spiritual can work on the bodily-physical. Another, more materialistically coloured theory assumes that the bodily-physical should form the basis, so that the bodily-physical brings forth the soul-spiritual as one of its functions. A third theory is that of psycho-physical parallelism, which assumes that the soul-spiritual and bodily-physical matter equally, and only to pursue how the functions of the one takes place beside the other, without looking for any exchange taking place between them. These are all psychological speculations. At the moment a practical situation is present, through psychology, through soul knowledge, it finds driving forces into the pedagogic didactic impulses.
One can simply say our sphere of observation of the soul-spiritual human being has not yet reached a principle which we are accustomed to follow naturally according to science. In natural science for example, when we look at the phenomena where warmth appears, without the usual kind of warmth coming forth as usual, then this warmth from other circumstances is considered as so-called latent warmth and how it had developed out of latent conditions, and now appears as warmth. Such principles which are common practice in science must—obviously metamorphosed in corresponding manner—also be taken up in the observation of the totality of the human being, in which the soul-spiritual is included.
One comes to such an approach of observation which is fully justified by science—if it hasn't yet been seen today—if one focuses on the first important transformation which happen in the human organisation with the change of teeth around the seventh year of life. Such transformations in the human being are usually only observed outwardly. However, the change of teeth is something which penetrates the entire human life deeply. Whoever trains his abilities of observation will learn to recognise how with the change of teeth an entire change in the child's soul life takes place. He learns to recognise how the child in the fullest sense of the word, didn't really live “in himself”, but completely absorbed his soul-life in his environment. He learns to perceive the most essential of the driving forces in the child organism before the change of teeth, which is imitation. Through imitation the child learns movement.
One can through unbiased observation determine precisely how the movements from the father and mother or others in the child's surroundings enter into the childlike organism itself. One can follow how under healthy conditions speech is learnt under the influence of imitation. One can see how the child, in the fullest sense of the word, comes from his surroundings, with his whole being. This alters completely with the development at the change of teeth. Here we see how forces develop in the child, enabling the child to bring forth independent imagination, in which the inner child up to a certain degree is set free from the surroundings, which is not so before his seventh year of life. With the change of teeth, the child acquires a certain introspection and becomes gradually more accessible to abstraction.
Now the childish nature is again conditioned by everything which lives inwardly in the people surrounding the child, as it is absorbed by the child. That is why in the second period of life which begins with the change of teeth up to adolescence, is seen in such a way that everything which develops in the child is an adaptation of the people surrounding it. Not what the people do in the child's surroundings, because that is imitated, but in what lives in these people, this means what comes to expression in their words, their attitude, the direction of their thoughts, these are passed on to the child—as it were not through imitation but through taking up a power which is as part of him or her, as growth and nutritional powers in them: the power of authority. What is meant by the power of authority is not to be misunderstood because for someone who has written “The Philosophy of Freedom” it is necessary to point out how this authority principle comes under scrutiny in a certain phase of life. This means not the entire education should be put down to what is referred to today as the principle of authority. If one applies the corresponding value to such observations then things become ever more clearly differentiated and one gains the ability gradually to not only being able to observe the transformation in people from year to year, but also from month to month. What then happens actually between the change of teeth and puberty?
When you direct your gaze in order to learn what really happens there between the seventh and fourteenth year—those are of course only approximate numbers—the hidden forces within the child's soul now come to be expressed outwardly. This is hidden in the bodily nature and activates the expression of the human organism, works also in the formation of the brain in the first years of life and in the preparation of the speech organs, works also in everything the child develops in his bodily nature. Thus, you can say the following. Just as for instance the warmth in a body is hidden and can become free under certain circumstances, so the soul-spiritual, which works latently in the first seven years in the physical organism, expressed in every single movement, in every bodily process, only becomes free later. After the seventh year of life the body is left to itself more; the soul-spiritual does not withdraw completely out of the bodily, yet it does to a high degree. The change of teeth is then a kind of termination point of the first developmental phase, where the soul-spiritual was still in harmony with the bodily-physical.
You see that through this manner of observation you can reach a position where you are able to recognise a real relationship between the soul-spiritual and the bodily-physical. People don't theorize only around the question of how the one works upon the other, and so on. People simply see the soul-spiritual during one period of life as completely in the physical—this is clearly seen in the child's development—and later, after acquiring freedom, the form appears. So a comparison isn't made of what had been understood as abstract concepts earlier, but the reality is followed in the process of the soul-spiritual in the bodily form during the various periods of life. This means, however, that that which in natural science had been openly researched through the outer senses is lifted up into the spiritual sphere.
If you were to enter more into the details, which Anthroposophy wants to do, to penetrate it and not remain stuck in superficial definitions, you would soon see what kind of a faithful continuator of the justifiable scientific thinking of the spiritual scientific anthroposophical viewpoint actually is. Then, however, when in this way you gain the world of concepts and ideas of human knowledge, then the accusations regarding the alienation of the world of ideas is solved by itself.
Dear friends! Anthroposophy is the last to be in opposition to big and important events particularly during the 19th century in the pedagogical sphere, presented by great educators of humanity on pedagogical principles. Anthroposophy fully acknowledges the existence of great, meaningful educational principles and does not stand back before anyone in the recognition of the great educators. Only, you have to admit nevertheless, with all great educational principles there is often a certain dissatisfaction today regarding educational practice, educational methods; the most diverse kinds of educational practices bear witness to the fact that this is so. Why is this so?
It is often just a result of the intellectualism of our time. This intellectualism results—more than one normally believes—in a particular hostility towards life, especially in the social areas. It breeds in relation to ideation actually only abstraction. The abstract has no life-forces, it is in a certain way the corpse of the spiritual and is experienced as such. Even in having the most beautiful principles in which you can almost glow with enthusiasm—as long as these principles remain abstract, they can't obtain any kind of favourable influence. Only when these principles are permeated through with spirituality, living spirituality, which merges with the beings of people, could these principles become practical. Thus, Anthroposophy doesn't want to propose new educational principles in an abstract manner; it only wants to be an introduction for pedagogical and didactic skills, for the implementation of the art of education and art of instruction, and wants to present what the most beautiful educational principles can't give: spiritual foundations for the practical implementation, for the inner talents of teachers, to work in the school and in education.
For this reason, the Waldorf School is not so geared—as is often believed—to take our world view as it is conveyed to grownups, and to stuff it into our children. As a result, we have to particularly stress that as far as religious instruction go, the Catholic children are left to the Catholic priests, and the evangelist children to the evangelist priest. We have only arranged free religious instruction for those dissident children and if these lessons had not been organized they would have no religious education. As a result, some experience of the religious feeling can be accomplished because those parents who withdraw their children from religious instruction, send their children now into religious instruction in which we make the effort not to lecture Anthroposophy but to present it as is required at that particular age of the child. So it's not about depositing Anthroposophy into the childish mind, but it comes down to the teachers working through Anthroposophy, the pedagogical didactic methods employed in such a way that they really fulfil true human education.
This results in, simply through the practical implementation of such education and such teaching, not only in the child being looked at but the whole person being considered. It would be highly foolish to take the feet or hands as they are at a child's age and regard them as something complete and force them to remain as they are in childhood. It is obvious that we consider a child's organism as something coming into being, which has to be different later in life. However, in relation to the soul-spiritual we don't always do the same thing. We often even see rigid concepts introduced and that the child is frequently taught from a young age as having something like sharp contours in its soul. This is false! With anything which we want to allow incorporation into the childish organism, it must be introduced in a growing way, that it can gradually be transformed so that the human being later, in his thirtieth year for example, not only has a memory of what he had absorbed in his childhood but that the content of this has been as transformed by him as he had transformed his limbs. Everything of a soul-spiritual nature we give the child must also contain powers of growth, powers of transformation; that means we must make our teaching more and more alive.
Certainly this could be expressed as an abstract principle but practically it can only be accomplished when true intimate human knowledge is present. Such a kind of intimate human knowledge makes it possible to deduce everything from the childish nature into what is understood as the syllabus and goal of learning. Out of this the Waldorf School has taken its syllabus and the objectives of learning from actual human knowledge which can be read from month to month in the developing childish nature itself. The effort has been made to bring all of this about in a living sense.
I only want to mention one thing. Today in various ways teaching has improved even in some public tuition. But, you all know that during the school year the child becomes even more conscious than one is aware, and suffers under a system where the progress of the child is judged. It depends on the one side on the child's performance and on the other, the teacher's judgement of this performance, and is expressed as: “satisfactory”, “nearly satisfactory”, “nearly not satisfactory”, “less satisfactory” and so on. I have to confess to you, I was never really capable of differentiating between “nearly satisfactory” and “nearly not satisfactory” and so on. With us in the Waldorf School it involves that out of the totality of progress made by the end of each school year, the child is given a kind of witnessing presented by the teacher which characterises each individual child and that he simply writes this on a piece of paper as his experience of that child. So the child sees a kind of mirror image of himself, and this practice—which doesn't depend on “satisfactory”, “nearly satisfactory” and so on for the individual items—has been accepted with a certain inner satisfaction and received with joy, even when there is blame. The child also receives a kind of powerful verse which echoes with his own nature, which he takes up and which serves as a mission statement for the following year.
In this way one can, if one has the love for it, enter in a lively way into education, even working through unfavourable relationships in a lively way.
As a result, we come again to something which needs to be overcome, needs to be conquered in pedagogy and didactics in our epoch. Today one will hardly find any evidence in the outer historic descriptions, of how souls' constitutions have changed during the single evolutionary epochs. Whoever is without bias can readily understand how the spiritual utterances which were revealed to souls during the 10th, 11th and 12th Century for instance, are of a completely different character than what had been presented since the middle of the 15th Century to the soul constitutions of civilised humanity. Yes, up to the 20th century intellectualism in humanity has developed up to a culmination point. Intellectualism has the peculiarity, that it—just like the principle of imitation or authority—only shifts at a particular human age out of its latent position and in the case of intellectualism it is related to a later period in life. We see how the human being only when he has reached puberty, actually even later, becomes suitable to progress towards intellectuality. Before this age intellectualism works in a paralyzing, deadening way into soul activity.
As a result, we can say we live in an epoch which is only appropriate for grownups, which has as its most important cultural impulse, something which should only come into expression in adults. As a result, because our entire cultural tone is set towards grown adults, we are actually unable to understand the child—and even young people!
This is the most important aspect our civilization needs to look at. We need to be clear that precisely through those powers which our sciences and our technology have triumphed and have been brought to such a great blossoming, we must take up the possibility to fully understand the child and enter into the human nature of the child. It just needs our own effort to strike our bridge across to the young people and the child. What appears in various forms as the youth movement—one can say whatever one likes—has its deepest entitlement; it is nothing other than the cry of the youth: ‘You grownups have a civilization which we simply don't understand, when we bring our basic natures to it!’—This bridge between the adult and the child's world must be discovered again, and to this Anthroposophy will contribute.
When you go down from the general cultural point of view to the individual you will once again find that these syllabi which are deduced from the essence of the child itself, teach us what syllabus we need to develop for the phases in the child's life. Reading and writing were in earlier times something quite different to what they are today. Take for example the letters: they are something abstract, strangers in relation to life actually. If we go even further back, we find something in the pictorial writing which is directly related to life. We often today don't even think about how intimately life was connected to this image rich writing and how strange these are in life: reading and writing. Yes, we stand within a civilization in which it is natural to have the strangest elements in life developed into civilization's goals. When we in an open-minded way look at for instance a stenographer or a typist sitting at a typewriter, we know that with such activities humanity has been sucked into the strangest civilization.
My dear friends, we don't want to be hostile to culture or become reactionaries, when we express this. Nothing is to be said about these means which have entered in modern times; they must be there. Yet, powers of thought need to be developed which can heal this once again, this, which if it is left to work all by itself could only lead to a definite decline of culture and lead to decadence. The most important moment in which a healing remedy can be introduced, lies in education and in the classroom, to be designed through education.
When the child enters elementary school, then it is indeed so, that the intellect is drowsy. The ability for abstract thinking, which first needs to be experienced through others, only appears later. As a result, abstract forms of writing and reading introduced to the child as it arrives in school, cannot be related to. We can only take something which can reach the child in a lively way, which works in the child itself already as an artistic soul principle, something more pure and splendid than any other art. This works on a subconscious level. We must continue this way and try to find forms of a particular nature, through which the child in an artistic way can be active in his total being in the artistic form of writing which can evolve into reading. With relevance to pedagogy, when the children haven't learnt to read or write at the age of nine or ten, one must have the courage to say: ‘Thank goodness that these children can't read or write yet!’—because it isn't important for the child to learn this or that but that he or she learns in the right way at the right age.
This is why the Waldorf School education is orientated in an artistic way. Out of pedagogic-artistic principles it commences and gradually leads over into the intellectual. We take into account that music must appear early in education while this has a relationship to development of the will forces. As a result, we take into account that the usual physical education, as animated gymnastics are given as Eurythmy, is inserted into the lessons. It needs to be metamorphosed, transformed pedagogically-didactically, then those who have observed it discover that through this art of movement, the soul and spirit have been provided with something meaningful. One discovers that the child in his school-going education experiences him or herself into the art of movement in a similar way as a small child finds its way into speaking, with inner pleasure and inner naturalness.
Working from an artistic basis results in the child handling colours from very early on. Even though it is also sometimes inconvenient and might mean more stringent cleaning rules need to be applied, it will still affirm that the child enters more deeply into life than otherwise. Brought into the bargain is the development of a sense for life, that life doesn't go by but that the child lives with the outer world, that it becomes sensitive for everything which is beautiful, every encounter in nature and in life being meaningful. This is more important than the transference of details from this or that sphere on to the child.
Added to all that I've only indicated in an outline, the Anthroposophical foundation is what flows into the teacher's mindset, what the teacher simply through his entire being attributes to the pedagogical-didactic imponderables, when he closes the classroom door behind him, when he steps in front of the children. Whoever looks in a lively sense—not with abstract ideas—how the child copies and adapts to his environment, knows what works in the child in a soul-spiritual way. The teacher gets to know the child and as a result obtains the requirements with which to judge in quite a different way than is usually done. I want to present an example of this.
You learn quite a bit when you look at life in the following way. Once parents came to me and said their young son, who up to that point had been quite neat and tidy, had suddenly stolen something. I asked: “How old is the child?” The parents answered: “Five years.” I said: “Then you must first examine what the child has actually done because perhaps he has not stolen anything.”—What had he done in fact? He took money out of the drawer in the same way his mother takes money every morning when she wants to go shopping. From the money the little boy had bought treats which he didn't keep for himself but had given to other children. In this case a person can say: There is no reason to see this as stealing; the child simply saw what the mother did each morning and felt capable of doing the same. The child is an imitator. Each relationship of a child to the norms of adults, in which the expressions “good” and “bad” appear, only become applicable when the change of teeth has taken place. Therefore, we must obtain a completely different way to form judgements and learn that everything we do in the child's surroundings need to be so orientated that the child can copy them, can imitate them right into the imponderable thoughts within them. This proves the reality of thoughts. Not only our actions but also the manner and way of our thoughts give substantiality. In the child's surroundings we should not give in to any random thought because this works in on the child. Therefore, we need to look into even the imponderables in thoughts.
If one looks at how the child up to his seventh year lives in his environment one can get the impression of what the child had been before he came down into the physical sense world. Up to then—this is shown in anthroposophic research—the person is surrounded by a soul-spiritual world which is permeated by the cosmos, just like in the physical world his body is connected to the physical world. We become able to see that in the child's life, up to his seventh year, it has been a true continuation of life before birth or conception. This however must be transformed in the pedagogic-didactic experience so the teacher, standing in front of the children, must say to himself: The super-sensible worlds have given me something to unravel, which I must level out in the path of my life.
Teaching and education really becomes an act of sacrifice towards the whole world. There is a conviction being uttered about teaching and education being a force and without which in real teaching and real education, nothing can come about. This conviction which hasn't been adopted from outside, but has come through inner work, through the anthroposophical world view, this is the most important in pedagogical-didactic work. You stand with shy religious reverence to what is hidden within the child's body, you look at one who has risen from eternal world foundations which is gradually revealed in childish movements, gestures and so on, and you know that the riddle of life needs to be solved in a practical way. Only in this way are the entire teach, and educational convictions directed correctly. This atmosphere which spreads in all activities, which needs to take place in the school life, is what Anthroposophy above all wants to have within the teaching and educational being and from where all details need their direction. However, to be master of them, it is necessary that you, through true inner observation of the smallest movement of the child's life, see how the spirit works right into its very fingertips. The teacher will acquire an inner overall view so that he out of an ability, which must become an instinct, meets his class in the spirit and skilfulness that come from his internal processing of the anthroposophical world view.
Here are a few indications which I was able to give; they could be implemented further in the next lectures. These indications should show that Anthroposophy doesn't want to be radically against great pedagogic accomplishments but that it will be the assistant to the great one, if we are not to remain stuck in abstractions, so that we can enter practical life in a vital way, in order for the art of education to become a real impulse, an effective factor in our social life!
Anthroposophie und Erziehungswissenschaft
Meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden! Es wird anthroposophischer Weltanschauung in begreiflicher Weise immer der Vorwurf gemacht, daß sie ihre Ideen, ihre Ergebnisse verkündet auf der Grundlage von Forschungen, zu denen die Fähigkeiten im Menschen erst herangebildet werden müssen, daß also Forschungsergebnisse der Anthroposophie nicht von vornherein von jedem nachgeprüft werden können, und daß sie dennoch diese Anschauungen vor den hierauf unvorbereiteten Menschen verkünde.
Doch gerade dieser Vorwurf, so scheinbar berechtigt er ist, gehört zu den aller unberechtigsten, welche der anthroposophischen Bewegung gemacht werden können. Denn es handelt sich bei ihr nicht darum, jeden einzelnen sofort dazu anzuleiten, ein Forscher im übersinnlichen Gebiet zu werden, sondern es handelt sich bei ihr darum, ihre Forschungsergebnisse auf eine Weise darzulegen, die von jedem einzelnen Menschen nachgeprüft werden kann, einfach durch den gewöhnlichen gesunden Menschenverstand und die gewöhnliche gesunde Logik. Dies macht allerdings nicht unnötig, daß danach gestrebt wird, wenigstens die ersten Schritte zu übersinnlicher Forschung zu machen, und dafür gibt es ja Anleitungen in den verschiedenen Schriften, die auch hier schon genannt worden sind. Jeder kann also bis zu einem gewissen Grade ein anthroposophischer Forscher werden — einfach aus den Zivilisationsbedingungen der Gegenwart heraus —, aber zum Prüfen der Ergebnisse anthroposophischer Forschung ist dies nicht nötig, denn diese Prüfung kann einfach aus dem gesunden Menschenverstand heraus erfolgen. Und eines der Gebiete, auf denen diese Prüfung wirklich praktisch erfolgen kann, ist das pädagogische Gebiet.
Sehr verehrte Anwesende! Anthroposophische Weltanschauung mußte lange rein in dem Sinne wirken, die dem Menschen nahegehenden Ideen über das Übersinnliche vorzubringen, bevor es ihr aus den Kulturbedingungen der Gegenwart heraus möglich war, in das praktische Leben, wozu sie sich so besonders veranlagt fühlt, wirklich einzugreifen. Dies wurde nun auf einem eingeschränkten Gebiete — und auch da wieder nur in einem sehr geringen Maße — möglich, als Emil Molt in Stuttgart die Waldorfschule begründete, deren Leitung mir obliegt. Zwar war schon früher, wie das kleine Schriftchen «Die Erziehung des Kindes vom Gesichtspunkte der Geisteswissenschaft» zeigt, der Versuch unternommen worden, aus anthroposophischen Untergründen heraus bestimmte Erziehungsprinzipien zu vertreten. Allein erst durch die Gründung der Waldorfschule ist es möglich geworden, diese Dinge in die Lebenspraxis einzuführen, und seit jener Zeit ist es auch möglich, die pädagogisch-didaktische Seite der Anthroposophie im einzelnen durchzuführen. Es wird mir natürlich nicht möglich sein, hier in diesem einleitenden Vortrag mehr als einige Andeutungen zu geben, allein ich denke, daß durch die anderen Vorträge des heutigen Tages das Angedeutete weiter ausgeführt werden kann.
Was durch anthroposophische Ideen aufgenommen wird, wenn man sie einfach mit dem gesunden Menschenverstand für sich selber verifiziert, ist nicht bloß eine theoretische Anschauung, das sind nicht bloß Ideen abstrakter Art, die man nun haben kann, um irgend-welche Erkenntnisbedürfnisse in theoretischer Weise zu befriedigen. Sondern das, was in den Ideen zum Ausdruck kommt, die aus anthroposophischen Quellen geschöpft sind, das ist wirkliche menschliche Kraft, das ist etwas, was übergeht in den ganzen Menschen, was die Liebe intensiver macht, was in die Tatkraft des Menschen sich umsetzen kann. Während die Ideen und Gedanken der üblichen Wissenschaftlichkeit, die sich nur auf die Sinneswelt beziehen, gerade darin ihr Eigentümliches haben, daß sie sich in den Dienst theoretischer und auch wiederum nur für die Sinneswelt in Betracht kommender praktischer Interessen stellen, ist es das Charakteristische derjenigen Ideen, in welche anthroposophische Forschungsergebnisse hineingelegt sind, daß sie auf den ganzen Menschen, auf seine Erkraftung, auf seine — wenn ich es so ausdrücken darf — Lebensgeschicklichkeit, auf sein Lebensverständnis wirken, und zwar auf jenes Lebensverständnis, das ihm möglich macht, durch seinen Willen bei den verschiedensten Gelegenheiten des Lebens wirklich einzugreifen. Und wenn man an irgendeinem Ende einfach dieses Leben anfaßt und es befruchtet durch anthroposophische Ideen, so kann man sehen, wie das Handeln des Menschen, wenn es sich dirigieren läßt von diesen Ideen, dann größere Kraft, größere Eindringlichkeit und so weiter erhält. Das ist etwas, was sich insbesondere auf pädagogisch-didaktischem Gebiete bewähren muß.
Wir hatten ja, als die Waldorfschule begründet worden ist, nicht Gelegenheit, die äußeren Bedingungen für die Erziehung und den Unterricht der uns übergebenen Kinder auszuwählen. Es wird in der Gegenwart vielfach geltend gemacht, wenn ein befriedigender Unterricht, eine befriedigende Erziehung zustandekommen soll, dann müsse der oder jener Ort für die Schule, für das Erziehungsinstitut oder dergleichen ausgesucht werden. Gewiß, für alle diese Behauptungen spricht außerordentlich vieles, und sie bewähren sich ja auch in der Praxis bis zu einem gewissen Grade. Aber wir hatten das alles nicht. Zunächst mußten wir den Versuch aus den gegebenen Bedingungen heraus mit den Kindern der Stuttgarter Waldorf-Astoria-Zigaretten-Fabrik beginnen. Wir hatten also ein ganz bestimmtes Kindermaterial zunächst, wir mußten in einem Hause, das selbstverständlich sehr wenig dazu geeignet war — es war ein früheres Wirtshaus —, mit unserem Unterricht und unserer Erziehung beginnen. Wir konnten uns also auf nichts verlassen als auf das, was rein aus geistigen Untergründen heraus für die pädagogischen und didaktischen Gesichtspunkte selbst begonnen werden kann.
Und da muß immer wieder betont werden: Weil Anthroposophie nicht eine abstrakte Kopf-Erkenntnis — wenn ich den Ausdruck gebrauchen darf — anstrebt, sondern eine Einsicht in die Welt und ihre Geheimnisse, die den ganzen Menschen ergreift, so kann sie gerade dadurch zu einer Menschenerkenntnis, zu einem Menschenverständnis führen, wie man es sonst nicht auf irgendeinem theoretischen Gebiete erreichen kann. Und letzten Endes beruht ja alle Erziehung, aller Unterricht auf jenem Menschenverständnis, das sich bewährt in dem Verhältnis des Lehrenden, des Erziehenden zum werdenden, heranwachsenden Menschen, zum Kinde. Daher ist unsere Waldorf-Pädagogik aufgebaut auf einer intimen Erkenntnis des werdenden Menschen, des Kindes. Ich brauche nur eine Einzelheit anzudeuten, an der ersichtlich werden kann, wie sich wirkliche Einsicht in den ganzen Menschen in der Praxis bewähren muß.
Wir haben ja heute auch eine Psychologie, die mehr oder weniger von der anerkannten Wissenschaft gelten gelassen wird. Aber diese Psychologie theoretisiert herum an mancherlei Fragen, die eben immer einen unbefriedigenden Rest lassen müssen. Sie legt sich zum Beispiel die Frage vor: Welches Verhältnis besteht zwischen dem Geistig-Seelischen und dem Leiblich-Physischen des Menschen? — und sie hat alle möglichen Theorien darüber ausgebildet. Wir haben da drei Typen von Theorien: Die eine sucht von dem Geistig-Seelischen auszugehen, dieses zunächst in irgendeiner Weise zu definieren, sich einen abstrakten Begriff davon zu machen und dann zu untersuchen, inwiefern das GeistigSeelische auf das Physisch-Leibliche wirken kann. Eine andere, mehr materialistisch gefärbte Theorie geht davon aus, daß das Leiblich-Physische die Grundlage sei, und daß dieses Leiblich-Physische dann das Geistig-Seelische nur als eine Funktion hervorbringe. Eine dritte Theorie ist die des psycho-physischen Parallelismus, die davon ausgeht, in gleicher Weise nebeneinander gelten zu lassen das Geistig-Seelische und das Leiblich-Physische und nur zu verfolgen, wie die Funktionen des einen parallel neben denen des andern verlaufen, ohne daß man auf ein inneres Wechselverhältnis zwischen beiden eingeht. Das alles sind psychologische Spekulationen. Sie werden erst in dem Augenblick zu Angelegenheiten der Lebenspraxis, wo man durch diese Psychologie, durch diese Seelenerkenntnis, zu pädagogisch-didaktischen Triebkräften kommt.
Man kann sagen: Auf diesem Gebiet ist einfach unsere Anschauung des Geistig-Seelischen des Menschen noch nicht denjenigen Prinzipien nachgekommen, die wir gewohnt sind, in der Naturwissenschaft wie selbstverständlich zu verfolgen. In der Naturwissenschaft verfolgen wir, wenn zum Beispiel irgendwo Wärme auftritt, ohne daß zunächst auf die gewöhnliche Art Wärme zugeführt worden ist, wie diese Wärme in einem anderen Zustande, also als sogenannte latente Wärme vorhanden war und wie sie sich aus diesem latenten Zustande entwickelt hat, und nun als Wärme offenbar wird. Solche Prinzipien, wie sie in der Naturwissenschaft gang und gäbe sind, müssen — selbstverständlich in der entsprechenden Weise metamorphosiert - auch aufgenommen werden in die Betrachtung des Vollmenschlichen des Menschen, welches das Geistig-Seelische in sich schließt.
Und man kommt zu einer solchen Anschauungsweise, die sich vor der Naturwissenschaft voll rechtfertigen läßt — wenn das auch heute noch nicht eingesehen wird —, wenn man etwa seinen Blick hinwendet auf die erste bedeutungsvolle Umwandlung, die mit der ganzen menschlichen Organisation vor sich geht mit dem Zahnwechsel um das siebente Lebensjahr herum. Man beobachtet solche Umwandlungen des Menschen in der Regel recht äußerlich. Allein, der Zahnwechsel ist etwas, was in das ganze menschliche Leben tief eingreift. Wer sein Anschauungsvermögen dafür schult, der lernt erkennen, wie mit dem Eintritt des Zahnwechsels das ganze seelische Leben des Kindes ein anderes wird. Er lernt erkennen, wie das Kind vorher im vollsten Sinne des Wortes eigentlich nicht «in sich» lebte, sondern ganz mit seinem Seelenleben in seiner Umgebung aufging. Er lernt erkennen, wie das Wesentlichste der Triebkräfte im kindlichen Organismus vor dem Zahnwechsel die Nachahmung ist. Durch Nachahmung lernt das Kind seine Bewegungen.
Man kann durch eine unbefangene Beobachtung genau feststellen, wie die Bewegungen von Vater und Mutter oder von der anderen Umgebung des Kindes hineingehen in den kindlichen Organismus selbst. Man kann verfolgen, wie unter gesunden Verhältnissen die Sprache gelernt wird unter dem Einfluß der Nachahmung. Man kann sehen, wie das Kind im vollsten Sinne des Wortes mit seinem ganzen Wesen an seine Umgebung hingegeben ist. Das aber wird völlig anders im Verlaufe des Zahnwechsels. Da sehen wir, wie sich im Kinde Kräfte ausbilden, die bewirken, daß das Kind nun selbständig Vorstellungen hervorbringen kann. Diese Fähigkeit zu selbständigen Vorstellungen, die das Innere des Kindes bis zu einem gewissen Grade von der Umwelt befreien, ist vor dem siebenten Lebensjahr gar nicht vorhanden. Mit dem Zahnwechsel erlangt das Kind eine gewisse Innerlichkeit und es wird dann nach und nach auch für Abstraktes zugänglich.
Nun ist aber durch die kindliche Natur wiederum bedingt, daß alles, was innerlich in den das Kind umgebenden Menschen lebt, von dem Kind aufgenommen wird. Daher muß es in der zweiten Lebensepoche, die mit dem Zahnwechsel beginnt und bis zur Geschlechtsreife geht, so angesehen werden, daß es alles, was sich in ihm nun innerlich ausbildet, in Anpassung an die menschliche Umgebung ausbildet. Nicht das, was die Menschen seiner Umgebung t#n, denn das wird nachgeahmt, sondern das, was in diesen Menschen lebt, also was zum Ausdruck kommt durch das Wort, durch die Gesinnung, durch die Gedankenrichtung, das überträgt sich auf das Kind und zwar jetzt nicht durch Nachahmung, sondern durch eine Kraft, die aufzunehmen das Kind ebenso veranlagt ist wie in ihm die Wachstums- und Ernährungskräfte veranlagt sind: die Kraft der Autorität. Man wird wohl nicht mißverstehen, was ich hier mit der Kraft der Autorität meine, denn derjenige, der «Die Philosophie der Freiheit» geschrieben hat, will hier nur darauf hinweisen, wie das Autoritätsprinzip für eine bestimmte Lebensphase des Menschen in Betracht kommt. Es soll also nicht die gesamte Erziehung abgestellt werden auf das, was man heute vielfach als das Autoritätsprinzip bezeichnet. Wenn man nun auf solche Beobachtungen den entsprechenden Wert legt, dann differenzieren sich die Dinge immer deutlicher und man erwirbt sich immer mehr die Fähigkeit, die Metamorphosen im Menschen nicht nur von Jahr zu Jahr, sondern von Monat zu Monat beobachten zu können. Was aber ist es denn, was da zwischen Zahnwechsel und Geschlechtsreife im Kinde zutage tritt?
Wenn man sich einen Blick aneignet für das, was da tatsächlich vorliegt, dann findet man, daß zwischen dem siebten und vierzehnten Jahr — das sind natürlich nur approximative Zahlen — beim Kind innerlich seelisch das zum Ausdruck kommt, was vorher verborgen in ihm als Kraft wirkte. Dieses steckte unten in der Leiblichkeit und bewirkte die Ausgestaltung des menschlichen Organismus, wirkte auch in der Umbildung des Gehirns in den ersten Lebensjahren und in der Zubereitung der Sprachorgane, wirkte also in allem, was das Kind überhaupt in seinem Körperlichen ausbildete. Und so kann man sagen: So wie zum Beispiel die Wärme in einem Körper verborgen sein und dann durch gewisse Umstände frei werden kann, so wird das Geistig-Seelische, das in den ersten sieben Lebensjahren latent im PhysischOrganischen wirkt, was in jeder einzelnen Bewegung, in jedem körperlichen Vorgang zum Ausdruck kommt, erst später frei. Nach dem siebten Lebensjahr wird das Körperliche mehr sich selbst überlassen; es zieht sich das Geistig-Seelische allerdings nicht vollständig aus dem Körperlichen heraus, aber doch in einem hohen Maße. Der Zahnwechsel ist dann eine Art Schlußpunkt der ersten Entwicklungsphase, in der das Geistig-Seelische des Menschen noch deckungsgleich war mit dem Physisch-Leiblichen.
Sie sehen, daß man durch eine solche Betrachtungsweise in die Lage kommt, nun eine wirkliche Beziehung zu erkennen zwischen dem Geistig-Seelischen und dem Physisch-Leiblichen. Man theoretisiert nicht mehr nur herum über die Frage, wie denn die beiden aufeinander wirken und so weiter. Man sieht einfach das GeistigSeelische während der einen Lebensepoche ganz im Körperlichen drin — man hat es in der kindlichen Entwicklung anschaulich vor sich —, und man sieht es später, nach seiner Befreiung, in seiner eigenen Gestalt. Man vergleicht also nicht erst, was man zuvor in abstrakte Begriffe gefaßt hat, sondern man verfolgt die Wirksamkeit des Geistig-Seelischen im Körperlichen in den verschiedenen Lebensepochen. Das heißt aber, daß das, was in der Naturwissenschaft als das den äußeren Sinnen Zugängliche erforscht wird, herausgehoben wird in das geistige Gebiet. Würde man viel mehr auf die Einzelheiten dessen, was Anthroposophie will, eingehen und nicht bei oberflächlichen Definitionen stehenbleiben, so würde man schon sehen, welch eine treue Fortsetzerin der so berechtigten naturwissenschaftlichen Denkweise die geisteswissenschaftlich-anthroposophische Weltanschauung eigentlich ist. Dann aber, wenn man sich in dieser Weise bis herein in die Begriffs- und Ideenwelt Menschenerkenntnis erwirbt, dann löst sich der Vorwurf von der Lebensfremdheit der Ideenwelt von selber auf.
Sehr verehrte Anwesende! Anthroposophie will am wenigsten auf pädagogischem Gebiete irgendwie oppositionell sein zu dem, was an Großem und Bedeutsamem im Laufe besonders des 19. Jahrhunderts durch die großen Pädagogen der Menschheit an pädagogischen Prinzipien gegeben worden ist. Anthroposophie erkennt völlig an, daß große, bedeutungsvolle Erziehungsprinzipien da sind und sie steht nicht zurück vor irgend jemandem in der Anerkennung der großen Pädagogen. Allein, dennoch muß man sagen: Bei allen großen Erziehungsprinzipien, die da sind, herrscht heute vielfach eine gewisse Unbefriedigung gegenüber der Erziehungspraxis, und Erziehungsmethoden der verschiedensten Art treten auf zum Zeugnis dafür, daß es so ist. Warum ist das so?
Es ist dies oft lediglich eine Folge des Intellektualismus in unserem Zeitalter. Dieser Intellektualismus bewirkt ja — mehr als man gewöhnlich glaubt — eine gewisse Lebensfeindlichkeit, namentlich für die sozialen Gebiete des Daseins. Er erzeugt in bezug auf das Ideenhafte eigentlich nur das Abstrakte. Das Abstrakte aber hat keine Lebenskraft in sich; es ist in gewisser Beziehung der Leichnam des Geistigen und wird auch als solcher erlebt. Und hat man die schönsten Grundsätze, für die man geradezu in Begeisterung erglühen kann — solange diese Grundsätze abstrakt bleiben, können sie im Leben nicht einen irgendwie günstigen Einfluß gewinnen. Erst wenn diese Grundsätze durchzogen werden von wirklicher Geistigkeit, von lebendiger Geistigkeit, die sich mit dem Wesen des Menschen verbindet, können diese Grundsätze praktisch werden. Und so möchte Anthroposophie nicht neue Erziehungsgrundsätze wiederum in abstrakter Art aufstellen; sie will nur eine Anleitung sein für die pädagogischen und didaktischen Geschicklichkeiten, für die Handhabung der Erziehungskunst und der Unterrichtskunst, und sie möchte gerade das geben, was auch die schönsten Erziehungsgrundsätze nicht geben können: geistige Untergründe für die praktische Handhabung, für die innere Befähigung des Lehrers, in der Schule und in der Erziehung zu wirken.
Daher ist ja auch die Waldorfschule nicht so eingerichtet, daß — wie leider oft geglaubt wird — durch sie Weltanschauung, wie wir sie vor Erwachsenen vortragen, in die Kinder hineingepfropft werden sollte. Wir haben daher ganz besonders zu betonen, daß sogar der Religionsunterricht für die katholischen Kinder den katholischen Pfarrern, und für die evangelischen Kinder den evangelischen Pfarrern überlassen wird. Wir haben nur einen freien Religionsunterricht eingerichtet für diejenigen Kinder, die Dissidentenkinder sind, und die, wenn dieser Unterricht nicht eingerichtet worden wäre, gar keinen Religionsunterricht hätten. Gerade dadurch konnte wieder etwas zur Belebung des religiösen Gefühles geleistet werden; denn gerade diejenigen Eltern, die sonst ihre Kinder dem Religionsunterricht ganz entzogen hätten, schicken ihre Kinder jetzt in diesen Religionsunterricht, in welchem wir uns Mühe geben, nicht etwa Anthroposophie vorzutragen, sondern das auszugestalten, was für das kindliche Alter in dieser Beziehung ausgestaltet werden muß. Also nicht darum handelt es sich, Anthroposophie in das kindliche Gemüt hineinzutragen, sondern darum, daß die Lehrerschaft durch Anthroposophie dazu kommt, die pädagogisch-didaktischen Handlungsweisen so einzurichten, daß sie nun wirklich wahrer Menschenerziehung entsprechen.
Hieraus folgt, daß zunächst einfach durch die praktische Handhabung eine solche Erziehung und ein solcher Unterricht zustandekommen, die nicht bloß auf das Kind sehen, sondern die auf den ganzen Menschen sehen. Denn es wäre höchst töricht, etwa die Füße oder Hände eines Kindes, wie sie im kindlichen Alter sind, als etwas Fertiges zu betrachten und sie etwa zu nötigen, so zu bleiben, wie sie im kindlichen Alter sind. Es ist selbstverständlich, daß wir im kindlichen Alter den kindlichen Organismus als etwas Werdendes betrachten, das später im Leben anders zu sein hat. Aber in bezug auf das Geistig-Seelische tun wir im Leben nicht immer das Gleiche. Wir sehen oftmals sogar, daß dem Kinde starre Begriffe beigebracht werden und das Kind häufig schon im kindlichen Alter etwas in seine Seele hereinbekommt, was scharfe Konturen hat. Das ist falsch! Es muß sich darum handeln, daß wir alles, was wir dem kindlichen Organismus einverleiben wollen, so an ihn heranbringen, daß es wachsen, daß es sich nach und nach umwandeln kann; so daß der Mensch später, im dreißigsten Jahre zum Beispiel, nicht nur eine Erinnerung an das hat, was er im kindlichen Alter aufgenommen hat, sondern daß er das damals Aufgenommene so umgestaltet hat, wie er auch seine Glieder umgestaltet hat. Wir müssen dem Kinde in allem, was wir ihm geistig-seelisch geben, auch etwas geben, was Wachstumskräfte, was Umwandlungskräfte in sich hat; das heißt, wir müssen den Unterricht lebendiger und immer lebendiger machen.
Gewiß, das kann als abstraktes Prinzip ausgesprochen werden; aber praktisch erreicht kann es nur werden, wenn eine wirklich intime Menschenerkenntnis vorhanden ist. Eine solche intime Menschenerkenntnis macht es möglich, daß man einfach von der kindlichen Natur selbst alles abliest, was man gewöhnlich unter Lehrplan und unter Lernziel versteht. Daher herrscht in der Waldorfschule ein solcher Lehrplan und sind solche Lernziele in Aussicht genommen, die aus einer wirklichen Menschenkenntnis heraus von Monat zu Monat aus der Entwicklung der kindlichen Natur selbst abgelesen werden. Es ist der Versuch gemacht worden, wirklich alles in lebendigem Sinne zu gestalten.
Ich will nur eines erwähnen. Es ist ja heute in verschiedener Beziehung auch im heutigen öffentlichen Unterricht manches besser geworden. Allein, Sie wissen alle, daß während des ganzen Schuljahres das Kind eigentlich mehr als es einem gewöhnlich bewußt wird, unter dem System leidet, das die Fortschritte des Kindes beurteilt. Da gibt es auf der einen Seite die kindlichen Leistungen, auf der anderen Seite die Beurteilungen dieser Leistungen durch den Lehrer; die werden so ausgedrückt: «befriedigend», «fast befriedigend», «fast kaum befriedigend», «minder befriedigend» und so weiter. Ich muß Ihnen offen gestehen: Ich war eigentlich nie fähig, einen Unterschied einzusehen zwischen «fast befriedigend», «fast nicht befriedigend» und dergleichen. Bei uns in der Waldorfschule handelt es sich darum, daß aus der Gesamtheit der Fortschritte heraus am Ende des Schuljahres dem Kinde eine Art Zeugnis übergeben wird, in dem der Lehrer individuell das Kind charakterisiert, indem er einfach das, was er an dem Kinde erlebt hat, auf ein Stück Papier schreibt. Das Kind sieht so eine Art Spiegelbild seiner selbst, und die Praxis hat gezeigt, daß es dieses Spiegelbild — worauf nicht «befriedigend», «minder befriedigend» und so weiter für die einzelnen Gegenstände steht — mit einer gewissen inneren Befriedigung und Freude aufnimmt, selbst wenn darin Tadel stehen. Und dann bekommt das Kind eine Art Kraftspruch mit, der gerade aus seiner Natur geholt ist, den es sich dann aneignet, und der ihm ein Leitspruch für das nächste Jahr sein kann. — So kann man, wenn man die Liebe dazu hat, auf das Lebendige einzugehen, den Unterricht selbst unter ungünstigen Verhältnissen lebendig gestalten.
Dadurch aber kommen wir auch dazu, etwas zu überwinden, was in unserem Zeitalter gerade in der Pädagogik und Didaktik überwunden werden muß. Man wird ja heute in der äußeren Geschichtsschreibung wenig Anhaltspunkte dafür finden, wie sich die Seelenverfassungen der Menschen in den einzelnen Entwicklungsepochen der Menschheit geändert haben. Wer aber Unbefangenheit genug hat, wird schon verstehen können, wie das, was man als geistige Äußerungen zum Beispiel des 10., 11., 12. Jahrhunderts sich vor die Seele stellen kann, einen ganz anderen Charakter trägt als das, was etwa seit der Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts die Seelenverfassung der zivilisierten Menschheit geworden ist. Ja, bis zum 20. Jahrhundert herauf hat sich der Intellektualismus in der Menschheit bis zu einem Kulminationspunkt entwickelt. Dieser Intellektualismus hat aber die Eigentümlichkeit, daß er - geradeso wie das Nachahmungsprinzip oder das Autoritätsprinzip — erst in einem bestimmten Lebensalter des Menschen aus einem latenten in einen freien Zustand versetzt wird, und das ist beim Intellektualismus in einem verhältnismäßig späten Lebensalter der Fall. Wir sehen, wie der Mensch eigentlich erst, wenn er die Geschlechtsreife überwunden hat, eigentlich sogar noch später, aus seiner elementaren Natur heraus geeignet wird, zum Intellektualistischen fortzuschreiten. Vorher wirkt das Intellektualistische auf seine Seelentätigkeit durchaus ablähmend, abtötend.
Daher können wir sagen: Wir leben in einem Zeitalter, das eigentlich nur für den erwachsenen Menschen da ist, das als den wichtigsten Kulturimpuls etwas hat, was erst im erwachsenen Menschen voll zum Ausdruck kommen sollte. Das aber hat zur Folge, daß wir heute mit dem, was in bezug auf die ganze Kultur für die erwachsenen Menschen gerade tonangebend ist, eigentlich das Kind und selbst den jungen Menschen nicht mehr verstehen!
Das ist das wichtigste, was in unserer Zivilisation zu berücksichtigen ist. Wir müssen uns darüber klar sein, daß wir gerade durch diejenigen Kräfte, durch die wir unsere Wissenschaften und unsere Technik zu so großen Triumphen und so großer Blüte gebracht haben, uns die Möglichkeit nehmen, das Kind voll zu verstehen und auf die volle Menschennatur des Kindes einzugehen. Es bedarf eben wieder eigener Mittel, um die Brücke zu dem jungen Menschen und dem Kinde herüber zu schlagen. Das, was jetzt in mannigfacher Gestalt als Jugendbewegung auftritt — man mag sich dazu verhalten, wie man will —, hat seine tiefste Berechtigung; sie ist nichts anderes als der Schrei der Jugend: Ihr Erwachsenen habt eine Zivilisation, die wir einfach nicht verstehen, wenn wir uns unserer elementarsten Natur hingeben! - Aber diese Brücke vom Erwachsenen zur Kindeswelt muß wieder gefunden werden, und dazu möchte Anthroposophie das ihrige beitragen.
Und wenn man dann vom allgemeinen Kulturstandpunkt zum einzelnen heruntersteigt, wird man wieder finden, wie dieser Erziehungsplan, der abgelesen ist vom Wesen des Kindes selbst, uns erkennen läßt, was man im Erziehungsplan für die einzelnen Lebensphasen der Kindheit entwickeln muß. Schreiben und Lesen waren in früheren Zeitaltern etwas ganz anderes, als sie es heute sind. Nehmen Sie unsere heutigen Buchstaben: sie sind etwas ganz Abstraktes, Lebensfremdes im Verhältnis zum eigentlichen Leben. Gehen wir zu früheren Zeiten zurück: Wir finden in der Bilderschrift etwas, was sich unmittelbar an das Leben anlehnt. Wir machen uns heute oft gar keine Gedanken darüber, wie innig mit dem Leben [diese Bilderschrift] verbunden war, und wie heute dem Leben so fremd ist: Lesen und Schreiben. Ja, wir stehen in einer Zivilisation drinnen, der es natürlich ist, daß das Lebensfremdeste zu Zwecken der Zivilisation ausgebildet wird. Wer heute mit unbefangenem Sinn zum Beispiel einen Stenographen oder einen alten Menschen an der Schreibmaschine sitzen sieht, der weiß, daß mit einer solchen Betätigung gerade das menschlich Fremdeste in die Zivilisation eingezogen ist. Sehr verehrte Anwesende, man wird nicht kulturfeindlich oder zum Reaktionär, wenn man dies ausspricht. Es wird auch nichts gesagt gegenüber dem, was mit diesen Mitteln in die neuere Zeit eingezogen ist; sie mußten da sein. Aber es müssen auch die Gegenkräfte entwickelt werden, die das wieder heilen, was, wenn es einzig und allein wirksam gelassen wird, nur zu einem gewissen Niedergang der Kultur, zu einer Dekadenz führen könnte. Und das wichtigste Moment, was in dieser Beziehung als Heilmittel eingeführt werden kann, liegt in der Erziehung, im Unterricht, der aber stets erzieherisch gestaltet werden muß,
Wenn wir das Kind in die Volksschule hereinbekommen, ist es ja so, daß sein Intellekt zunächst noch schlummert. Die Fähigkeit zu abstraktem Denken, die erst von anderem belebt werden muß, diese Fähigkeit tritt erst später auf. Daher können wir mit den abstrakten Schreibe- und Leseformen an das Kind, wenn es in die Schule kommt, noch nicht herankommen. Da können wir nur das nehmen, womit wir lebendig an das Kind herankommen können, denn im Kinde selbst wirkt ja ein künstlerisches seelisches Prinzip, das vollkommener und großartiger ist als jede andere Kunst. Das wirkt auf unbewußte Art. Diese müssen wir fortsetzen und müssen versuchen, für das kindliche Alter besondere Formen zu erfinden, wodurch das Kind auf künstlerische Art in das Schreiben, das heißt in die Betätigung seines gesamten Menschen hereinkommt und dann zum Lesen übergeht. Man muß in bezug auf die Pädagogik, wenn die Kinder heute im achten oder neunten Jahre noch nicht lesen oder schreiben können, den Mut haben, sagen zu können: Gott sei Dank, daß die Kinder in diesen Jahren noch nicht lesen oder schreiben können! - denn es kommt nicht darauf an, daß der Mensch dieses oder jenes [früh] lernt, sondern daß er es im richtigen Lebensalter und auf eine richtige Art lernt.
So ist in der Waldorfschule der Unterricht auf künstlerische Gestaltung hin eingerichtet. Aus pädagogisch-künstlerischen Prinzipien heraus wird zunächst vorgegangen und erst allmählich zum Intellektualistischen übergeleitet. Wir tragen auch dem Rechnung, daß das Musikalische möglichst früh im Unterricht auftritt, weil es zur Willensbildung des Menschen in Beziehung steht. Wir tragen dem dadurch Rechnung, daß wir zu dem gewöhnlichen Turnunterricht den Eurythmie-Unterricht, das beseelte Turnen, in den Unterricht eingefügt haben. Es muß noch metamorphosiert werden, muß ins Pädagogisch-Didaktische umgesetzt werden, dann aber findet man, daß durch diese Bewegungskunst, die das wahrzunehmen hat, was Geist und Seele des Menschen ist, etwas vermittelt wird, was sinnvoll ist. Man findet, daß das Kind sich während der schulpflichtigen Erziehung in diese Bewegungskunst so hineinfindet, wie es sich als ganz kleines Kind eben in die Sprache hineinfindet, mit innerem Wohlgefallen und mit innerer Selbstverständlichkeit. — Dieses Herausarbeiten aus dem Künstlerischen führt dann auch dahin, daß man das Kind von sehr früh an mit Farben hantieren läßt. Wenn das auch zuweilen unbequem ist, und wenn dann auch schärfere Reinlichkeitsgrundsätze als sonst dabei eingreifen müssen, so wird sich doch herausstellen, daß man dadurch das Kind tiefer in das Leben einführt als sonst. Man bringt es dazu, daß es einen Sinn bekommt für das Leben, daß es nicht am Leben vorbeigeht, sondern daß es mit der äußeren Welt lebt, daß es empfänglich wird für alles Schöne, für alles, was ihm sinnvoll in Natur und Menschenleben entgegentritt. Und dies ist wichtiger als die Übertragung einzelner Einzelheiten aus diesem oder jenem Gebiete auf das Kind.
Zu alle dem aber, was ich hier nur in seinen Richtlinien andeuten kann, kommt das, was aus anthroposophischen Untergründen heraus in die Gesinnung des Lehrers einfließt, was der Lehrer einfach durch sein ganzes Wesen mitbringt an pädagogisch-didaktischen Imponderabilien, wenn er die Tür des Schulzimmers hinter sich schließt nach der Klasse zu, wenn er vor die Kinder tritt. Wer mit lebendigem Sinn — nicht mit abstrakten Ideen — anschaut, wie das Kind nachahmend sich anpaßt an die Umgebung, der weiß, was in diesem Kinde als Geistig-Seelisches wirkt. Er lernt das Kind kennen und bekommt dadurch die Voraussetzungen, es in ganz anderer Weise zu beurteilen, als man es gewöhnlich tut. Ich will dafür nur ein Beispiel anführen.
Man lernt ja so manches, wenn man in diesem Sinne das Leben ansieht. Zu mir kam einmal ein Elternpaar und sagte, der junge Sohn, der bisher ganz brav und ordentlich gewesen sei, habe jetzt plötzlich gestohlen. Ich fragte: «Wie alt ist das Kind?» —, die Eltern antworteten: «Fünf Jahre». Ich sagte: «Dann muß man erst untersuchen, was das Kind eigentlich getan hat, denn vielleicht hat es gar nicht gestohlen.» — Was hatte es denn getan? Es hatte einiges Geld aus der Schublade genommen, aus der die Mutter jeden Morgen Geld nahm, wenn sie einkaufen wollte. Für dieses Geld hatte sich der Knabe einige Naschereien gekauft, die er nicht einmal für sich selbst verwendet hat, sondern die er anderen Kindern gegeben hat. In diesem Fall muß man sagen: Da ist gar keine Rede von Stehlen; das Kind hat einfach gesehen, was die Mutter jeden Morgen getan hat, und es fühlte sich befugt, dies selbst auch zu machen. Das Kind ist ein Nachahmer. Jenes Verhältnis des Kindes zu den Normen der Erwachsenen, die ihren Ausdruck finden in «gut» und «böse», tritt ja erst ein, wenn der Zahnwechsel überwunden ist. Wir müssen deshalb eine ganz andere Beurteilungsmöglichkeit gewinnen und wissen lernen: alles, was wir in der Umgebung des Kindes tun, muß so eingerichtet werden, daß das Kind es nachahmen kann, es nachahmen kann bis in die Imponderabilien der Gedanken hinein. Da erweist sich eben die Realität der Gedanken. Nicht bloß das, was wir tun, sondern auch die Art und Weise unserer Gedanken ist maßgebend dafür. Wir sollen uns in der Umgebung des Kindes nicht jedem Gedanken hingeben, denn er wirkt auf das Kind. Also bis auf die Imponderabilien hin müssen die Gedanken berücksichtigt werden.
Schaut man darauf hin, wie das Kind bis zum siebenten Jahre mit seiner Umgebung lebt, dann hat man darin einen Abdruck dafür, was das Kind war, bevor der Mensch in die physisch-sinnliche Welt heruntersteigt. Bis dahin — das zeigt anthroposophische Forschung — ist der Mensch ganz umgeben von einer geistig-seelischen Welt, die so mit ihm zusammenhängt im Universum, wie hier in der physischen Welt sein Leib mit dieser. Und wir kommen dazu, in dem kindlichen Leben bis zum siebenten Jahre eine rechte Fortsetzung des Lebens vor der Geburt oder vor der Konzeption zu sehen. Das aber muß sich verwandeln in pädagogisch-didaktische Empfindung, so daß der Lehrer so vor dem Kinde steht, daß er sich sagt: Mir ist aus übersinnlichen Welten etwas übergeben, das ich enträtseln muß, dem ich die Lebensbahn ebnen muß.
Unterricht und Erziehung wird so wirklich ein Opferdienst gegenüber der ganzen Welt. Es wird über Unterricht und Erziehung etwas ausgegossen von jener Gesinnung, die eine Kraft ist, und ohne die wirklicher Unterricht und wirkliche Erziehung nichts sein können. Diese Gesinnung, die sich nicht aus äußerlich angenommener, sondern aus innerlich erarbeiteter anthroposophischer Weltanschauung ergibt, sie ist gerade das Allerwichtigste im pädagogisch-didaktischen Wirken. Man steht dann mit religiöser scheuer Ehrfurcht vor dem, was der kindliche Leib in sich birgt; man schaut hin, wie ein aus den ewigen Weltengründen Erstandenes nach und nach sich offenbart in den kindlichen Bewegungen, Gesten und so weiter, und man weiß, daß man ein Lebensrätsel in praktischer Art zu lösen hat. Die ganze Erziehungs- und Unterrichtsgesinnung wird dadurch überhaupt erst in die richtigen Wege geleitet. Diese Atmosphäre, die sich ausbreitet bei allen Handlungen, die im schulgemäßen Leben getan werden müssen, ist das, was Anthroposophie vor allem hinein haben möchte in das Unterrichts- und Erziehungswesen, und von dem sie alle Einzelheiten beherrscht haben möchte. Aber um sie beherrschen zu können, ist nötig, daß man mit wirklicher innerer Anschauung dazu komme, in der kleinsten Lebensregung des Kindes zu sehen, wie der Geist fortwirkt bis in die Fingerspitzen hinein. Der Lehrer wird sich dazu eine innere Gesamtanschauung aneignen, so daß er aus einer Fähigkeit, die wiederum zum Instinkt werden muß, seiner Klasse gegenübertritt mit der Gesinnung und der Geschicklichkeit, die gerade aus dieser innerlichen Verarbeitung der anthroposophischen Weltanschauung kommen.
Das sind einige Andeutungen, die ich geben konnte; sie werden in den folgenden Vorträgen weiter ausgeführt werden können. Diese Andeutungen sollten zeigen, daß die Anthroposophie nicht radikal sein will gegen das Große, was auf pädagogischem Gebiete geleistet worden ist, sondern daß sie sein will eine Helferin für das Große, sonst nur abstrakt Bleibende, so daß es in der Lebenspraxis lebendig durchgeführt werden kann, damit die Erziehungskunst ein wirklicher Impuls, ein wirksamer Faktor in unserem sozialen Leben werden kann!
4. Anthroposophy and Pedagogy
Ladies and gentlemen! The anthroposophical worldview is often criticized in a comprehensible way for proclaiming its ideas and findings on the basis of research for which human abilities must first be developed, meaning that the research findings of anthroposophy cannot be verified by everyone from the outset, and that it nevertheless proclaims these views to people who are unprepared for them.
But this accusation, however justified it may seem, is one of the most unjustified that can be made against the anthroposophical movement. For it is not a matter of immediately instructing each individual to become a researcher in the supersensible realm, but rather of presenting its research results in a way that can be verified by each individual, simply through ordinary common sense and ordinary sound logic. This does not, however, make it unnecessary to strive to take at least the first steps toward supersensible research, and there are instructions for this in the various writings that have already been mentioned here. So everyone can become an anthroposophical researcher to a certain extent — simply on the basis of the conditions of modern civilization — but this is not necessary in order to test the results of anthroposophical research, because this testing can be done simply on the basis of common sense. And one of the areas in which this testing can really be done in a practical way is the field of education.
Dear attendees! For a long time, the anthroposophical worldview had to work purely in the sense of presenting ideas about the supersensible that were close to people's hearts before it was possible, given the cultural conditions of the present, to really intervene in practical life, for which it feels so particularly suited. This became possible in a limited area — and even then only to a very small extent — when Emil Molt founded the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, which I am responsible for running. Admittedly, as the little booklet “The Education of the Child from the Point of View of Spiritual Science” shows, attempts had already been made earlier to advocate certain educational principles based on anthroposophical principles. But it was only with the founding of the Waldorf School that it became possible to introduce these things into everyday life, and since then it has also been possible to implement the pedagogical and didactic aspects of anthroposophy in detail. Of course, it will not be possible for me to give more than a few hints here in this introductory lecture, but I think that the other lectures today will be able to elaborate on what has been hinted at.
What is absorbed through anthroposophical ideas, when one simply verifies them for oneself with common sense, is not merely a theoretical view, these are not merely abstract ideas that one can now have in order to satisfy some need for knowledge in a theoretical way. Rather, what is expressed in the ideas drawn from anthroposophical sources is real human power, something that permeates the whole human being, intensifies love, and can be translated into human energy. While the ideas and thoughts of conventional science, which relate only to the sensory world, have their peculiarity in that they serve theoretical and, again, only practical interests that are relevant to the sensory world, the characteristic feature of those ideas that incorporate anthroposophical research findings is that they affect the whole human being, his or her vitality, his or her — if I may put it this way — life skills, on their understanding of life, and specifically on that understanding of life which enables them to truly intervene in the most diverse situations of life through their will. And if one simply takes hold of this life at any point and enriches it with anthroposophical ideas, one can see how human action, when guided by these ideas, gains greater power, greater urgency, and so on. This is something that must prove itself, especially in the field of education and teaching.
When the Waldorf School was founded, we did not have the opportunity to choose the external conditions for the education and teaching of the children entrusted to us. It is often claimed today that if satisfactory teaching and education are to be achieved, then this or that location must be chosen for the school, educational institution, or the like. Certainly, there is a great deal to be said for all these assertions, and they do prove themselves in practice to a certain extent. But we did not have any of that. First of all, we had to start the experiment under the given conditions with the children of the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory in Stuttgart. So we had a very specific group of children to begin with, and we had to start our teaching and education in a building that was, of course, very unsuitable for this purpose—it was a former tavern. We could therefore rely on nothing but what could be started purely from spiritual foundations for the pedagogical and didactic aspects themselves.
And it must be emphasized again and again: because anthroposophy does not strive for abstract intellectual knowledge — if I may use that expression — but rather for an insight into the world and its mysteries that encompasses the whole human being, it can thereby lead to a knowledge of human beings, to an understanding of human beings, that cannot otherwise be achieved in any theoretical field. And ultimately, all education, all teaching, is based on that understanding of human beings that proves itself in the relationship of the teacher, the educator, to the developing, growing human being, to the child. That is why our Waldorf education is based on an intimate knowledge of the developing human being, the child. I need only mention one detail that illustrates how real insight into the whole human being must prove itself in practice.
Today, we also have a psychology that is more or less accepted by recognized science. But this psychology theorizes about various questions that always leave something unsatisfactory. For example, it asks the question: What is the relationship between the spiritual-soul and the physical-bodily aspects of the human being? — and it has developed all kinds of theories about this. We have three types of theories: one seeks to start from the spiritual-soul aspect, to define it in some way, to form an abstract concept of it, and then to investigate the extent to which the spiritual-soul aspect can influence the physical-bodily aspect. Another, more materialistic theory assumes that the physical is the basis and that the physical then produces the spiritual and mental only as a function. A third theory is that of psycho-physical parallelism, which assumes that the spiritual-soul and the physical-bodily exist side by side in equal measure and only pursues how the functions of one run parallel to those of the other, without going into the internal interrelationship between the two. These are all psychological speculations. They only become matters of practical life when this psychology, this knowledge of the soul, leads to pedagogical and didactic driving forces.
It can be said that in this area, our view of the spiritual and mental aspects of human beings has not yet conformed to the principles that we are accustomed to pursuing as a matter of course in the natural sciences. In natural science, when heat occurs somewhere without having been supplied in the usual way, we investigate how this heat was present in another state, i.e., as so-called latent heat, and how it developed from this latent state and now manifests itself as heat. Such principles, as they are common practice in natural science, must also be incorporated — naturally in the appropriate manner — into the consideration of the whole human being, which includes the spiritual and soul aspects.
And one arrives at such a view, which can be fully justified before natural science — even if this is not yet recognized today — when one turns one's gaze, for example, to the first significant transformation that takes place in the entire human organism with the change of teeth around the age of seven. Such transformations in human beings are usually observed quite externally. However, the change of teeth is something that profoundly affects the whole of human life. Those who train their powers of observation to see this learn to recognize how, with the onset of the change of teeth, the whole soul life of the child becomes different. They learn to recognize how the child previously did not actually live “within itself” in the fullest sense of the word, but was completely absorbed in its surroundings with its soul life. They learn to recognize how imitation is the most essential driving force in the child's organism before tooth replacement. Through imitation, the child learns its movements.
Through unbiased observation, one can determine exactly how the movements of the father and mother or of the child's other environment enter into the child's organism itself. One can observe how, under healthy conditions, language is learned under the influence of imitation. One can see how the child is devoted to its environment in the fullest sense of the word, with its whole being. But this changes completely during the transition to permanent teeth. We see how forces develop in the child that enable it to produce ideas independently. This ability to form independent ideas, which frees the child's inner life from its environment to a certain extent, is not present at all before the age of seven. With the change of teeth, the child acquires a certain inner life and gradually becomes accessible to abstract ideas.
However, it is again due to the nature of children that everything that lives inwardly in the people surrounding the child is absorbed by the child. Therefore, in the second phase of life, which begins with the change of teeth and continues until puberty, it must be regarded as developing everything that is now developing inwardly in it in adaptation to its human environment. Not what the people around them do, because that is imitated, but what lives within these people, that is, what is expressed through words, attitudes, and thoughts, is transferred to the child, not through imitation, but through a force that the child is just as predisposed to absorb as it is to the forces of growth and nutrition: the power of authority. I hope there will be no misunderstanding of what I mean here by the power of authority, for the author of The Philosophy of Freedom only wishes to point out how the principle of authority comes into play during a certain phase of human life. Education as a whole should not be based on what is often referred to today as the principle of authority. If one attaches the appropriate value to such observations, then things become increasingly clear and one acquires the ability to observe the metamorphoses in human beings not only from year to year, but from month to month. But what is it that emerges in children between the change of teeth and sexual maturity?
If one acquires an eye for what is actually present, one finds that between the ages of seven and fourteen — these are, of course, only approximate figures — what was previously hidden within the child as a force now finds expression in the child's inner soul. This force was hidden in the physical body and caused the development of the human organism. It also worked in the transformation of the brain in the first years of life and in the preparation of the speech organs, i.e., it worked in everything that the child developed in its physical body. And so we can say: just as, for example, heat can be hidden in a body and then be released under certain circumstances, so the spiritual-soul forces that work latently in the physical-organic during the first seven years of life, expressing themselves in every single movement, in every physical process, are only released later. After the age of seven, the physical is left more to its own devices; the spiritual-soul does not withdraw completely from the physical, but it does so to a large extent. The change of teeth is then a kind of conclusion to the first phase of development, in which the spiritual-soul of the human being was still congruent with the physical-bodily.
You can see that this way of looking at things enables us to recognize a real relationship between the spiritual-soul and the physical-bodily. One no longer merely theorizes about how the two interact and so on. One simply sees the spiritual-soul aspect completely within the physical aspect during one phase of life — one sees this clearly in childhood development — and one sees it later, after its liberation, in its own form. So one does not first compare what one has previously grasped in abstract terms, but rather one follows the activity of the spiritual-soul in the physical in the different stages of life. This means, however, that what is researched in natural science as accessible to the outer senses is elevated to the spiritual realm. If one were to go into much more detail about what anthroposophy aims to achieve, rather than stopping at superficial definitions, one would see what a faithful continuation of the justified scientific way of thinking the spiritual-scientific anthroposophical worldview actually is. But then, when one acquires knowledge of human nature in this way, entering into the world of concepts and ideas, the accusation that the world of ideas is alien to life dissolves of its own accord.
Dear attendees! Anthroposophy has no desire to oppose the great and significant educational principles established by the great educators of humanity, especially during the 19th century. Anthroposophy fully recognizes that there are great and significant educational principles, and it does not lag behind anyone in its recognition of the great educators. Nevertheless, it must be said that, despite all the great educational principles that exist, there is today a widespread dissatisfaction with educational practice, and educational methods of various kinds are emerging as evidence of this. Why is this so?
This is often merely a consequence of the intellectualism of our age. This intellectualism causes — more than is commonly believed — a certain hostility toward life, especially in the social areas of existence. In relation to ideas, it actually produces only the abstract. But the abstract has no life force in itself; in a certain sense, it is the corpse of the spiritual and is also experienced as such. And even if one has the most beautiful principles, for which one can be truly enthusiastic — as long as these principles remain abstract, they cannot have any kind of beneficial influence in life. Only when these principles are permeated by real spirituality, by living spirituality that connects with the essence of the human being, can these principles become practical. And so anthroposophy does not want to establish new educational principles in an abstract way; it merely wants to be a guide for pedagogical and didactic skills, for the practice of the art of education and teaching, and it wants to provide precisely what even the most beautiful educational principles cannot provide: spiritual foundations for practical application, for the inner ability of the teacher to work in school and in education.
That is why Waldorf schools are not designed in such a way that — as is often believed, unfortunately — the worldview we present to adults is grafted onto children. We must therefore emphasize that even religious instruction for Catholic children is left to Catholic priests, and for Protestant children to Protestant pastors. We have only established free religious instruction for those children who are dissidents and who, if this instruction had not been established, would have no religious instruction at all. This has helped to revive religious feeling, because the very parents who would otherwise have withdrawn their children from religious instruction are now sending their children to this religious instruction, in which we make an effort not to teach anthroposophy, but to develop what needs to be developed for children of this age in this regard. So it is not a question of instilling anthroposophy in the child's mind, but of the teaching staff using anthroposophy to organize their pedagogical and didactic methods in such a way that they truly correspond to a genuine education of the human being.
It follows from this that, initially, simply through practical application, such education and teaching come about which do not merely look at the child, but at the whole human being. For it would be extremely foolish to regard, for example, the feet or hands of a child, as they are in childhood, as something finished and to force them to remain as they are in childhood. It goes without saying that in childhood we regard the child's organism as something in the process of becoming, which will be different later in life. But in relation to the spiritual and soul aspects, we do not always do the same thing in life. We often see that rigid concepts are taught to children and that children frequently absorb something into their souls at an early age that has sharp contours. This is wrong! We must approach everything we want to incorporate into the child's organism in such a way that it can grow and gradually transform itself, so that later, at the age of thirty, for example, the person not only has a memory of what they absorbed in childhood, but has also transformed what they absorbed then in the same way that they have transformed their limbs. In everything we give the child spiritually and emotionally, we must also give them something that has the power to grow and transform; that is, we must make teaching more and more alive.
Certainly, this can be expressed as an abstract principle; but it can only be achieved in practice if there is a truly intimate knowledge of human nature. Such an intimate knowledge of human nature makes it possible to simply read everything that is usually understood as a curriculum and learning objectives from the child's nature itself. That is why Waldorf schools have a curriculum and learning objectives that are based on a real understanding of human nature and are determined month by month from the development of the child's nature itself. An attempt has been made to make everything truly alive.
I would like to mention just one thing. In many respects, things have improved in today's public education system. However, you all know that throughout the school year, children suffer more than we usually realize from the system that assesses their progress. On the one hand, there are the children's achievements, and on the other, there are the teachers' assessments of these achievements. which are expressed as “satisfactory,” “almost satisfactory,” “barely satisfactory,” “less than satisfactory,” and so on. I must confess to you frankly that I have never been able to see any difference between “almost satisfactory,” “barely satisfactory,” and the like. At our Waldorf school, at the end of the school year, the child is given a kind of report card based on their overall progress, in which the teacher characterizes the child individually by simply writing down on a piece of paper what they have observed about the child. The child thus sees a kind of mirror image of themselves, and practice has shown that they accept this mirror image — which does not say “satisfactory,” “less than satisfactory,” and so on for the individual subjects — with a certain inner satisfaction and joy, even if it contains reprimands. And then the child receives a kind of power phrase that is drawn directly from its nature, which it then appropriates and which can be a guiding principle for the next year. — In this way, if one has the love to respond to the living, one can make teaching lively even under unfavorable conditions.
But this also enables us to overcome something that needs to be overcome in our age, especially in pedagogy and didactics. Today, one will find little evidence in external historiography of how people's states of mind have changed in the various epochs of human development. But anyone who is sufficiently open-minded will be able to understand how what we can imagine as spiritual expressions of, for example, the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries has a completely different character from what has become the state of mind of civilized humanity since the middle of the 15th century. Indeed, intellectualism in humanity developed to a culmination point by the 20th century. However, this intellectualism has the peculiarity that — just like the principle of imitation or the principle of authority — it is only at a certain age that it is transferred from a latent to a free state, and in the case of intellectualism this happens at a relatively late age. We see how humans, once they have passed puberty, or even later, become capable of progressing toward intellectualism out of their elementary nature. Before that, intellectualism has a thoroughly paralyzing, deadening effect on their soul activity.
We can therefore say that we live in an age that is really only for adult human beings, whose most important cultural impulse is something that should only find full expression in adult human beings. But this means that today, with what is currently setting the tone for adult human beings in relation to culture as a whole, we no longer really understand children or even young people!
This is the most important thing to consider in our civilization. We must be aware that it is precisely through the forces that have brought our sciences and technology to such great triumphs and such great prosperity that we are depriving ourselves of the opportunity to fully understand children and respond to their full human nature. We need our own means to build a bridge to young people and children. What is now emerging in many forms as a youth movement — whatever one may think of it — has its deepest justification; it is nothing other than the cry of youth: You adults have a civilization that we simply cannot understand when we surrender to our most elemental nature! But this bridge from the adult world to the world of children must be rediscovered, and anthroposophy would like to contribute to this.
And when we descend from the general cultural standpoint to the individual, we will find once again how this educational plan, which is derived from the nature of the child itself, allows us to recognize what needs to be developed in the educational plan for the individual phases of childhood. Writing and reading were something completely different in earlier times than they are today. Take our letters today: they are something completely abstract, alien to life in relation to actual life. Let us go back to earlier times: we find in pictorial writing something that is directly related to life. Today, we often do not even think about how closely [this pictorial writing] was connected to life and how foreign to life it is today: reading and writing. Yes, we live in a civilization in which it is natural that the most alien things are developed for the purposes of civilization. Anyone who today, with an unbiased mind, sees a stenographer or an elderly person sitting at a typewriter, for example, knows that such an activity has brought the most alien thing to civilization into it. Dear attendees, one does not become anti-cultural or reactionary by saying this. Nor is anything being said about what has entered modern times through these means; they had to be there. But counterforces must also be developed to heal what, if left to operate alone, could only lead to a certain decline in culture, to decadence. And the most important remedy that can be introduced in this regard lies in education, in teaching, which must always be designed to be educational.
When we bring children into elementary school, their intellect is still dormant. The ability to think abstractly, which must first be stimulated by other means, only emerges later. Therefore, we cannot yet approach the child with abstract forms of writing and reading when they start school. We can only use what allows us to approach the child in a lively way, because the child itself is influenced by an artistic spiritual principle that is more perfect and magnificent than any other art. This works in an unconscious way. We must continue this and try to invent special forms for childhood, through which the child enters writing in an artistic way, that is, through the activity of its whole being, and then moves on to reading. In terms of education, if children today cannot yet read or write at the age of eight or nine, we must have the courage to say: Thank God that children cannot yet read or write at this age! For it is not important that a person learns this or that [early], but that they learn it at the right age and in the right way.
Thus, in Waldorf schools, teaching is geared toward artistic creation. The approach is based on pedagogical and artistic principles, and only gradually does it transition to the intellectual. We also take into account that music should be introduced as early as possible in teaching because it is related to the formation of the human will. We take this into account by incorporating eurythmy lessons, or animated gymnastics, into the regular physical education curriculum. It still needs to be transformed, to be translated into pedagogical and didactic terms, but then one finds that this art of movement, which has to perceive what is the spirit and soul of the human being, conveys something that is meaningful. One finds that during their school education, children find their way into this art of movement just as they find their way into language as very young children, with inner pleasure and inner naturalness. This artistic development also leads to children being allowed to use colors from a very early age. Even if this is sometimes inconvenient, and even if stricter rules of cleanliness than usual have to be applied, it will nevertheless become apparent that this introduces the child more deeply into life than would otherwise be the case. You enable them to develop a sense for life, so that they do not pass life by, but live with the outer world, becoming receptive to everything beautiful, to everything that meets them in nature and human life in a meaningful way. And this is more important than imparting individual details from this or that area to the child.
In addition to all this, which I can only hint at here in its general outlines, there is what flows into the teacher's mindset from anthroposophical foundations, what the teacher simply brings with them through their whole being in terms of pedagogical and didactic imponderables when they close the classroom door behind them after class, when they stand in front of the children. Anyone who observes with a lively mind — not with abstract ideas — how the child adapts to its surroundings by imitation knows what is at work in this child in terms of its spiritual and emotional life. They get to know the child and thus acquire the prerequisites for judging it in a completely different way than is usually done. I will give just one example of this.
One learns many things when one looks at life in this way. A couple once came to me and said that their young son, who had always been very well-behaved and tidy, had suddenly started stealing. I asked, “How old is the child?” The parents replied, “Five years old.” I said, “Then we must first examine what the child actually did, because perhaps he did not steal at all.” What had he done? He had taken some money from the drawer from which his mother took money every morning when she wanted to go shopping. With this money, the boy had bought some sweets, which he did not even use for himself, but gave to other children. In this case, we have to say that there is no question of stealing; the child simply saw what his mother did every morning and felt entitled to do the same. The child is an imitator. The child's relationship to the norms of adults, which are expressed in terms of “good” and “bad,” only emerges once the child has lost its baby teeth. We must therefore gain a completely different way of assessing things and learn to know that everything we do in the child's environment must be arranged in such a way that the child can imitate it, can imitate it down to the imponderables of thought. This is where the reality of thoughts becomes apparent. Not only what we do, but also the way we think is decisive for this. We should not indulge in every thought in the child's environment, because it affects the child. So thoughts must be taken into account, right down to the imponderables.
If we look at how the child lives with its environment up to the age of seven, we see an imprint of what the child was before it descended into the physical-sensory world. Until then, as anthroposophical research shows, the human being is completely surrounded by a spiritual-soul world that is connected to them in the universe in the same way that their body is connected to the physical world here. And we come to see the child's life up to the age of seven as a true continuation of life before birth or before conception. But this must be transformed into a pedagogical-didactic sensibility, so that the teacher stands before the child and says to himself: Something has been handed down to me from supersensible worlds that I must unravel, for which I must pave the way of life.
Teaching and education thus truly become a service of sacrifice to the whole world. Something is poured out over teaching and education from that attitude which is a force, and without which real teaching and real education can be nothing. This attitude, which does not arise from an externally adopted but from an internally developed anthroposophical worldview, is precisely the most important thing in pedagogical-didactic work. One then stands with religious awe before what the child's body holds within itself; one watches as something born of the eternal foundations of the world gradually reveals itself in the child's movements, gestures, and so on, and one knows that one has a mystery of life to solve in a practical way. This is what guides the whole attitude to education and teaching in the right direction. This atmosphere, which spreads through all the activities that have to be done in school life, is what anthroposophy wants above all to bring into teaching and education, and it wants to have all the details under control. But in order to master it, it is necessary to arrive at a real inner insight into how the spirit continues to work down to the tips of the fingers in the smallest movements of the child's life. The teacher will acquire an inner overall view of this, so that, from a skill that must in turn become instinct, he or she will face the class with the attitude and skill that come precisely from this inner processing of the anthroposophical worldview.
These are a few hints that I could give; they will be elaborated on in the following lectures. These hints should show that anthroposophy does not want to be radical against the great achievements that have been made in the field of education, but that it wants to be a helper for the great, otherwise abstract, so that it can be carried out in a living way in practical life, so that the art of education can become a real impulse, an effective factor in our social life!