1.1 About the Members’ Meeting of the General Anthroposophical Society of 1972
The members' meeting in 1972 of the General Anthroposophical Society in Dornach, just as the one in the year before, was marked by misunderstanding and, even worse, by incomprehension. In this respect, one can with regard to the living conditions of modern communities only be saddened. Nevertheless, one should not deny that this confronts an unbiased observer with a cognitive assignment of no minor importance. [1] After all, a member of a modern community and especially of a knowledge community will try to examine the meaning of the disclosures, events and actions of that meeting. He therefore rises above the occasion at hand and enters into the essence of community-building insights and impulses as well as their obstacles. He will do so with a conscious awareness of the social demands of our time. Therefore, the limited occasion for making these considerations has a much further reaching significance by way of an example. This is the explanatory part of the text, whose generally applicable content becomes more understandable through its connection with the particular case. In addition, this particular case is no longer an internal one. Because it now forms part of the history of the General Anthroposophical Society and has thus assumed a public character. Without knowledge of this history, nobody who takes his membership seriously can obviously become a member of this society. In addition, in the "Principles" of the society the only condition for obtaining membership of the society is expressly stated (once again understandable so) that joining the society presupposes one’s accord with the idea that the existence of The Free School of Spiritual Science at the Goetheanum in Dornach is justified. This insight includes, among others, the at least preliminary knowledge of its nature and the historical context, in which it has to prove its existence. The following explanations are therefore not only a contribution to the history of the Anthroposophical Society, but are also an indispensable means of orientation for every newcomer to the Anthroposophical Society. Furthermore, they are also an explanatory reference to the possibilities and difficulties of all modern communities.
This treatise purports to be of general significance (because an earlier example can be a means of orientation for those active later on), but if it wants to convey useful knowledge, it cannot avoid to indicate typical imperfections of the case under consideration. This may, after overcoming some hesitation, be done with the conviction that it will contribute to the progress of social and cultural life. Because it is not only deeply sad but a painful lesson when aspirations concerning cognitional problems, which are bound to prop up in the work of every striving individual as well as problems arising among people freely working together towards the creation of a new principle of civilization are misunderstood, as happened in the present case, and are seen as personal sensitivities and special interests of opinionated groups of people. This ought not to be possible in a modern society, even when convictions concerning central issues of the life and work of the society occasionally appear in the form of easily misunderstood and inadequate expressions. The method to be employed thereby, the example of which we owe Rudolf Steiner, would be to express the content of such expressions better than their representatives at that moment are capable of doing. Of course, falsehood as such must thereby also be characterized without any sugarcoating and nebulous pluralism. However, this cannot simply be done by denigrating the unconventional, banishing misunderstandings, and suppressing the undesirable, but only in a style based on sound insight and by appealing to conscientious insight.
For just that reason, the main aim of precisely those who were misunderstood should be to acquire an idea what positive endeavors and cognitive motives were present when it so happened that a discussion about cognitive questions was rendered impossible due to alleged formal errors and substantive inadmissibilities of what was brought forward at the said members’ meeting. The objections raised centered mainly around the concept of motion (proposal).[2]
What will be explained more precisely in what follows cannot already be brought forward here. Nevertheless, a preliminary response to the objection is required, voiced by the members of the executive-board who presided over the members' meeting, that there was a willingness to handle the submitted motions at the appropriate place of the agenda. However, it would first have been necessary to reject "the coercion of the legal procedure" (the binding nature of the outcome of a vote), which is necessarily associated with the submission of motions, as being "unconstitutional" (i.e. incompatible with the constitution of the Free School).
Even if during the further course of the members' meeting it would have been the intention to give room for a real development of the cognitive content of the submitted motions, this intention would have swept away its social and spiritual basis by a procedure that allowed these motions (and hence the civil-law form of a members’ meeting) in advance to be labelled as being "unconstitutional" and their representatives burdened with the charge of having committed a serious violation. Although supported by a majority (i.e. by unilaterally claiming to proceed according to Swiss civil law) this allegation was not based on a knowledge of the facts. Therefore, it was by no means a coincidence that the presenters of the motions were confronted with insults and insinuations, as well as - it is hardly believable - with the need to themselves take a stand against the disparagements, since no other voice was raised in support of them. Although the knowledge-based seriousness of their appeal to embark on a course of common recollection was beyond any doubt, they were even requested according to a well-prepared concept to withdraw their motions. If one does not consider a members’ meeting to be an instrument for the confirmation of imperative mandates, one of its main tasks should be seen in allowing a multitude of views on the foundations of the society to be heard and to render an exchange of ideas possible.
Today, after a number of eventful years have passed, the attention of the reader of this writing is again re-directed to events, which a not wholly noble sentiment in the interests of those from whom these events went out would much rather be forgotten. This however is not possible, because it is only from a truthful frame of mind in a curative cognitive soul mood that a response to the wounds inflicted can be made. It can hardly be doubted that the reappearance of such a response (published in the second edition of this publication that appeared years ago) is not caused by emotional motives, because of the time that has elapsed since then. Even if out of a feeling of shame one would rather remain silence about the events to be discussed, they may nevertheless not be overlooked, because, on the one hand, they pose a serious threat to the spiritual existence of a society bearing a general human responsibility and, on the other hand, they are typical of the symptoms that always emerge from the transition from old to new modes of behavior. Indeed, in this treatise it is not the point to accuse people, whose spiritual essence must remain untouched and does remain untouched if one characterizes out of knowledge the events (not the people). It is far removed from wanting to insult people personally by voicing criticism, for anyone who has made but a little cultural progress will feel called upon to offer those going astray a sense of gratitude. After all, from the subconscious depths of their being they choose an attitude, through which they make it easier for the unbiased observer to recognize for what he should be looking for than he would in many cases be able to do only by himself. Of course, this should not lead to excuse mistakes and mishaps and to underestimate the responsibility with which those saddle themselves whom one owes this kind of gratitude.
But again, what concerns the motions that in terms of form and content were struck by the blame of the alleged "unconstitutionality", this problem should have been handled by insight and dealt with jointly. Thinking about the relationship between the members of the society and the members of the Board is undoubtedly an assignment that the founders and designers of a free knowledge community will have to solve. This cannot, of course, be solved generally in the sense that members only exercise those rights allowed to them by the Board. But it is also no less clear that the members of the society cannot lay claim to those rights asserted only on the basis of the weight carried by a representative majority. It is undisputed that the internal living conditions of free communities, even specifically those in which rights are created (as opposed to those already existing) are tasks that can only be carried out with great care and a high degree of sensitivity. That those responsible at that time were helpless in the face of a completely new situation in which rights were not based on pre-formed considerations, but had to be created in consultation, and that they were reluctant to expose themselves to a new socially integrating mode of existence, for which there are no conventional examples and certainties, demands our understanding and sympathy. But just because of the significance of that unusual and unique situation, it should nevertheless not be overlooked and forgotten. Because it must be preserved for future founders of free communities, which as a goal for the distant future stand before our eyes as a warning to avoid mishaps and thereby serve as a guideline for taking the right direction. Otherwise, what happened and was experienced at that time would disappear without a trace instead of serving progress. Therefore, this new social and cultural mode of existence shall in what follows now be characterized.
Although, given the difficulty and the strangeness of the problem to be solved, it was at the given point of time understandable yet contradictory that, on the one hand, the submission of motions was rejected, because of the "coercion of the legal procedure", while on the other hand, the "unconstitutionality" of motions was simply decreed, with the approval of the majority, and made the basis of no-action motions - instead of tackling the problem at hand. For example, the problem might have been dealt with as the onlyor main subject at a later extraordinary members’ meeting under careful preparation with regard to the different viewpoints, by means of which an initial understanding of the problem could be gained that must precede any attempt to solve a problem. At the time, however, it was maintained, contrary to the "Principles" of the General Anthroposophical Society, that motions against the initiatives of the board at the Goetheanum were in principle (thus without regard to their content and context) incompatible with the constitution of the Free School. In addition, it was peculiar that the "coercion of the legal procedure" [3], which initially formed the theme of the social pedagogical warnings, was used as a means against members of the General Anthroposophical Society, i.e. of a society whose constitution assures its members extraordinary careful consideration under the society’s leadership. As already mentioned, the problem of filing motions will now be further discussed.
However, before going into details, some more general considerations are necessary.
The point of departure thereby will be the relative positive content of what often manifested itself however in a not so very positive manner. The far-reaching difficulties at the meeting concerned, on the one hand, the relationship between the members of the society to the School and the Board and, on the other hand, the mutual relations between the members of the Board itself. These were manifestations of divergent views about the essential nature of the anthroposophical work and the foundations of the society associated with this work. That these issues had to be addressed during one of the biggest annual festivals had its good reasons.[4] Because it is not diffilcult to understand Rudolf Steiner emphasizing that precisely during these times of the year our cognitive needs and abilities should turn to the afflictions which befall us and the world around us, and to seek out the meaning of festive celebrations primarily in probing the unexplained and unexplored, but in no way in a sentimental desire for harmony. That is precisely why anyone committed to the growth of a community with a vital interest in his associates will neither want to hold back his fully engaged understanding nor those concerns, the weight of which bears down on all those carrying responsibility in a modern community or are about to assume it, in view of the difficulties that hinder the free development of a life in a spiritual society. For such an understanding, it cannot be difficult to take part in the considerations that form the background of such concerns and neither will it deny that within such a growing society difficulties of the kind expressed in this publication are bound to occur.
1.2 On the Issue of Governing Bodies
One of the views that could be observed more clearly than was expressed as sentiment by many participants of the members' meeting could be characterized as follows:
"The society needs inner peace. This will unfold when as many people as possible work together to solidify its inner form and when from this peaceful cooperation , on the one hand, a feeling of comfort and security among the members arises. On the other hand, such a state of mind within the life of the society is also necessary, if it wants to gather the momentum that can lead the common will and action of the members to practical results inside and outside their own circle. With regard to such results, anyone speaking about the right method of working and the nature of the society and the Free School will be challenged to submit undeniable proof that it is not merely unfruitful philosophy. Far more important than talking about acting is action itself. After all, it comes down to two things: on the inner peace in the society and its fruitful activity in social life. Only what bears fruit is true [Goethe]. "
Nobody with any insight will object to this last sentence. However, it will only receive any content, if one makes known what is meant by fruitful and how the intended goals can be met. Because that depends on the way in which the inner strengthening is sought and what significance can be attributed to work in the social sector. In this regard, very divergent views can be developed, and those responsible should not fail to have a tolerant attitude and elastic insight in order to develop the willingness and ability to also clarify the unconventional in all its manifold peculiarities. This does in no way have to weaken one’s determination to act that distinguishes itself in particular from obstinacy and violence, in that while coping with manifold difficulties one has not only a number of clichés at hand, but is also able to acknowledge criticism as partially justified.
Among the many diverse notions in the Anthroposophical Society the idea has for some time now gained prominence which contends that the desired goal is only, or at least at best, to be achieved through the formation of a kind of elite. This selection process is thereby often not meant and carried out as an evolutionary result of an actual and spontaneous development of consciousness, but as the result of an institutional view and organization. It is namely believed that convincing arguments can be brought forward for the notion that the Anthroposophical Society has only a relatively small number of competent members capable of making valid judgments, partly because most members lack and must lack the precise and complete knowledge of events and relationships, and partly because also among those who may be privy to this knowledge the overview is usually missing that is necessary for a proper assessment of the issues regarding the tasks and interests of the society. That is why an elite should be charged with the leadership to make sustainable judgments about the affairs of the society, which also includes the power to make decision about the promotion or rejection of certain aspirations that wish to assert themselves within its sphere of competence. [5] For those who want to take action and especially have the ability to also carry out their intentions, there remains, independently thereof the free space that is created by their own initiative. Consequently, the prudent maintenance of this principle would be best suited to ensure the greatest possible unrestricted growth of inner work within the society. Only such an inner work peace would recall the lost magic mood of the time that Rudolf Steiner was still living with us, at least in part, and only this peace provides the most favorable living conditions for the accumulation of talents. This is the most healthy way to ensure that continually new personalities from the outskirts of the society grow into those governing bodies, which must build its core. Many similar thoughts could be added to this. But the outline of the thus indicated point of view may be sufficient to identify its presuppositions and consequences in its main characteristics, even without more thorough analysis.
However, a few more thoughts will be added here.
________________________
[5] The problem of the formation of elites is dealt with in detail in paragraph “9.3 On the Question of the Meetings of Delegates.”
1.3 "The Anthroposophical Society considers politics not to be part of its task."
The evident nature of these introductory remarks, which of course can be presented in many nuances, is something one can hardly contest. And almost anyone with any experience in self-examination will probably admit that it is these points of views that are the most obvious upon considering the situation in which the Anthroposophical Society finds itself (as well as any society that aspires to adopt world views). By reviewing all the possibilities that thereby come to mind with respect to the question of its organization, one is necessarily confronted with the indicated views in himself. One will therefore be prepared to accept them, if they are uttered by others with an air of authority as being completely plausible. And undoubtedly they have also the advantage of being the least pretentious of everything that is offered to someone reflecting on the matter under discussion. That they also come closest to the heart of the matter is not at all so certain. Certain at least, however, is that these viewpoints should be given precedence when one wants to form majorities, i.e. to become politically active. For to understand the most obvious thing seems for all, if not most people to be indeed the most obvious. And an activity motivated by the desire to win the support of a majority, i.e. a political activity, is, as is widely known and admitted, only possible, if that which is understandable for most, or at least relatively many people is built into a system of corresponding grades of intentions.
This does not mean at all that an activity that is completely averse to receiving such support and striving for such a success, but rather proceeds from the "efficacy of the idea" (Rudolf Steiner), cannot also gradually be spread out far and wide. Nor has it been said that under certain conditions a combination of both methods would not be possible. However, the question as to whether a peripheral or centrally oriented process of implementation, one that unites both viewpoints or one that transcends both of them is to be preferred cannot be answered by rejecting politics only with words. It all depends on what one does. Neither is it a matter of the outward appearance of a political action, but of the inner attitude with which one operates in a community. It is not sensible to only turn away out of antipathy from political activity or because one believes to be restricted by a prohibition or promise of some kind or because one rejects politics based on some vaguely formulated conviction. For this kind of activity can emerge from the most humane intentions. If one aspires something else, it is not sufficient to appeal thereby to good motives and already acquired considerable successes. The justification for non-political work must therefore be sought in deeper terms. This is why in the Anthroposophical Society the regulation (in § 4 of its "principles"): "It does not consider politics to be its task." is in force. In view of a series of incidents and odd statements, the question must be asked whether this article has really been understood. Because in view of the cognizant attitude of the consciousness soul (the fully conscious principle of civilization of our time) this article cannot exclude cooperation with politicians in the field of knowledge, and even less in the clarification of political problems. On the other hand, it stands in stark contrast to no small number of things undertaken both inside and outside the Anthroposophical Society. Perhaps it will be possible here to clarify some of these matters. Independently thereof, it does not seem unnecessary to draw attention to the fact that many who carry responsibility of very different sorts in the world undergo consciously or more or less subconsciously a kind of schooling that gives them a flair for the obvious and thereby a direct camaraderie with many or most of their fellow human beings. But neither should it be denied that those entering such a path to success are often moved by a sober sense of expediency, genuine goodwill and honest concern about the danger of fragmentation. As long as their proponents do not turn such views into dogma, and as long as they do not disavow the representatives of more dynamic ideas as dogmatists (while unconsciously or even derisively consciously disavowing their own dogmatism) it will not be all too difficult to come an understanding with them and to agree that in certain cases and under certain conditions that what is intended by them could be recognized as useful. Because modern social life requires a wide-ranging and tolerant state of mind for all aspirations borne out of convictions - even when they (in turn) come forward in a narrow-minded and intolerant way. It requires moral imagination and infinite inventiveness to seek opportunities for cooperation even in the most contrary of convictions, and to not even limit these efforts when their underlying conviction is disregarded. Even where one's own conviction is met with compulsion, where thus the attempts to come to an agreement are blocked by the opposing party, such an attitude still hopes for bridging the gap. However, it has an unshakable loyalty to its own insight. Where the freedom of each other is respected and each other's obligations are acknowledged, obligations that are freely accepted with respect to one’s own cognizant conscience, one will find common ground.
