Rudolf Steiner and the Anthroposophical Movement

Marc Desaules

In the spring and early summer of 2014, Marc Desaules – Treasurer and General Secretary of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society – spoke of his understanding of the Deed of Rudolf Steiner in regard to the conditions of membership of the School of Spiritual Science. Beginning of May he published an article in the Newsletter of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society, and on 16 May he spoke at Rudolf Steiner House, in London. Both commentaries are published here in one place, as they seem to belong together. The transcript of the London lecture was made by Kim Chotzen, and the editing of this edition is by Christopher Houghton Budd.

Being a Representative: The Only Condition?

Source: ‘Anthroposophie’ – Newsletter of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society, May 2014.

Over the last few years the Anthroposophical Society and the School of Spiritual Science have been striving anew to become more conscious and clearly contoured in their identity. This striving was echoed in the choice of the Theme for the Year, The Identity of the Anthroposophical Society, and taken further in the organisation of the Michael Conference in 2012. There were quite practical consequences: the leadership organs were characterised more precisely, reporting and lines of accountability were reformed, and the statutes were adjusted accordingly. And in February the invitation to a series of three discussions at the Goetheanum was issued, the subject being a set of questions aimed at intensifying and further developing the life of the School of Spiritual Science. At the first meeting on March 25th , the focus was on “being a representative” (Representant sein).

The life of the anthroposophical matter (Anthroposophische Sache) is shaped by the double nature of the Society and the School, two social-spiritual spaces that belong to each other, and affect each other. Their form and tasks are openly characterised in general, and described in detail, in the founding statutes of the Christmas Conference, 1923.

As far as life is concerned, much depends on how the threshold between the two ‘spaces’ is formed, and what crossing this threshold demands of one. Here we will endeavour to shine a light on the transition from Society to School, because this has quite a decisive effect on the life of the anthroposophical matter and thus influences the future of the anthroposophical movement. This transition is determined by the conditions for membership of the School. So what are these?

First of all there is a pre-condition, which is already mentioned in the Founding Statutes. The School “will consist of Classes. Upon application, members of the Society can be accepted into these clases when they have been members for a period determined by the Goetheanum Leadership.” So in the first place, one can become a member of the School via membership of the Society, but only when one has been a member for at least two years, as was decided at the time.

There are also commitments bound up with membership of the School – such as loyalty to the Goetheanum, or the manner of working with the contents. These are some of the consequences. But what are the actual conditions that determine acceptance into the School, that mark the threshold between the Society and School, or in other words, the threshold between the two ‘spiritual spaces.’ Since 2002, three conditions are referred to in varying formulations. In the blue handbook for example:

“Leading a meditative life, having the will to know and change oneself; having the will to work with others in initiatives and in knowledge; having the will to represent Anthroposophy in life.” In the “Wochenschrift: “[...] to lead a meditative life, to live in keeping with and be a representative of the anthroposophical matter”, or on the Homepage of the School: “Conditions of membership of the School are [...] one’s own meditative practice, the readiness to work together and a commitment to Anthroposophy, and to being its representative.” or on the Homepage of the School: “Conditions of membership of the School are [...] one’s own meditative practice, the readiness to work together and a commitment to Anthroposophy, and to being its representative.”

Since then, these three conditions are taken to describe the threshold explicitly, and are also used worldwide by those responsible in the conversations with those seeking admittance to the School. The life of the School of Spiritual Science is clearly shaped by these conditions, as is, equally, that of the Anthroposophical Society. In the context of the current focus on and development of thinking, the question is whether these conditions correspond to the Founding Impulse of the Christmas Conference of 1923, and whether, as a consequence, the contemporary development of the anthroposophical movement is helped or hindered by them.

Meditative Practice as a Condition?

Before I consider this condition, it is important to note the significance of inner work and of individual striving for anthroposophical spiritual scientific knowledge. These two are intimately bound up with the Christmas Conference. The Foundation Stone Verse itself exhorts us powerfully to practise: “Spirit Recollection... Contemplation... Beholding.” And Rudolf Steiner draws attention to the particular rhythms that will allow a deepened relationship to the World Words of the Foundation Stone Meditation. On the third day of the Founding conference he added:

“You will find, my dear friends, that when you pay attention to the inner rhythms lying in these verses, when you experience these rhythms in your soul and enter into the corresponding meditation, that is to say the peaceful thoughtful contemplation within yourself, then these verses are to be experienced as the expression of world (cosmic) mysteries, in so far as these cosmic mysteries arise in the human soul as human self- knowledge.”

In this way, Rudolf Steiner drew attention to the inner work – and once again the character of his words is noteworthy: he spoke quite gently, leaving listeners free, openly describing what he meant by meditation so that nothing remained hidden, and doing so – this is the decisive point – completely without any demand or condition. In this way, it becomes very clear that the inner work is to be considered as an utterly inviolable activity of the free human being.

Despite the most careful research, I have yet to find any clues indicating that this meditative practice might be a condition – not even through conversations with diverse friends. Not in the records pertaining to the Christmas Conference itself, nor in those relating to the formation of the School up until September 1924; neither in lectures and written documents nor in the Class Lessons is the meditative practice referred to as a condition of admittance.

Something I did become aware of in the course of this research which does have significant bearing on the question, is a side comment Rudolf Steiner made as he answered a question on the form of the School in December 1923:

“The members of the different classes will be scattered all over the place – they will be members, for their pupilship is their entirely private affair, but they will be members – they will be spread out everywhere.”

Here the point is made how little being a pupil – in which concept I include meditation – has to do with the School itself.

It has been said to me that Rudolf Steiner had asked various people: “Are you accustomed to meditating?” This may be the case, but the question can scarcely have been meant as a condition for membership of the School; there is not a single comment to this effect in his many words on the subject, so that it can only have been a matter of individual conversations of an entirely personal nature.

Considered from all these perspectives it becomes clear that – although the inner path had great importance for Rudolf Steiner – it was in no way ever set as a condition for entry into the School. It is therefore noteworthy that meditative practice has become a condition.

I can see a possible explanation in the dedicated and loving continuation of traditional ways that were customary prior to the Christmas Conference. The fact that the minutes and the lectures relating to the Christmas Conference 1923 and the forming of the School in 1924, were first published in 1944/45 – more than twenty years later – makes this understandable. We are all aware, however – and this is part of the picture – that it was precisely these traditional ways that led to the desolate condition of the Society in the early 1920s, and also to the burning of the First Goetheanum.

Could it be that these traditional ways, at least to some degree, are still holding sway: A School membership which understands itself above all to be a pupilship, but thereby holds the School itself hostage for its own purposes, sliding into a state of self-focus, and losing sight of its role in relation to the needs of the world?

‘Maintain Connection’ as a Condition?

Similarly Rudolf Steiner makes no mention, in the context of School membership, of “maintaining connection” as a condition. In other contexts he writes of those members “who wish to be active in the Anthroposophical Society.” Here he formulates the duties for such members, where something in the manner of a second condition can be found in:

“Such individuals must become clear as to the general spiritual situation of people today. They must have a clear picture of the tasks of Anthroposophy. They will, as much as possible, maintain connection with other active members of the Society. For such individuals it must be well-nigh impossible to say: It does not interest me if Anthroposophy and her bearers are painted in a false light or even slandered by opponents.”

Could it be, therefore, that the concept of members ‘who wish to be active’ refers to School members? A precise analysis leaves this hypothesis looking unlikely, however. On the one hand, the frame for these activities is clearly defined as being within the Society, and on the other hand, no relationship to the School is either directly stated or implied through the context. And if indeed the aforementioned quotation were to be compellingly understood as a condition for School membership, then it remains inexplicable why the other three duties receive no mention.

There is something to be said for understanding this description of those ‘who wish to be active’ within the Society, where one’s duties are still formulated and prescribed from outside so to speak, as a kind of preliminary schooling for the School. But with the step of becoming a member of the School, these duties are replaced by the sole condition of “Willing to be a representative”, a condition set inwardly – ‘I’ imbued, freely determined and enacted.

‘Being a Representative’ as the sole Condition!

The word Representative first appears in Rudolf Steiner’s work after the Christmas Conference in January 1924, closely tied to the formation of the School of Spiritual Science, and always emphatically stated as a condition – expressed in such terms as – ‘The wish to be a representative of the anthroposophical matter.’ Rudolf Steiner does speak or write of conditions (that is, in the plural), but he only explicitly formulates this one. It occurs over and over with a variety of nuances, be it in lectures, in written missives, as the introduction or closing of a Class Lesson. Here are a few spoken examples:

“But the School of Spiritual Science should consist of people who thoroughly consider themselves to be representatives of the anthroposophical matter”, or: “It must be possible that the Leadership of the School of Spiritual Science can say to the one or the other who do not find their way to be representative of the anthroposophical matter: you are of course welcome in the Anthroposophical Society, but unfortunately you cannot be a member of the Class.” And written in the Newsletter: “What matters above all is that Class Members really declare themselves willing to be representatives for the care of Anthroposophy in the world.”

Such comments can be found in the lecture of January 30th 1924, in the Newsletter of the 3rd and 10th of February, in lectures on March 29th in Prague, July 18th in Arnhem, August 12th in Torquay, and August 24th in London, but also in the context of nine Class Lessons (held in three different places). Overall the formulations are similar, and all linked with ‘Being a Representative’.

Earnestness is repeatedly mentioned, especially in the introduction to the Class Lessons, along with the ensuing commitment to “Loyalty to the School, to the Executive or to the Leadership of the Goetheanum.” In this way a member of the School of Spiritual Science becomes a partner in a free contractual relationship, which comes into existence between the individual and the Leadership, through the individual’s ‘Being Representative’:

“Those who wish to be a member of the School must also be a real representative of the anthroposophical matter in the world. Do not look on this as an infringement of human freedom. The freedom must be mutual. The individual, who becomes a member of the School, is a free individual, but the leadership must also be free.”

Here Rudolf Steiner demonstrates again just how respectfully he worked with freedom; whenever he set an absolute demand, he also explained why it was justified.

In summary, with all of this in mind, it can be seen that ‘The wish to be a representative of the anthroposophical matter’, stands as the one single clearly formulated condition in the founding impulse of the School. That being the case, in the future should this not be applied as the only valid condition?

Were it to be so, this would represent a marked shift of emphasis, whereby too the quality of the work within and coming out of the School would be fundamentally re-invigorated. Particularly today, in a time when there is a striving for the intensification and further development of the life of the School of Spiritual Science, this question needs, I believe, to be considered seriously.

Are we ready to take this leap into the unknown? Or, to put it differently, to enable the Christmas Conference to be renewed here and now, and in this way?