September 28, 2007 @ 2:53 pm | Filed under: Waldorf
UPDATED JULY 2008:
Some readers have noticed that my Waldorf-related posts no longer appear in my archives, except for this one. That is because the discussion in the comments below brought to my attention a Vatican document which expressly disallows the reading of materials published by theosophical (and by extension, anthroposophical) sources. (Here is a link to the comment that addresses this, and additional info here.) While I was always careful to hedge my Waldorf-inspired posts with caveats about my serious concerns about anthroposophy, careful consideration of the matter following this discussion caused me to change my position. I am no longer comfortable recommending Waldorf-related materials, even with caveats. The elements of Waldorf that I found so inspiring—the gentle rhythms; the emphasis on art, handwork, storytelling, and singing; the delight in nature; and so forth—are certainly not ideas or activities exclusive to Waldorf. I continue to embrace and enjoy those elements with my children, but I no longer draw upon Waldorf materials for inspiration in those areas. I do not wish to offend anyone who holds different views on this subject, but as a Catholic I felt my course, in light of the papal document, was very clear.
I also gave serious consideration to this remark by Alice, made in reference to the second quote linked above:
This makes me recognize that there may be a potential problem in letting children become accustomed to an environment noticeably inspired by or reflective of anthroposophy. Waldorf materials are beautiful and attractive, and I may use them without buying into Steiner’s philosophy, but if I nurture my children in the midst of a pervasive Waldorf atmosphere, is there a chance I may be priming the pump for them to feel comfortable in a New Age environment as adults? Will New Age remind them of home?
Even without the papal quote, that insight would have given me cause to rethink the wisdom of having Waldorf materials, no matter how lovely, in my home.
I would be happy to address any questions or concerns readers may have.
(A bit of background for newcomers: the following conversation began with this discussion about Waldorf education at 4RealLearning, a Catholic homeschooling forum. The discussion grew heated, and the moderators closed the topic. Because some serious and legitimate questions had been raised, and because I—though not a participant in that particular thread—had been one of the most enthusiastic posters both on the forum and on my blog about Waldorf-inspired resources, I felt a responsibility to provide a space for the conversation to continue. Hence this open thread, which originally appearing at my ClubMom blog, The Lilting House. When ClubMom discontinued its “MomBlogs” program, The Lilting House and all the other ClubMom blogs were taken down. I moved the entire Lilting House archive to this site—except for my long series of Waldorf posts.)
WALDORF OPEN THREAD, OCTOBER 2007
(The discussion occurs in the comments below.)
Subscribe to the comments in a reader.
Lissa, this is so very generous of you!!
Posted on September 28th, 2007 at 4:51 pmLissa,
Thanks for doing this! Based on what I know, I have no problem with Catholics adapting Waldorf-inspired ideas and resources for use in the Catholic home. My first question might be plain old ignorance: I have heard it said that anthroposophy views the child as an unblemished creature who needs to be treated with extreme care and reverence; in other words–Original Sin does not exist. If this is accurate, what problems does it pose for the overall pedagogy? I would think that in matters of discipline this would be a big concern. Are we teaching the child or preserving the child? Training in virtue or shielding from the harmful effects of the world? Charlotte Mason had a more exalted view of children than most of her time period. Does Waldorf take it too far? Can this foundational belief really be sifted out? (And does this question make any sense?)
Thanks! I look forward to hearing from you and others and reading other questions as they come up.
Susan
Posted on September 28th, 2007 at 5:11 pmLissa-When I first starting reading more Waldorf resources, I was a little turned off by how over-the-top some ideas were and the new-age feel of things. I’m glad I persisted in mulling things over though and Waldorf-inspired ideas have really blessed our home. Can you give us all an idea of when your “red flag” goes up so to speak, and how you decide what resources are worth weeding through and what you would put down and walk away from? Also, maybe a bit of clarification (this from the 4real discussion) about the idea of copyrighted work and the use of the term Waldorf vs. gleaning the ideas and lumping them in with the Real Learning philosophy? Hope I’m making sense, just trying to get the discussion started again.
Posted on September 28th, 2007 at 6:33 pmAn interesting thought is that here in America no one would be shy of Montessori as a Catholic educational philosophy, though from what I have read Maria Montessori’s faith played a large role in her understanding of the child. Perhaps as homeschoolers we have a chance to do to Waldorf what others have done to Montessori, that is, take the parts that can be secularized and learn what we can from them and put aside the parts that disagree with our religion. Educationally, Montessori and Waldorf are in many ways worlds apart, but in our modern day of cheap (possibly toxic) toys and mass media both share a refreshing detachment from these things, both seem more geared to the true educational needs of the child than to turning the child into a cog in our working world or just cramming his head for a standardized test.
I don’t happen to get into fairies as a teaching method, not that I think there is anything wrong with it, I just don’t have that creative a brain so the more concrete sides of Montessori really appeal to me. However, I love the Waldorf ideas of the rhythm of the year, of using highest quality art supplies even for very young children and for supplying lots of sensory opportunities.
Also, in both Montessori and Waldorf, the children are given a chance to do lots of what we adults think of as work, whether you want to call it “practical life” or some other name, preparing your own meal, thoughtfully laying the table and sharing that meal with others, working in a garden and getting to know nature in a hands-on way, my children thrive when they are legitimately allowed and encouraged to be contributing members of the family, and if one child does have the sort of mind that will remember to clean up because of the messy gnome, I say, whatever works!
As Catholics, we are called to look for truth and beauty where it can be found, and the Church has officially recognized that there are aspects of the truth in other religions and philosophies, but that we alone have the fullness of truth in Jesus Christ.
You might learn a lot from, say, the homeschooling mother of a large Baptist family about cheerful service, about obediance to Christ, about home organization, whatever are her particular strengths. In that, you would have to filter out whatever is not true that comes across, and I would say that it is important to know oneself and ones children well before exposing them to things that are outside of the fullness of truth. If you had a child who was, for example, at risk of losing himself in a fantasy world, I would shy away from much fairy play, etc.
Also, keep in mind that probably few of the children who attend Waldorf schools in this country come from families who are practicing anthrosophists, the just like the spirit of the school, sort of like people who take Yoga for exercise or relaxation. (I do think with Yoga, as with the rest of these, there are more secularized versions and more relgious ones, and I would have a red flag, with, say, an easily confused teen who might be led too far into a teacher’s philosophy, but my high school dance teacher who incorporated yoga moves for stretch a relaxation was, as far as I know, a practicing Jew).
Just my two cents, I’ll be interested to hear what others have to say.
Posted on September 28th, 2007 at 7:35 pmLissa,
First of all, I want to thank you for doing this! There are few things more frustrating than being told that you are not allowed to speak anymore on a “public forum”.
To sum up my thoughts from that 4real thread:
I have no problem with well-formed Catholics gleaning whatever good they find in the Waldorf method, but I do not feel it is wise to “promote” Waldorf materials without having a firm grasp on what Anthroposophy is and giving very clear warnings about what to avoid.
I would further say that, while I don’t condemn Catholics for exploring Waldorf methodology, I don’t exactly see what the attraction is. From what I understand, the followers of this method like the idea of having a rhythm to their days, focusing on a lot of art and nature, telling stories, singing songs, respecting the child, etc…to me there is nothing extraordinary there. I find all those elements in CM and other, more acceptable, philosophies and curriculi. The only thing Waldorf seems to be unique in is the emphasis on fairies and gnomes, and the use of beeswax!
Posted on September 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pmAm I oversimplifying?!
Where I think I went wrong on that thread is that I mentally likened it to visiting with a bunch of Catholic friends in a living room and discussing the things we like about Waldorf, assuming that all of the people in the room had an understanding that no one was interested in anthroposophy one iota. I took issue with Jane wanting a warning because I thought it was unnecessary if everyone in the “room” was on the same page. Now, I realize, that perhaps everyone was not on the same page and that there were some people in the room who were just beginning to look into Waldorf ideas and, subsequently, could be swayed by anthroposophy.
Honestly, I don’t know much of anything about the religion/philosophy behind it because I am not personally interested Steiner or his odd thoughts. Anytime I have read a Waldorf book and found something objectionable, I skipped it (and mentally said blahblahblah) until I was back to a point in the book that I considered useful.
Sorry again to Jane for being harsh and for initially not seeing a reason to post a warning. I know your concern was that someone might become confused about their own faith. I do wish we had all been sitting in a living room because much of the disagreeing on that thread could probably have been avoided.
I do wish there was another term for the gentle rhythms, focus on art, natural toys, love of nature, etc. other than “waldorf”. Anyone care to coin a term for those of us who love the materials and ideas but avoid the philosophy behind it?
Thanks Lissa, for continuing the conversation here.
Posted on September 28th, 2007 at 8:52 pmI didn’t see the 4Real discussion, and I’m not Catholic (yet!) but that never stopped me barging into a conversation before
I too don’t like or agree with the philosophy behind Waldorf. And something about Rudolf Steiner creeps me out a bit. But I’m like City Mom - I do find much love, wisdom and beauty in many Waldorf practices, and it is these I gather into my mothering basket. I hope my own faith is strong enough - or my common sense strong enough! - that I can separate the good from the “nonsense”. It just so happens that so many things I love can be found under a Waldorf banner - which provides me with the convenience of a central location (and a good place to go shopping for silks). I would never send my child to a Waldorf school.
I would say that Jane is oversimplifying what Waldorf is about, because the mainstay of the method is that the child is taught certain things in accordance with their chronological and spiritual development (a philosophy I don’t agree with myself). That is what holds it apart so distinctly from Montessori or CM.
Lissa, if its okay to ask, I would be interested to know how much actual Steiner pedagogy you use in your homeschool, as opposed to parenting methods, craftwork, and psychological care (and home decoration, lol!) I think many homeschoolers who draw on Waldorf, myself included, tend to use it like ribbons woven through their parenting and teaching, to soften and beautify them - rather than at the core.
Sorry for the length of this comment.
Posted on September 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pmThanks Lissa for opening this thread.
I DO think weaving certain aspects of Waldorf elements to be compatible with a Catholic education. Perhaps I missed it but I haven’t really seen anyone suggest otherwise. Correct me if I am wrong but I didn’t think Jane was saying that there is nothing of value to be found there or that what was of value couldn’t be useful. Though she does make the very valid point that the things that many are drawn to aren’t specifically unique to Waldorf. They may be in the way they are understood and presented - but not in and of themselves.
What I did see however was concern for the promotion of a method of education whose philosophical underpinning are clearly not Christian and a sincere question about personal responsibility. I for one would really like to see that issued discussed in greater depth.
Honestly, what responsibility, if any, do we incur when we “go public” and share (whether through a blog, forum, book, whatever) the details of our life, how we choose to educate our children, what our thoughts/beliefs are on education, parenting, life. . .
Can we really claim that we are simply sharing what WE do and further claim not to hold responsibility towards those who read what we write and are in fact influenced by it?
I’d really like to hear other’s thoughts on this.
Posted on September 28th, 2007 at 11:01 pmI’ve been thinking about a “new term” for the things we like about Waldorf, Real Learning, Montessori, etc…while it isn’t “catchy” I think “Nature and Nurture” really sums up a lot of what I want to keep about those philosophies of teaching/learning. Nature: daily, seasonal, and liturgical rhythms; beautiful and natural crafts; nature studies, etc… Nurture: the importance of our faith, the importance of family/relationships…
I have more to say but little Mr. Baby Boy has decided to make his presence loudly known in my ear!
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 6:47 amBoy, there are some good questions here. Listen, anyone who wishes to chime in with answers, by all means do so! This isn’t just about what *I* think, of course!
I’m trying to figure out the best way to manage the technical aspect of this discussion? All Q & A here in the comments, do you think? Or I could start a thread (post) for each question or group of related questions. I want the discussion to be able to range freely for each topic.
I guess for now I’ll work in the comments, and if it gets unwieldy we’ll move to separate posts.
Thanks again, everyone!
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 9:55 amI am afraid to comment, but I am going to anyway. In response to Michele Q’s question…”Honestly, what responsibility, if any, do we incur when we “go public” and share (whether through a blog, forum, book, whatever)”…this is just my tiny little opinion. But if you are selling a book (which is different than just having a blog, IMO) than you are already putting yourself out there publicly in way that others aren’t. You are saying, “Hey, listen to me, I have something to tell you about.” - and then selling them that information. I am assuming that it takes a lot of work to write/publish a book. So if you are willing to go through that, you must feel that you have something to share with others. Others are going to feel you must have something worthwhile to say, because you have a published book. And if you are doing that, maybe you aren’t asking directly for others to look up to you, or see you as a role model. But does that really relieve you of the responsibility of the actuality of the situation? I just don’t know. I think it is strange to be surprised by it. Maybe it isn’t fair to place that responsibility on someone, but it is normal for others to do so, especially if they see them as having a form of “authority” - and a published book could be seen as that authority. Simply having had the book published validates the ideas inside it as being worthwhile, and the author as someone whose opinions you can trust/respect. So other opinions by the trusted author may also carry a certain amount of weight, whether the author asked for it or not. Does this sound snarky? I don’t mean it to. I have just had these thoughts swirling around in my head for a few days now, and I am sure I am doing a terrible job at getting across what I am trying to say.
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 9:59 amCitymom, I couldn’t have said it better myself!! Thank you for your very insightful views. I lean heavily on the Montessori-ish ideals you mentioned above and not at all on the Waldorf, but I do think your perspective for both methods and how Americans tend to view them are right on. And I do believe that if we were to walk into any European or other foreign school with these teaching methods going on, it would be VASTLY different than what we are doing here, they just have such a different way of looking at education as a whole than we do here in the US. Thanks for the discussion here Lissa, :)Blessings!
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 10:07 amBTW, I have turned off captcha for this discussion. We’ll all go mad typing in those stupid little letters!
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 10:27 amI have heard (read) it said many times this past week that the aspects of Waldorf can be found in any other method or philosophy. From my own experience, I disagree. Yes, other methods have art and nature but they are a separate entity. I am thinking more of Charlotte Mason and classical here when I say that art and nature are based on observation. There is picture study and nature study through sketching. There is little interaction in these areas. At least there wasn’t when I was doing CM. There were all of the other subjects to get done that I didn’t have time to do any actual art activites.
With Waldorf, there is interaction. Art and nature are implemented in the subjects like math, language arts, etc. They aren’t a separate subject.
Another thing that separates Waldorf from other methods is the healing aspect of it. My family is going through a really rough time right now. My children are emotionally hurting. To be able to express their pain through painting, modelling, even in doing hands on things with nature has benefited them a great deal. I have done every hs method known to man and their hasn’t been one that has nurtured and ministerd to my children’s emotional needs like Waldorf has.
In using these Waldorf elements, our family is able to praise God for the beauty, truth and goodness that He has given us through His world. I’m sure that other methods do this for other families, but for our family it is Waldorf that does this for us.
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 10:39 amJulia,
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pmCould you explain what you mean by “interacting” with nature?
My children and I go on lots of nature walks. They climb tress, pick flowers, collect pine cones and acorns, etc. All of this, I feel, is a large part of a CM education for young children.
I know that she talked about
“observation” of nature for training in science, but for young children, I think she really stressed just being outside and, as you say “interacting” with nature.
So I guess what I’m saying is I don’t see that as being uniquely Waldorfian, unless I’m not getting the concept of “interacting”.
Jane, as I said in my original post, other families using CM may be able to do the ‘interacting with nature’ thing. But it wasn’t working for my family. We never had the time to do it. Also, I guess I am not creative enough because it never ocurred to me to make acorn necklaces, pinecone people or wreaths out of the treasures that we found. I got these ideas from perusing Waldorf sites. This is what I mean by interacting.
Also, nature is used for our math lessons. We use pine cones for various math activities. Call me blonde, but it never entered my head to use these kind of manipulatives for math.
Obviously you are already doing this, so yay for you. ( that is said sincerely ) But it wasn’t happening for me and my family. For some reason it is now, now that we are using some parts of Waldorf.
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 1:06 pmThanks, Julia. I see what you’re saying now–that Waldorf gives you ideas of what to do with all the nature “stuff” they collect.
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 2:13 pmSo maybe a book on “nature crafts” would be a good substitute–for those who don’t want to delve into Waldorf materials?
I’ll start with this one. Colleen asked:
Also, maybe a bit of clarification (this from the 4real discussion) about the idea of copyrighted work and the use of the term Waldorf vs. gleaning the ideas and lumping them in with the Real Learning philosophy?
I can’t speak to how Waldorf ideas mesh w/ the Real Learning philosophy, because I’m not sure how to define RL. But as to the copyright question, I believe in erring on the side of caution when it comes to giving credit for where ideas come from. If I read a great idea in, for example, a Donna Simmons book, I feel honor-bound to acknowledge the source, just as I would hope to be acknowledged as the source of my own work.
So for me, it boils down to where I read about something, or whose words first set me to mulling on a subject or exploring a path. I credit Drew Campbell’s book for convincing me that Latin was a subject worth studying, I credit the old PUO site (now Ambleside) and Karen Andreola’s book for introducing me to Charlotte Mason’s writings, and I credit the Waldorf folks for inspiring me to make a consistent effort to fill our days with painting, baking, handcrafts and such. Even though CM also emphasizes handcrafts, her approach is drier, almost clinical–certainly not as inspiring to the imagination as the beautiful pictures that jumped out at me from Natural Baby and Magic Cabin all those years ago!
(And actually, I was hooked on Waldorf-style crafts years before I ever heard about Charlotte Mason, thanks to the Natural Baby catalog.)
I can’t imagine writing about the Waldorfian arts and crafts that have brought my family such joy (nor the reminders to be mindful of rhythm and reverence) without crediting the source: while perhaps it is not an outright copyright violation, it is still a form of theft, the “stealing” of intellectual property.
However, in the case of something like Waldorf which is based on a belief system DRAMATICALLY different from my own (indeed, in conflict with it in many places), I have felt a serious obligation to include caveats and disclaimers on any recommendations I make. I think of it as a “full disclosure” policy.
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pmJane wrote: “What’s the attraction to Waldorf for non-anthroposophists? “From what I understand, the followers of this method like the idea of having a rhythm to their days, focusing on a lot of art and nature, telling stories, singing songs, respecting the child, etc…to me there is nothing extraordinary there. I find all those elements in CM and other, more acceptable, philosophies and curriculi. The only thing Waldorf seems to be unique in is the emphasis on fairies and gnomes, and the use of beeswax!
Am I oversimplifying?! :-)”
Jane, Alice asked me this very question even before the Waldorf thread blew up on 4Real. I was telling her about the surge of Waldorf-inspired posts over there, and she asked virtually the same question you have posed here.
I found it interesting that I fumbled a bit in framing my answer–it took me a while to articulate the difference, even in my own thoughts.
One reason for the difficulty of answering is that it requires imagining where I might have encountered those ideas if NOT for Waldorf. When I think back over all the books I have read (and reading educational philosophy is chief among my hobbies!), I am not coming up with any non-Waldorf titles that convey the same ideas and sense of wonder. I find so much of value in Charlotte Mason (as anyone who knows me knows all too well!), but I have also been genuinely blessed by the vision of childhood I saw presented in the various Waldorf-related materials. Since I was reading this material from the time my oldest child was a baby, I can’t separate out the strands to know what our family life would have been like without it. The toys they play with, the dolls I’ve made them, the silks and capes and fairy wings, the smell of beeswax, the collections of leaves and acorns on top of the little bookcase where the tomten dolls live—yes, all of those things exist independently of Waldorf, but it was Waldorf resources that brought them to my awareness, so it would be impossible (and less than honest) for me to write about them without mentioning the source.
And of course it goes deeper than the toys and crafts; there is also the impact on my understanding of motherhood. The gentleness, the attempt to create a peaceful, orderly home where mom and children work alongside one another joyfully, the reverence in attention to small details–these concepts, too, can certainly be found in non-Waldorf sources; but the reality of my history is that *I* first encountered them in Waldorf resources, and so, again, to discuss those ideas without reference to their origin would feel disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
Charlotte Mason’s HOME EDUCATION comes close, in some respects, to shaping early childhood with the same gentleness and nature-steeped, joyful atmosphere as that described in Waldorf materials; but there are differences. She focuses far less attention on the running of the home, perhaps out of an assumption that the mother will have household help.
In the writings of attachment-parenting advocates you find much crossover with Waldorf parenting ideals (and indeed, there is much in the Waldorf vision that I don’t gibe with, since I reject that whole notion of the soul taking years to fully “incarnate” into the body and so forth), but all the attachment parenting materials I have seen are either very baby-focused (nuts and bolts of babywearing, breastfeeding, etc–very very useful to me when I was a new mom! God bless Dr Sears!) or, quite often, connected to Waldorf.
I’m still trying to think of substitute resources that would leave Waldorf entirely out of the picture. If something comes to me I’ll post it.
But I guess my simplest answer to your question is that I haven’t yet seen writings that discuss the whole package–the head/hands/heart concept that I have found so very, very useful on practically a daily basis (the Clarksons hit on something similar in Wholehearted Child), the emphasis on creating comfortable family rhythms (and mom’s deliberate, mindful cultivation of an atmosphere of peace, order, warmth, wonder, reverence, and joy), emphasis on handcrafts, drawing, painting, singing, baking, sculpting, emphasis on playing with natural objects and materials rather than plastic mass-produced toys, emphasis on nature walks and bringing nature into the home, emphasis on family feasts and festivals, emphasis on storytelling (an aspect that especially resonates with me), and the concept of themed blocks of study.
Every one of the items in that list has been written about elsewhere, by non-Waldorf writers. But I haven’t seen them all together anywhere but in Waldorf. Which isn’t to say that one MUST be into Waldorf to find edifying & inspiring writings on these subjects. You just don’t find them in one place. At least, I haven’t. If such books exist, I would LOVE to know about them!
However, my caveats and concerns about Waldorf are many, and I have tried always to be frank and informative on that subject. The 4Real thread makes me re-examine the matter; perhaps I assume too much. For me it has been easy to tease out what I find good and useful in Waldorf materials and ignore the underlying philosophy. I’ve read a good bit of Steiner and let’s just say I am not a fan.
What this conversation has made me realize is that even more transparency is necessary. Every element of the Waldorf curriculum (and for what it’s worth, I have written about this numerous times, but perhaps never in enough depth) is there because of Steiner’s beliefs about human development. I might enjoy the surface practices (telling stories, painting, knitting, etc), but I, as a Catholic, reject the underlying reasons those practices appear when and how they do in the Waldorf curriculum. That’s why I am not a “Waldorf homeschooler.”
(Well, that and other reasons–even if anthroposophy did not inform the curriculum, I would diverge from it in other areas. We are a bookish family.)
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 3:01 pmJulia, I had a hard time scheduling in the nature and crafts as well, mainly because my emphasis was soley on academics alone in the past. I have always used Montessori materials with my littles but when they got to kindergarten age, I went with a classical/CM course. They did their work but it was quite dry, especially in the early years when I felt learning should be fun and more imaginative.
While I appreciated nature study, art and handcrafts, I did not SCHEDULE IN time for these on a daily basis, nor did I think that they were equally as important as traditional academic subjects. I do now. I guess my thought in the past was that when we were done with the rest, I would hopefully get to the “extras”. Reading some of the Waldorf books inspired me to make time for these things daily, not by necessarily giving an hour to art but that art could be infused with math or science to create beautiful main lesson books. The ML books are a joy to look at but also have helped the children learn what they need to know in an interesting manner . That was something I had never considered before reading the Waldorf books.
Jane, I should think, if one is interested in soley the nature crafts part of what Waldorf teaches, a nature craft book would be a good place to get some ideas. It really is the combination of the many areas that have been mentioned (daily handcrafts, drawing, painting, a much slower pace, spending more time outside, doing things in lesson book format, etc.) that, in a combined manner were attractive to me. I suppose I could have purchased or borrowed a book on each one but instead took a different route and looked to Waldorf for some ideas.
I am enjoying the conversation here.
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 3:26 pmWow, amazing reply! Your thinking and home life sounds similar to my own (except I only have one child, and I suspect I’m a whole lot less peaceful and orderly, lol!)
I’d like to comment that I personally believe the reason it *isn’t* the same to gather these different ideas and activities from various resources is because, with Waldorf, they have developed organically, in community, to create a whole philosophy and lifestyle. Because of this, there is more internal consistency than you would get from taking a peck from here and there. And there is a community to support you. There are Steiner school fairs. There are Waldorf homeschooling co-ops and webrings. There are people on the same basic wavelength, gathered together in one easy-to-find group - and alot of them don’t like anthroposophy either! And there are books which don’t just give you ideas for crafty things to do, but explain WHY you are doing them, based on a central belief about childhood.
For me, its also the same principle when it comes to how Waldorf teachers imbue their lessons with a deep relationship to nature. It’s MORE than just climbing trees, making acorn dolls, using pinecones as maths manipulatives. Those are bits of things. The Waldorf teachers don’t just do nature activities. The human connection with the natural world breathes through everything they teach.
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pmColleen asked,
Can you give us all an idea of when your “red flag” goes up so to speak, and how you decide what resources are worth weeding through and what you would put down and walk away from?
***
This goes along with Jane’s question. My red flags are informed by Catholicism. If it’s in the CCC, I’m on board.
So when reading one of Donna Simmons’s lovely works, for example, I look at both what she is recommending and *why* she is recommending it. Many of her suggestions are borne of her belief in reincarnation and in the idea that it takes the human soul roughly seven years (until the “change of teeth”) to fully “incarnate” or settle into the body. I don’t believe those things. I believe the soul is fully present in the body from the moment of conception. So when Donna speaks of having first graders (seven yr olds) play lots of clapping and movement games to help with the transition to a fully incarnated state of being, I mentally reject the incarnation stuff and ask myself whether I see other good and valid reasons for initiating clapping and movement games with my first grader. And yes, I do! Such as: she loves them. 
Another example: form drawing. Waldorf adherents have much to say about the “spiritual reasons” for teaching form drawing. Those reasons are not mine. I do not therefore feel any sense of necessity for sticking to the script, as it were, with teaching form drawing a certain way and certain times. But I do think it can be fun and satisfying to draw intricate patterns and borders (like Celtic knots and such–also useful in embroidery and other arts), so I have used form drawing resources as a source of ideas when one of the kids wanted a pattern for a border or something.
I guess what I do is separate the what from the why. My ‘why’ is very, very different from the Waldorf ‘why.’ The ‘what’ has provided many joyful moments here, though.
As far as Steiner’s work goes, I have to say I see red flags in almost every sentence. His belief system is most emphatically not mine. I read some of his books to educate myself, but they made me most uneasy.
Most of the Waldorf resources I like are craft books, cookbooks, and unit study (main lesson) materials–the latter have been extremely useful! I found much of interest in Beyond the Rainbow Bridge (though again there were aspects I rejected as out of keeping with my religion). The most useful materials by far, though, have been Donna Simmons’s books and downloads–and one thing I appreciate about her work is that she is right up front about her anthroposophist beliefs, which makes it very, very easy for me to sift out what is useful and what I don’t hold with.
I do think it’s important to know WHY certain ideas are presented in a Waldorf curriculum, so as not to mistakenly enter into a practice which is out of keeping with one’s faith.
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pmHi Lissa! I almost put our second child in a Waldorf school years ago. My oldest had attended a Reggio-Emilia preschool and the only school I saw that had similar leanings was the Waldorf school. Then I did some research on Steiner and decided against it. However I’ve always been attracted to Waldorf elements as well as Reggio’s and Montessori, e.g., the art, the nature, etc. I’ve been trying to incorporate them into our homeschooling but the uncertainty sometimes of how to go about it have prevented me from doing more of it. I didn’t find may concrete answers until the Waldorf threads at 4real. So I’m so glad you did this! Thanks again!
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 4:41 pmWhoops. Had to clarify.
Our oldest attended an RE school, then we moved and I was looking for an RE school for the second child in our new town but couldn’t find any. We ended up in public school, then homeschooling. I was looking for Waldorf/RE/Montessori guidance and didn’t find any that “fit”. So again, thank you.
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pmJane asked, and Michele expanded:
(paraphrasing) Does someone who “promotes” Waldorf resources (by recommending them) have an obligation to issue a warning about the underlying philosophy (anthroposophy)?
****
“Honestly, what responsibility, if any, do we incur when we “go public” and share (whether through a blog, forum, book, whatever) the details of our life, how we choose to educate our children, what our thoughts/beliefs are on education, parenting, life. . .
Can we really claim that we are simply sharing what WE do and further claim not to hold responsibility towards those who read what we write and are in fact influenced by it?”
****
Well, for once I have a one-word answer (to Jane’s question, the top one): Yes. I do think if we recommend Waldorf resources we have an obligation to explain their connection to anthroposophy.
The connection isn’t readily apparent on the surface. Most people have never even heard of anthroposophy, let alone realize that it informs the artsy-craftsy Waldorf curriculum. Many parents have enrolled their kids in Waldorf schools without any inkling that the teaching methods were based upon beliefs about reincarnation and so forth. (In fact, a group called Waldorf Critics exists to protest the ‘hiddenness’ of anthroposophy in Waldorf schools.)
I actually think that in the age of Google such things are far less likely to be hidden, since most parents considering enrollment in a Waldorf school will begin nowadays by looking up Waldorf, and it takes ten seconds on Google to find the connection between Waldorf and anthroposophy.
But still, since aspects of the method conflict with my religion, I think it is important make that disclaimer every time I recommend a resource.
Here’s another way I look at it. If I recommend a Catholic Woman’s Daily Planner, readers are going to know right off the bat that this is a Catholic planner. But if it were called “Family-Centered Daily Planner” and I recommended it without mentioning that it was a Catholic item, some of my non-Catholic readers might be a mite peeved if they paid for the planner and discovered it was full of Catholic prayers and saints’ feast days.
(Of course, it’s my opinion that they’d be in for a real treat, but I don’t presume to make that call for others. If I’m recommending a Catholic planner, I’m making sure you know it’s a Catholic planner!)
And since I think it would be possible to wander from Waldorf materials into new-age materials, it seems to me all the more important to issue as full a disclosure as possible.
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 4:51 pmWow, what a great thread here! I think that I’ve immersed myself in Waldorf enough that I know longer fear the red flags. Like every other kind of educational philosophy I’ve just taken what works for me. But I do remember going through periods where it turned me off because I was so uncomfortable with Anthroposophy. But then I’d be lured back because of the beauty and richness of the philosophy.
I see lots and lots of overlap with Waldorf and Catholicism so I just focus on that. The funny thing is that Waldorf attracts all kinds of people. I recently went to a Waldorf conference and there were all kinds of folks there, Christian, Muslim, Pagan. So all these people have to sort out Anthroposophy from what they personally believe. And I don’t think it is accurate to say that Anthroposophy is clearly not Christian. They do believe in Christ, there’s just a lot of other stuff thrown in there as well. Donna Simmons identifies herself as a Christian!
I do think it behooves us to be cautious but I do not feel like I’m going to somehow become an Anthroposophist all of a sudden. I think I am firmly Catholic so I don’t think I’ll suddenly be adapting other religious beliefs! In fact for myself my own Catholicism as always grown stronger when in relief against other faiths. One of the blessings of a mixed marriage!
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pmLissa-Thanks so much for your honest, insightful, and thorough answers. I am glad we have been able to hash this out in a respectful “redo” of what I know we all hoped this discussion would be when we first began it. Thanks for the second chance!
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 5:35 pmLissa wrote:”And since I think it would be possible to wonder from Waldorf materials into new-age materials, it seems to me all the more important to issue as full a disclosure as possible.”
Yes! Full disclosure is exactly what would be required (IMO).
You know, I have no problem with citing sources and giving credit where credit is due - of course that should be done -but linking to Amazon in your sidebar isn’t just giving credit (in my experience that’s usually done with a footnote of sorts) it’s a good bit more than that. It implies that the person thinks you should actually buy and read said sources and that’s different.
Laura wrote: “if you are selling a book (which is different than just having a blog, IMO) than you are already putting yourself out there publicly in way that others aren’t. You are saying, “Hey, listen to me, I have something to tell you about.” - and then selling them that information. ”
I think this is true. A blog of someone’s personal experience is one thing but a book is different and DOES give someone that sense of being an “authority” at least on the topic they have written about. It would seem naive to think others wouldn’t be looking to you for answers or at the very least some direction. It’s a big responsibility and one that should be carefully considered.
Posted on September 29th, 2007 at 6:47 pmThis is kind of a complicated question and I’m not sure exactly how to ask it, so please bear with me as I struggle through.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 8:33 amI admit that with Waldorf in the past I was so turned off by Steiner that I have been guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I find it hard to pull out anything useful, other than the pretty artwork, when it is all based on what I consider to be hogwash (like your”clapping” example, Lissa).I ask this in all sincerity:if Waldorf is based on Steiner’s ideas about child development, and they are hardly scientific and are likely (IMHO) entirely misguided, then why should I pay attention to ANY of it? Is there any part of it I can trust? I guess I figure that if the foundation is weak, the whole building crumbles, at least in my mind.
I don’t doubt that good can be found in many places and I tend to pick and choose a LOT. I take from CM, Montessori, unschooling, and secular sources. It’s an eclectic mix and I love that. The thing they have in common, however, is that they are based on or backed up by genuine *scientific* research, not a philosophy devised by one seriously misguided man. Of particular concern is when we plan a curriculum according to his supposed stages of a child’s development. What if the whole scheme is faulty? What if we should be working from concrete to abstract, rather than vice versa? What if we should introduce black and white as the first colors and high contrast drawings rather than dreamy watercolor blues and yellows? What if clapping should be the work of a 2 year old to aid in developing muscle coordination and not a 7 yo to settle the soul?
Now, I know those questions themselves are a bit silly, but my point is, and what I’m asking is,
how do we know it isn’t ALL just a bunch of baloney and leading us astray for reasons that have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with faulty foundations? Where is the real research in Waldorf?
I just wanted to say that the above comment was made with utter sincerity and not meant to sound contentious at all. I truly do question the validity of the whole Waldorf thing and really want to understand why a thinking person would pay it any attention at all (other than the fact that it is “pretty”). I know tone is hard to get across in a forum like this, so just want to add that.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 8:39 amHi Theresa,
Well, I think the proof is in the pudding, so to speak! Any folks I know who are involved in Waldorf are thoughtful, artistic, balanced, gentle and well educated people. I think also while Steiner might say some things we find very wacky, I think he is due some respect as well. He was a brilliant man who was a great interpreter of Goethe. I mean I don’t agree with Ghandi’s religious views or the Dalai Lama’s, but I can learn much from them.
Frankly, most of the Waldorf curriculum lines up very well with classical, if you examine it. Except that Steiner thought kids should stay kids and not get too intellectual too early. Everybody knows kids respond to clapping games for example. Many, many people advocate better late than early, as Steiner did. Many, many people think you should surround children with stability and cherish their imaginations and creativity. None of this is new. I think Steiner’s brilliance is that he observed children and saw what would be therapeutic for them and then developed a rationale for WHY this is so. The rationale I don’t often agree with, but the sensitive insight into how to nurture children and the process he set up, strikes me as right on the mark.
So many aspects of Waldorf resonate with me. It is in many ways a very conservative way! For example Waldorf teaches chastity. It does not believe that we are fully sexual beings until we are about 21. So it would be a violation of one’s self to become sexualized too early. That’s pretty counterculture, in a very good way!It actually encourages chastity in youth. It frowns on TV or early computer use for children because it emphasizes the need for children to be hands on. Isn’t this something we hear over and over again from ‘experts’. It emphasizes teaching children about saints so that they can have heroes to look up to. It encourages living a liturgical year to develop a sense of reverence in daily living.
All these things to my mind are compatible with Catholicism. In fact, I think Steiner pulled them right out of Catholicism. I’ve had a little altar in my home for years. Since trying to be more Waldor-y my nature table and my altar are all one thing. Actually we have two nature tables both adorned with crosses or icons of Christ and St. Francis of Assisi. I’m not worshipping nature here at all. I am just remembering the beautiful gifts from God that are all around us. That consciousness I most appreciate in Waldorf.
I think also Waldorf might not be for everbody. I too take from many different educational philosophies. Waldorf just might not be your thing. I seem to be able to just get little dibs and dabs in, but for some reason of all the different educational paths I’ve tried, Waldorf (the little I do) brings me a real sense of peace. I think it is the whole emphasis on reverence, rhythm and beauty. You might already have that. For me though when I am in a Waldorf kind of mindset, I’m calmer, I’m more creative and I find being with my children more joyful.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 9:30 amFaith, thank you! I was just sitting down to write along similar lines. (Only I doubt I’d have articulated it so well.) Theresa, I ditto what Faith says, particularly this–
“I think it is the whole emphasis on reverence, rhythm and beauty. You might already have that. For me though when I am in a Waldorf kind of mindset, I’m calmer, I’m more creative and I find being with my children more joyful.”
Yes, yes, yes. That’s just where I was coming from when I began my big Waldorf series last spring. Periodically I notice that a kind of tension will have come into home life with the kids, and I’m being strict crabby drill sergeant mommy. Then I’ll go for a dip in my Waldorf resources, and the immersion reminds me to re-focus on rhythm, reverence, beauty, peacefulness, play, pleasure in domestic tasks, music…I emerge a better mother (and a better Catholic!), and I can’t think of any other resource that works on me in the same way.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 10:43 amTheresa, I just saw your second comment and wanted to add that of course I know you are always respectful in your questioning! You asked very good & valid questions and I’m so glad for the contribution to the discussion.
I really appreciate the time and thought all of you are putting into this. Thank you!
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 11:26 amKym says:
I’m not sure I really want to enter into this conversation, but I have so many thoughts and questions that I’m going to brave it anyway. I’m not sure why having a daily “rhythm” ( something I think many people would call a schedule)or appreciating lovely crafts and nature have to have anything to do with Waldorf, Steiner or Anthrosophy. I don’t get why these ideas seem to be so new and wonderful. In reading homemaking books, blogs, message boards and the like, you hear frequently about having beauty in your home, of slowing down and simplifying, of appreciating the beauty of nature, etc. but it’s not called “Waldorf”. It’s called “Loveliness Fairs” Hearth and Home, Family Centered Learning, CM, Real Learning or any number of other names. Why all the sudden the excitement over what it seems many people have been doing already?
Okay and now my more serious questions. In several places I’ve read that Steiner was born and baptized Catholic. I’ve also read Anthrosophy was condemned along with Theosophy by the Catholic Church in 1919 and that condemnation has been reaffirmed through the years by other Popes. I’ve read the Christian Community (church founded by Steiner and Friedrich Rittlemeyer) is not considered a church, but a “cult” and their “baptisms” are not valid in the Catholic Church. If this is the case, then Steiner cannot be considered a Christian, the Christian Community “church” can’t be considered a Christian Church and those who are members wouldn’t be considered Christian. I am not saying they are bad, evil, wicked .. just that they shouldn’t be called Christian. I’m not sure it’s wise to be so enthusiastic about promoting materials that come from a belief system condemned by the Church. This is a quote from a Faith Fact on the Catholics United for Faith website -
“Under the pontificate of Benedict XV, the Holy See condemned theosophic doctrines. The Holy Office, when asked “whether the doctrines which are called theosophic can be reconciled with Catholic doctrine,” gave a negative reply.[5]
Thus the Holy See’s condemnation encompasses more than the Theosophic Society itself: The condemnation extends to all theosophic doctrines and forbids joining any society that promotes theosophic doctrines, attending meetings of such societies, and reading any materials of these societies.”
I read that this includes Anthrosophy. So is it responsible to be reading this material ourselves? Should we be presenting it to our children, even if we filter it through our Catholic knowledge?
I am sorry this is so long and I am truly not judging anyone - I’m just sincerely concerned and questioning why Waldorf is so attractive to so many Catholics.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 11:30 amKym, I only have a few minutes now but I’ll come back to these questions later, and I’m sure others will chime in. For now, a few quick responses:
“It’s called “Loveliness Fairs” Hearth and Home, Family Centered Learning, CM, Real Learning or any number of other names. Why all the sudden the excitement over what it seems many people have been doing already?”
I can see how it might seem like a sudden fad, with the recent flurry of blog and board posts in the subject. But for many of us, this has been a subject we’ve been working with for years. The discussion has come up numerous times on lists and boards I’ve read over the years, and right now it’s a hot topic in some blog circles. But we had a similar discussion at 4Real in July of 2006, and on CCM before that. And I would say that one reason these ideas *have* been in the air before is because then, as now, people have drawn inspiration from Waldorf materials. Even Elizabeth said recently (on a board, but not at 4Real, I think?) that yes, her book probably does have a Waldorf feel about it because she herself student-taught in a Waldorf school, and while she didn’t know anything at all about the anthroposophy connection, she too was inspired by the handcrafts, stories, arts, nature study, and such. She’s just one example; and I’ve shared in this thread how my own perspective was influenced by exposure to Waldorf methods (as opposed to anthroposophy, which has *not* influenced me, and which I have consistently disavowed).
“I read that this includes Anthrosophy. So is it responsible to be reading this material ourselves? Should we be presenting it to our children, even if we filter it through our Catholic knowledge?”
Well, I think I can speak for the other Waldorf-inspired Catholics I know in saying that we certainly do not present anthroposophy to our children. I’m not sure my kids even know the term “waldorf.” It struck me this morning that the only time I talk about Waldorf is in discussions of educational philosophy such as those on the blog (including posts when I discusses resources I have found useful). In our home life, outside the computer, the word or method is not something that comes up at all.
In all my writings about Waldorf, I have been careful to add a disclaimer about anthroposophy. I tend to think more information is better than less, so that if people are going to run into Waldorf resources out there (and they are), it’s better to help inform folks as to the origin and background for the sake of better discernment.
I’m writing fast, so my tone might not come across as I intend it here–I mean this in a respectful tone, with no sense of defensiveness, in case that isn’t coming across. Again, you’ve asked excellent questions. I hope others will chime in. I’ll be back later!
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 11:54 amTheresa, I hope Melissa doesn’t mind me adding a point regarding your questions. Setting aside anthroposophy for a moment, the foundation of the Steiner school curriculum is actually based on Piaget’s notions of child development. Waldorf teachers do a lot of talking about Piaget and other developmental psychologists. And Piaget’s ideas are so universally respected, they are taught in university psychology classes.
My own experience tells me that Piaget talked a lot of hooey - and actually that’s the main reason I don’t teach to the Waldorf curriculum. The reincarnation and quasi-religious stuff I can shrug a shoulder about, having grown up with hippy parents. But Piaget’s science fails in the experience of my own child.
This kind of discussion comes up all the time at Waldorf Homeschooling discussion groups. The response always seems to be, “take what you want and leave the rest”.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pmI can only share my own experience with Waldorf and frankly I have none. I have never before read a Waldorf influenced work (that I am aware of) and until the recent discussion had really only heard the name, knew there was some new-age connection and just steered clear from it.
But gentle rhythms, art, creativity, love of nature, etc. have been a part of my home for a long time so obviously those things came from somewhere other than Waldorf - at least for me. Yes it sounds lovely but I just don’t see it offering anything I don’t already have or see elsewhere. I cannot imagine a life without creativity - it’s the very air we breathe! Maybe some will think that I just don’t know what I’m missing. Whatever. We’re happy and my kids and I are having a very good time just the way we are.
I didn’t pay attention to the Waldorf thread until I saw it was locked and then I was surprised to see where it had gone. I had never read the previous thread that Lissa linked to (on 4 Real) either so I went back and read that as well and again was surprised. Frankly, coupled with what Kym wrote above it makes me all the more hesitant to even look at anything Waldorf. I consider myself a well formed Catholic but I also know that the enemy is sly and if Eve (who had no concupiscence as I certainly do) could be tempted and fall, then surely so could I. The moment I stop believing that I am and say I will never step away from my faith would be to have the sin or presumption. It is not my intention but it surely is the enemy’s goal for me so I must be ever watchful of course.
All this isn’t to say that others haven’t or can’t benefit from Waldorf elements but they need to be sure they are fully aware of what it is. As Lissa wrote above, it’s important to know WHY certain ideas are presented in a Waldorf curriculum, so as not to mistakenly enter into a practice which is out of keeping with one’s faith. In order to do that you need to study the philosophy behind it a bit and well that could be dangerous. Again, I’m NOT saying it can’t be done. I DO think one can incorporate Waldorf elements into their life and have it not cause them to lose their faith (I think Lissa’s a beautiful example of that in fact) but I think it has to be approached with caution for oneself and extra care that others aren’t being led in a direction that could be harmful to their souls.
Faith wrote: “I don’t think it is accurate to say that Anthroposophy is clearly not Christian. They do believe in Christ, there’s just a lot of other stuff thrown in there as well.”
This I must disagree with. Reincarnation and Karma are not part of the Christian tradition but contrary to it. Satan believes in Christ too and frankly so do many other so called religions - that doesn’t make them Christian in the way we as Catholics understand it. From what I read they believe in many “Christs” with Jesus just being one of them. Wrong again. There is ONE Christ and it is Jesus!
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pm“I don’t think it is accurate to say that Anthroposophy is clearly not Christian. They do believe in Christ, there’s just a lot of other stuff thrown in there as well.”
I missed this quote–was it in Faith’s comment above? I looked again but am not seeing it. Faith, I would have to argue that a respect for Christ does not equate Christian (and I think anthro has respect for Christ, but not belief in him in the Christian sense of the phrase).
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 1:38 pmKym says:
Thanks for your response, Lissa. I didn’t think it was defensive at all.I guess my first question is a bit rhetorical. I’ve been homeschooling for a really long time - I have 2 who have graduated ( one has graduated from college and is married) and my youngest is 2, so I have many more homeschooling years ahead :-). I know that many methods and ideas seem to come up every year and have read the discussions of Waldorf over the years. It seems to be a “hot topic” both in terms of interest and in the passion it can incite in each direction. Perhaps because of the explosion of blogs and the popularity of the 4 Real board, this go around has gotten a lot more publicity and exposure.
I don’t think anyone on the 4Real board is or was promoting anthrosophy. I don’t think faithful Catholics who have a rhythms to their day, who knit, make felt crafts etc. are promoting anything but wonderful, loving ideas to use with their children. I guess I’m just surprised that it seems to be so new to some people
and that it has to be called Waldorf. I don’t think using those ideas will lead anyone to the “dark side” 
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 1:41 pmWhat I do think should be clarified, and perhaps over-clarified, is that true Waldorf education, is rooted in anthrosophy. To use a syllabus written for Waldorf homeschoolers will have a philosophy contrary to the Catholic Faith as its basis. And it may be couched in lovely fairies and watercolors and some people may be mislead and could be led astray without even knowing it. It was mentioned on the 4Real board that God can use anything for good. Well, Satan can use it for evil too, and we must be diligent. I know you know that, I know Elizabeth knows that, most of the women reading this know that. I wasn’t too concerned about the whole thing until I stayed up entirely too late last night wondering about the whole issue and clicking around the internet trying to get some more information. That the Church has warned against delving into philosophies that are contrary to the faith made me think perhaps we’re not being diligent enough. Perhaps we’re overconfident in our abilities to discern the false ideas promoted by true Waldorf. I know that you have cautioned against many of the ideas and have explained why things are incompatible with the Catholic Church and I appreciate your willingness to further discuss and clarify what ideas are out of line with Church teaching. Thank you !
“Again, I’m NOT saying it can’t be done. I DO think one can incorporate Waldorf elements into their life and have it not cause them to lose their faith (I think Lissa’s a beautiful example of that in fact) but I think it has to be approached with caution for oneself and extra care that others aren’t being led in a direction that could be harmful to their souls.”
This conversation has been so interesting…particularly when I realized what I posted above in reply to Kym, that for me discussion about Waldorf is something useful when talking to other homeschooling moms about education, parenting, and the atmosphere of our homes. It’s a bit surreal, though, to realize what a disconnect there is between *talking* about education/home life (when I do bring up Waldorf ideas quite often) and *living* it, when, as I said above, the word never comes up, and any Waldorf-inspired aspects of my homeschool/home life are (apart from written conversations) something that no one else in the house would identify as Waldorf; the usefulness of the term applies within my own mind.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 1:47 pmPatience,
I think you are mistaken there. Piaget’s stages went from the concrete to the abstract, whereas Waldorf seems to go from the abstract to the concrete.
Kym,
Thank you so much for reiterating what I was trying to point out on the forum: that we can say with absolute certainty that Steiner was NOT a Christian. That’s not “judging him” and it doesn’t invalidate everything he had to say, but it does tell us that he is coming from a totally different worldview, and we have to be aware of that.
Another point I’d like to make, before someone hits me over the head with Aristotle again (that is, Christians philosophers drawing good out of his pagan philosophy).
I think that too be a pagan in modern times is vastly different than to be a pagan before the time of Christ. The “real” pagans did not have an opportunity to know and accept Christ. Modern pagans have had that opportunity, and have rejected Him. That doesn’t sit well with me.
I myself would not touch Waldorf materials, as I’ve had personal experience with neo-paganism, New Ageism, whatever you’d like to call it, and I react violently whenever exposed to it. Still, I am not condemning Lissa or Elizabeth or anyone else for using the good they can draw out of it.
Now, on a totally different track, Lissa, I’ve got another question for you: I seem to remember reading in CM that she did not have a problem with fairy tales, but said that they should be used in limited amounts. I suppose that was, as someone else said earlier, for fear that they would live in a fantasy world? I know that Montessori condemned them for the same reason. It seems logical to me NOT to feed children a steady diet of fairies, gnomes, and elves. What are your thoughts on this?
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 1:59 pmMichele, I hear you! I think it is right to be cautious. But really if you look at a lot of the Waldorf helps, like Oak Meadow (which is only nominally Waldorf in the lower graders and abandons it entirely in the upper)or Paths of Discovery or even Live Ed which is probably the purist Waldorf stuff out there (I’m currently using it) you have to work really hard to get all the Anthroposophy in. I mean you’d have to go out and really read Steiner or whatever to fully understand the philsophy behind him. I’ve been on a Christian-Waldorf list for several years now. A number of them are Catholic. The more they do Waldorf the clearer the line becomes between what is acceptable and what isn’t. Not the other way around! That has been my experience. And this topic comes up often, so I do think they know they need to be discerning.
But you are right that it is wise to be cautious and if you feel that it is too tempting or makes the waters too murky, there is no reason in the world you have to go that way! Waldorf is just one alternative! To me Waldorf is the educational methods and Anthroposophy is pseudo-philosophy behind it. Spiritual Science is another word for it. If it raises red flags for people that’s probably for a reason.
True, Athroposophists are not Christian as we define it, but it is how Donna Simmons defined herself and I am not going to correct her! I can see why the church would condemn the church that sprung out of it. Do you know they have the 7 sacraments, honor Mary, have priests etc? It makes me sad that they are so attracted to so many elements of Catholicism but miss the mark so badly. The funny thing about comparing Catholicism with Anthroposophy is that Catholicism comes out as much, much more coherent and profound. I mean there is no contest whatsoever! I am reading a wonderful book by a follower of Steiner who converted to Catholicism. It is incredibly profound and mystical. The author quotes the saints every other line practically. Within in the first couple of pages he has a resounding reason for why the Pope should have authority. It’s wonderful!
So while I do not want to place anyone in danger, I also think that things can definitely go the other way. All things work together for good for those who love God.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 2:12 pm[Faith}"True, Athroposophists are not Christian as we define it, but it is how Donna Simmons defined herself and I am not going to correct her!"
Nor I which is why I didn't address it. But what someone calls themselves is one thing what a religion claims to be is another.
[Faith]“I can see why the church would condemn the church that sprung out of it. Do you know they have the 7 sacraments, honor Mary, have priests etc? It makes me sad that they are so attracted to so many elements of Catholicism but miss the mark so badly.”
I did not know this but this makes things a little more problematic in my mind. Blurry lines and all that - especially for those who may not know better.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 2:55 pmThis might not make sense to those moms who are good at it naturally. But, for me at least, bringing in art, nature, etc is hard. I mean, really hard. Similarly to what Julia mentioned, it would never occur to me to make an acorn necklace, or to use acorns as math manipulatives. Or a creative use of watercolors or clay. My brain just isn’t hooked up that way. And yes, a “craft book” or “nature craft” might cover a portion of that, but I still would never just think to then bring it over into Math, or learning letters, and blend it together, and incorporate into other areas of learning. And craft books don’t do that either. But when I read these “Waldorf-inspired-ideas” found on blogs or in books, and try some with my children, they are so receptive, and it is so gentle and beautiful.
I am really enjoying listening/reading this discussion.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 3:11 pmHi Michele,
My point which I don’t think I made very clearly is that you’d have to really dig to find that out if you are just using Waldorf resources like Journey Through Time in Verse and Rhyme or All Year Round or lots and lots of the other materials out there. You’d have to be on a deliberate hunt to uncover as much as you could about Steiner. Most moms I know aren’t interested in going into that much depth. They just want to interweave aspects of Waldorf, so I really don’t think it is quite as dangerous as you are imagining. Yes, someone who is really shakey in the faith and has trouble discerning, don’t go there (and has lots of time to read very hard to read stuff), it could be dangerous. But I do think for your average homeschooling Catholic mom, I just don’t think it is that worrisome.
But everybody’s mileage may vary.
I’m with Laura. For me incorporating nature, art, craft is very very hard, yet I knew that it was something was very important and would bring joy into our home. Waldorf allowed me to achieve that (though I am no way near as good as doing it as most.)
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 3:40 pm“Now, on a totally different track, Lissa, I’ve got another question for you: I seem to remember reading in CM that she did not have a problem with fairy tales, but said that they should be used in limited amounts. I suppose that was, as someone else said earlier, for fear that they would live in a fantasy world? I know that Montessori condemned them for the same reason. It seems logical to me NOT to feed children a steady diet of fairies, gnomes, and elves. What are your thoughts on this?”
Personally I don’t have a problem with it. I grew up on a steady diet of fairies, gnomes, and elves, and I don’t think that in any way harmed me or caused difficulties in distinguishing between fact and fancy. And I think that to some degree, whether you want to sprinkle those stories and games into your child’s diet has a lot to do with your own taste and heritage. Some people just aren’t into fairies.
Alice has made a very reasonable argument about not wanting to confuse children regarding the difference between imaginary “unseen” beings (like fairies) and *real* unseen beings like angels. It seems to me that confusion would be more likely to occur if a parent was pretending fairies were real (versus cultivating a “this (fairies) is a lovely pretend game we play, but THAT (angels) is quite real and true” understanding)–but even in the case of a parent playing along, talking about fairies as if they were real, I think most children can easily distinguish between the REAL real and the we-pretended-it-was-real as they get older–as happens with the Tooth Fairy, for example. I don’t know of any cases where belief in the Tooth Fairy confused a child about the reality of angels and saints later on.
So while I respect the argument, I don’t agree with it. I can see, though, that in times past, certain cultures really did believe in fairies, brownies, and such; and perhaps the distinction between the real unseen and the fictitious unseen would be more easily blurred.
As for fairy tales, I depart from Miss Mason’s view–I’m all for filling early childhood with a diet of folk and fairy tales. I think the stories where good and evil is so clearly defined, and you see the good guy struggling, falling, learning, redeeming, and ultimately triumphing over evil is absolutely a suitable and nourishing food for a young (and not so young) child.
I think Charlotte Mason was writing in a time when cautionary tales were huge, and children were fed a steady diet of “here’s what happened to little Henry when he didn’t obey his mama”–with “what happened” being of the most gruesome, extreme nature. I don’t wonder that she advised against an abundance of tales, as the cautionary tales tended to be more readily available than, say, a collection of Grimm’s tales. (At least, that is my understanding of th market at that time.)
Also, my sense is that her taste tended more toward the classical: Aesop’s fables and such. Again I have to wonder how much of her recommendation against fairy tales had to do with personal taste. Some people really do not have a taste for fantasy.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 3:54 pmStill thinking about this…I wonder, too, if perhaps CM saw so much wonder in nature that she didn’t see the point of spending a significant amount of time immersed in fantasy–when there is so much to see and do and learn in the natural world?
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 4:00 pmWhew. Lots to chew on here and I never have enough time to do it justice. I have so many thoughts. I began my parenting journey in the anthroposophical world and came back to the Church afterwards so I know both well. I tend to feel that the things we love about Waldorf are those that are true, beautiful, edifying, calming, nurturing. STeiner didn’t invent those things. In fact he may have attributed incorrect explanations to the effect those things have on children/families. That doesn’t make them wrong; it makes his theories about them wrong.
Like Lissa said it is very very difficult to piece together a full picture of this nurturing, artistic, musical, movement-rich, natural lifestyle outside of the Waldorf community. Dr Sears is a great start. The Moore’s are wonderful. The Von Trapp’s and Newlands are inspiring. The fact is you can list the available non-Waldorf resources on about one hand though.
Having been ‘there’ I do see the need for sufficient disclaimers and explanations. The teachings are subtle and persuasive and one who did not understand their own faith well could really go astray. I would not have worried much about that until seeing how many people ‘bought’ the Davinci Code, hook line and sinker. Now I have concerns.
I also see a danger in laying personal responsibility on others. Does becoming a public persona mean everything you say is automatically ridden with caveats and legal overtones. I would hate to think so. It would be a shame to negatively interpret the motives of authors who sacrifice greatly to help those coming up along the path or reduce their efforts to marketing.
I worry about our weaker brothers and sisters. I do think this (waldorf) is an area which requires thoughtful discernment. The truth is that Protestant resources (and pretty much all the CM resources are that) fall under the same condemnation by the Church, yet many of us recommend those freely without second thought much less disclaimer. In truth there is no license for Catholics to distribute nor encourage CM or unit study or classical resources for that matter without including appropriate disclaimers. At some pt most of us have felt we were able to share those things however or we wouldn’t have come together in the CCM forums. We must remember there are other Catholics who disagree heartily with our decision to embrace those materials however.
We have a responsibility whenever we share. There are levels of responsibility however. Are we sharing an experience? Promoting and idea? Selling a particular product? Those are each different situations.
We need to be merciful with one another. I did not see Jane’s questions as personal attacks. I say this sincerely Jane : ) you shoot from the hip and ask pointed, honest questions. I don’t think that is meant to be hurtful. The biggest problem imo is that many of us with large families are trying to share on very limited time budgets. That means sometimes things don’t get the full treatment they could perhaps use. We need to recognize the real limits of this medium and the amt of time and energy we all have to utilize it. We are going to make mistakes. We are going to step on each other’s toes. We are Christians though and we can rectify those and move on.
We should put our heads together and decide what of this we can use. Imo, alot of the debate is over semantics. Piaget, Montessori and Dorothy Sayers all saw similar developmental stages in children, but each fiercely defended their own explanations about those stages. Waldorf does the same. We can still find many of their discoveries and practices beneficial.
We should recognize that this is much like acupuncture or yoga too. For whatever reason they seem to work. As Catholics we know it is not because of yin/yang or Eastern mysticism. We are taught we can use those things if we are attributing their success to non-objectionable causes.
And now I am going to end on a totally non-ended note lol! Forgive me breezing on and off here Lissa! If I have anything useful to share having been in both camps please do let me know.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pmLissa–A question on a slightly different train of thought here–given the talk about personal responsibility, has this conversation made you think at all about what and how to blog, and would you change anything you currently do? I’m really interested in hashing out this personal responsibility thing a bit more, because I think applies to all of us and our expectations of one another, not just a single conversation or area of interest such as the current Waldorf one. Am I making sense? Tell me if I need to clarify.
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 4:37 pmKym says:
Such excellent questions, answers, thoughts and as Kim said, so little time to read and respond and trying to communicate over the internet is not the ideal. I ran across another document (written in 2003) from the Vatican which directly address anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner and I think it articulates my uneasiness about recommending Waldorf materials -
“On the one hand, it is clear that many New Age practices seem to those involved in them not to raise doctrinal questions; but, at the same time, it is undeniable that these practices themselves communicate, even if only indirectly, a mentality which can influence thinking and inspire a very particular vision of reality. Certainly New Age creates its own atmosphere, and it can be hard to distinguish between things which are innocuous and those which really need to be questioned. However, it is well to be aware that the doctrine of the Christ spread in New Age circles is inspired by the theosophical teachings of Helena Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner’s anthroposophy and Alice Bailey’s “Arcane School”. Their contemporary followers are not only promoting their ideas now, but also working with New Agers to develop a completely new understanding of reality, a doctrine known by some observers as “New Age truth”.”
From JESUS CHRIST THE BEARER OF THE WATER OF LIFE - A Christian reflection from on the “new Age” the Pontifical Council for Culture; Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue . If you Google it, you can read the whole document - the link was too long to put here.
I ordered the Oak Meadow preschool curriculum a couple of years ago when I lived in Alaska. It was paid for by the homeschool program we were with at the time ( IDEA for anyone who knows about the programs in AK), otherwise I would not have bought it. I consider myself a fairly well informed Catholic, but I ended up not using the curriculum because a lot of the ideas just didn’t seem right to me and I wasn’t sure I could filter out everything that wasn’t Catholic. I didn’t want to take the chance of confusing my son. We did use the watercolors and crayons though
Posted on September 30th, 2007 at 5:59 pmResponsibility is a multi-faceted area I think. I don’t have a blog and have never commented on one before today, so I haven’t thought too much about it. I’m interested to hear others take on the issue.
Kym, thank you for this. You have certainly given us much to ponder. Here’s a shorter link to the document Kym refers to:
Link
I’ll try to be back later with more thoughts. Thanks again, everyone. Please don’t anyone feel shy about chiming in.
Posted on September 30th, 2007