This article is the continuation of a debate which is based on an article by Tony Cañadas entitled How Rudolf Steiner’s theories apply to ELT. It engendered a reply by Stefan Rathert: Rudolf Steiner and ELT? A Reply to Tony Cañadas’ Article, which was re-replied by Tony Cañadas: Rudolph Steiner’s Theories and ELT (2): A reply to Stefan Rathert’s Article.

A Debate on Rudolf Steiner and ELT

Stefan Rathert, Turkey

Stefan Rathert teaches English at Kahramanmaraş University, Turkey. E-mail: srathert@ksu.edu.tr

Menu

A debate
Anthroposophy - Waldorf Education
The practical activities presented by Cañadas
Plagiarism
A résumé
References

A debate

A debate is a form of exchanging arguments related to a given topic paying particular consideration to logical coherence, verifiability of facts and emotional involvement. These ingredients make debates intellectually challenging and attractive for both contributors and audience. The nucleus of any debate is scepticism, the perception that a view brought forward might be incoherent or at least partially unfounded. Being sceptical, challenging views and consequently taking up a debate can be extremely fruitful when both sides are open to what the other side presents, and at best own views are modified, new insights are gained and the horizons of the participants (as well as of the audience) are broadened. The cultural history of western civilization is unthinkable without scepticism. The view that there is no topic that might not be subject to controversy has been essential for the progress of society in virtually all fields. In this respect, a debate can be remarkably fruitful.

There are, however, obstacles which threaten the fruitfulness of a debate. This is often the case when the participants of a debate talk at cross-purposes. This sometimes happens because

• arguments are not well understood due to the fact that they are expressed inadequately,
• a participant has difficulties in comprehending arguments he or she is faced with; this can be caused by the fact that concepts or terms are not known or, at a very basic level, correct recognition and reproduction (e.g. of proper names!) is not ensured,
• arguments are deliberately misunderstood and consequently misinterpreted.

There is a great deal of opinions expressed about anthroposophy, particularly on the Internet, unfortunately often not in form of debates but monologues. This is obviously owed to the fact that anthroposophy, more precisely the anthroposophical movement, is somehow a closed system which tends to exclude itself from public criticism. A good example for this attitude is the reception that the scientific standard work by Zander (2007) has had; the reception of his book in anthroposophical circles has mostly been unfavourable claiming that anthroposophy cannot be understood by non-anthroposophists. It is remarkable that Zander has also got into the crosshairs of ardent opponents of anthroposophy, who are not seldom as dogmatic as anthroposophists, since he puts his case sine ira et studio from a strictly scientific point of view.

Keeping that in mind it is all the more welcome that HLT gives a platform on which a debate can be carried out between two contributors, one of whom has a sceptical approach to anthroposophy while the other one obviously speaks in favour of it. Since Tony Cañadas reacted to my reply, I feel the necessity to write an answer, in which I will focus on three main points which I consider critical for the debate: first of all the position of anthroposophy in the context of science and the problematic matter of generating an educational approach based on anthroposophy, then the practical activities presented by Cañadas and finally, quite a serious issue, that of plagiarism.

Anthroposophy - Waldorf Education

Waldorf schools in Germany (and I suppose in other parts of the world) are based or claim to be based on the doctrines of Rudolf Steiner. The visual expression of this conception is the fact that Steiner portraits are hung in Waldorf institutions (at least in all I have visited). In my contribution entitled “Rudolf Steiner and ELT? A Reply to Tony Cañadas’ Article” I put emphasis on the difficulty to base a practical pedagogy on a dubious construct of ideas. I explained why anthroposophy cannot be accepted as a theory in a scientific sense – it falls short of standards which make a construct of ideas a theory: it lacks falsifiability; presumptions made by Steiner cannot be reconstructed since they are based on clairvoyance and sources which are not available. Tony Cañadas errs when he says in his reply that I question his (Cañadas’s) awareness of the validity of Rudolf Steiner’s theory – in fact I deny the quality of anthroposophy as science. It is also not true that I “claim the nature of clairvoyance esoteric practice within Waldorf education system” (Cañadas). I demonstrated the function of clairvoyance in the process of acquiring knowledge in anthroposophy. It might be useful to point out once more that “theory” is a strictly scientific term, in so far anthroposophy is no theory at all. It is indeed astonishing to accept a construct of strange ideas as the foundations for an educational approach. Applications in education, which itself is a scientific discipline, have to be proved with scientific instruments. So applying things which are not scientific in a scientific discipline can be problematic. Applying the ideas Steiner’s in education is not essentially different from applying, for example, astrology as the basis for an educational program. In this context, I am not absolutely sure what Cañadas means with “Steiner’s curriculum” in his reply - the term “curriculum” is normally defined as a description of a course of studies (often in form of a chart) offered in an educational institution.

In the first sentence of the previous paragraph I said that Waldorf schools are based or claim to be based on Steiner’s ideas. Using this expression I admit that Waldorf schools are not necessarily the one-to-one transfer of Steiner’s true doctrine; it seems that the popularity of Waldorf schools is owed to the fact that they have the image of an alternative school project with lots of leeway, giving space for spirituality which got lost in today’s over-technologized world. Spirituality is not meant in a sense that it competes with other religions (so a Muslim is not deprived from his or her religion in Waldorf schools); nevertheless it cannot be claimed that there is no form of spiritual indoctrination in Waldorf schools (a quick search of “indoctrination” and “Waldorf” in a search engine will lead you to a wealth of reports on the Internet, cf. also Bierl [2007]). The same is true for the claim of racism. There are distinct examples of racism in Steiner’s works – even though he cannot be declared to a systematic racist –, but this does not mean that racism prevails in Waldorf schools. It is, however, a problem when the Waldorf movement reacts thin-skinnedly to such claims because it shows that the willingness to read Steiner critically is highly limited in anthroposophical circles. Moreover, it is not atypical for advocates of anthroposophy when Cañadas discounts the (for the understanding of Steiner essential) idea of karma as something that was “many years ago” but “has absolutely nothing to do with the actual curriculum nowadays”. Particular in this point the horns of the dilemma on which defenders of Waldorf education are becomes visible: the ideological premises formulated by Steiner are removed from the spotlight when they might be inconvenient for the success in a debate (or when they even seem insane). Indeed, an important part of the discussion about Waldorf education is about the question if it is possible to say ‘no’ to strange foundations of an educational movement, but to say ‘yes’ to their practical application. Is it ethical to refuse to notice the ‘theoretical’ background of an idea, especially when it might cause inacceptable results for the realization of the idea? Definitely not if we accept pedagogy as an academic discipline. To sum up a main point of my argumentation: “Rudolf Steiner’s concept of education has neither an ethical-philosophical foundation (as was the case with Kant and Herbart) nor a social-cultural dimension (as in Durkheim and Dewey) and also no empirical psychological origin (as in Claparède and Montessori).” (Ullrich, 1994). In fact, it is a concept based on irrational ideas. (A remark: I hope I do not read Cañadas wrongly when I call him an advocate of anthroposophy. Quite at the beginning of his reply, he seems to negate that he is one.)

Spiritually vs. critical thinking is another issue in this debate. It cannot be denied that according to Steiner intellectualism is reserved for students after the age of 21. Cañadas concedes this (“’critical thinking’ is not encouraged obsessively in Steiner schools until the child has reached a reasonable mature state”) to contradict his own statement two lines further down saying that “criticism and intellectualism (…) are very much encouraged in ‘Steiner schools’ throughout Britain”. Be that as it may (I have never seen a British Waldorf school from inside), the complete abdication of intellectual work is probably not very suitable in a world in which intellectual ability is indispensable to survive. Looking at the German situation, this has also a very practical aspect: in order to gain an officially recognized school leaving certificate, Waldorf schools have to adapt their curricula to the state curricula; as I stated in my first article, there are reports suggesting that the number of Waldorf pupils who gain access to the exam that leads to the high school certificate (Abitur) is below average (Goldner, 2001). It is therefore not really convincing when Cañadas mentions three (3) relatives in Germany who have completed their school education at Steiner schools successfully in order to contest the assertion.

The practical activities presented by Cañadas

Cañadas presents in his first article five practical ideas three of which I deal briefly with in my critical response. Briefly, because the activities themselves are presented very briefly in his article. The learners described in the presentations made the impression of shiny happy people on me. Of course, it is definitely not Cañadas’s fault when a simple mind like me can’t imagine how these activities work out wonderfully and perfectly.

It is quite irrelevant to me if the activities were introduced to Cañadas at a Pilgrims workshop, the Spanish National Board of Education or wherever. When activities to be applied in the English classroom are presented, it is vital to show the rationale behind the activities, to identify possible obstacles that might occur when they are put into practice and to report observable results of the activities: what knowledge or abilities do learners acquire through the activities? It is definitely not enough to say that there are “very satisfactory responses”, results being “more than successful” or parents being “delighted” with results.

Reading about the Free Choice Project in Cañadas’s first article, for instance, I did not get the idea that learners were left completely on their own, as Cañadas says in his second article. I actually did not get any idea how the project would work because there was so little information; in his second article Cañadas provides us with some more information, but a more detailed description of how the project is designed (objectives, material to be used, steps etc.) would be useful; sharing ideas in HLT should at best encourage readers to use them in their classroom, shouldn’t it?

Moreover, only to claim that the study of Steiner gave the inspirations to the ideas is also insufficient; Cañadas should have explained where exactly in Steiner’s work or in programs of Waldorf education the ideas were taken from. For those who are familiar with Waldorf education, the origin of Fairy tale transformation is recognisable, the connection of the other activities to Waldorf education is not evident.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is defined as “the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own”. In order not to plagiarize I put the definition in quotation marks, and I name the source of the definition: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarism. I could also give a definition in my own words (plagiarism is copying someone other’s ideas without indicating the source in order to show them as one’s own ideas), and I neither have to put it in quotation marks nor do I have to give a source because it is basic knowledge that can be acquired by looking up the term in an encyclopedia. However, if I decide to use my own phrase, I have to word it myself. If I use someone other’s wording identically, I have to use quotation marks. When ideas are used which do not fall in the category of basic knowledge but deal with more specific or complex areas, analyze or interpret subjects, the source, if one is used, has to be named. It is a matter of dishonesty when those rules are disregarded deliberately. It goes without saying that even a careful writer might forget quotation marks and/or the name of a source unintentionally, simply because of inattention.

Incidentally, I found that a sentence used by Cañadas was identical to a sentence used in the article “Waldorf education” in Wikipedia (Rathert, 2010). In my article I did not claim that Cañadas had plagiarised, I only reported a finding. Unfortunately, I am not able to reply to Cañadas’s cryptic response (“Should I remind Mr. Rather [sic] that it is a well known fact that all encyclopaedias including ‘Wikipedia’ take references from some other sources where some other authors may have taken them as well!”). Does Cañadas want to say that the writers of the Wikipedia article have taken sentences from his article?

Even for a non-native speaker like me it is possible to perceive stylistic inconsistency in Cañadas’ article. Indeed, it seems to have the character of a patchwork. Starting from this perception I am afraid there are some other cases in which citation is obviously not done properly – either by Cañadas or by the authors of the source given in the right column of the table below.

Since the overview, which does not make a claim to be complete, is self-explanatory, I shall only make three remarks. Firstly, I should like to point out that at the bottom of the website www.freedom-in-education.co.uk/Steiner.htm (excerpts b, f, g and h) a remark is given saying: “Copyright © Gareth Lewis, Freedom-in-Education December 2001”. Please note that the date of retieval is not identical to the date of publication. Secondly, the typing error (“tests”) in excerpt d and the grammatically wrong form of the verb (“considers”) in excerpt e might give a hint for the question which version was written first. Thirdly, it is striking that three parallel sources of information are given for excerpt h, two of which were published in the same year as Cañadas’ article was published; this observation strongly suggests the assumption that all three articles published in 2009 used another source, maybe the website.

A résumé

The debate carried out between Cañadas and me is not only based on different opinions. It is also based on different basic positions. Unless I am very much mistaken, it is more important to me (than to Cañadas) that activities in the classroom are based on solid grounds; pedagogy and ELT are academic disciplines, so applications in these fields must be reasonable and it must be explained why they are reasonable, even in a practical magazine like HLT. In this respect (and with all due respect), Cañadas’s articles have a quality problem. What is more, when Cañadas claims that the activities are based on Rudolf Steiner’s ideas and later - after receiving criticism - seems to distance himself from Steiner slightly, then there is an even bigger problem. There is a revealing sentence in Cañadas’s second article: “I would feel very happy to have given the idea that the activities I use with my students are not ‘hocus-pocus’ but very carefully researched pedagogical activities which happen to have a link with Steiner’s tradition.” Apart from the matter that the activities, even if we assume they are “very carefully researched”, are not presented adequately, why do they happen to be connected to Steiner?

For whatever reason, there is an obvious difference in how Cañadas and I see our professional life: In my life as a teacher in prep classes at a Turkish state university (in a part of the Muslim world, which by the way is not exotic), I am confronted with students partly coming from educationally disadvantaged environments (so the students’ profiles are very probably strikingly different from those ones at private Waldorf schools), and it is often hard to convince them that learning a foreign language is something enjoyable which helps develop one’s personality. Giving attention to insights in how humans learn and applying modern methods I try to be a successful teacher, but I definitely do not succeed all the time. Unfortunately, I have not discovered yet the world of “perfectly effective language teaching methods, as Suggestopaedia, Neurolinguistic-Programming, Transactional analysis or Multiple Intelligences as possible future elements within the international European curriculum” (Cañadas, 2011).

References

Bierl, P. (2007) A Pedagogy for Aryans (Translation of an article published in the German magazine Jungle World 36/6). Retrieved May 5, 2011 from:
www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/BierlFinal.htm

Braybrooke, M (2009) Beacons of the light. One hundred people who have shaped the spiritual history of mankind. John Hunt Publishing Ltd.

Cañadas, T. (2009) How do Rudolph Steiner’s Theories to E.L.T? HLT 11/4

Cañadas, T. (2011) Rudolph Steiner’s Theories and ELT (2): A reply to Stefan Rathert’s Article HLT 13/2

Goldner, C. (2001) Äther-, Astral- und Ich-Leiber. Die obskure Welt von Anthroposophie und Waldorf-Pädagogik, in: Ribolits, E./Zuber, J. (Ed.): Karma und Aura statt Tafel und Kreide: Der Vormarsch der Esoterik im Bildungsbereich. Schulhefte-Verlag, Nr. 103, Wien, 2001. Retrieved January 23, 2010 from: www.fkpsych.de/psycho/anthroposophie.html

McDermott, R., Henry, M. E., Dillard, C., Byers, P., Easton, F., Oberman, I. and Uhrmacher, B (1996) Waldorf Education in an Inner-City Public School The Urban Review 28/2, p. 119-140

Morsink-Kuin, W. (2008) Education in the Netherlands. An Overview. The School Scoop Series. The Plain White Press, LLC

Plagiarism (definition). Retrieved May 5, 2011 from:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarism

Rathert, S. (2010) Rudolf Steiner and ELT? A Reply to Tony Cañadas’ Article. HLT 12/5

Reardon, D. (2009) Achieving Early Years Professional Status. Sage Publications Ltd.

Rudolf Steiner (Wikipedia article). Retrieved May 5, 2011 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner

Rudolf Steiner (Internet article, Copyright © Gareth Lewis, 1991). Retrieved May 5, 2011 from: www.freedom-in-education.co.uk/Steiner.htm

Waldorf Education (Wikipedia article). Retrieved May 5, 2011 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education

Zander, H. (2007) Anthroposophie in Deutschland. Theosophische Weltanschauung und gesellschaftliche Praxis 1884-1945 (2 volumes), Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Ullrich, H. (1994) Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), vol. XXIV, no. 3/4, 1994, p. 555-572

Please check the Methodology and Language for Primary Teachers course at Pilgrims website.