In his latest publication, Albert Schmelzer takes an objective and well-researched examination of concepts often criticized in the Steinerian oeuvre.
Using Steiner’s biography as a guide, the emeritus professor from the Academy for Waldorf Pedagogy in Mannheim and Alanus University of Arts and Social Sciences contextualizes the “tension field between freedom philosophy, human rights, nation, and ‘race.’” And it truly is a field of tension, so highlighted here with erudition and explored in depth across its various points in time and diverse political circumstances. Both anthroposophists and those less familiar with Steiner’s worldview will easily follow Schmelzer’s narratives because he clearly explains the historical facts as well as Steiner’s specific intentions in each case. The author draws on a wide range of academic literature with the aim of painting as comprehensive a picture as possible concerning how Steiner not only used concepts differently throughout his life, depending on context, but also changed his approach repeatedly. Schmelzer also weaves in statements perceived as criticism and offers corrections where necessary.
He begins with a broad tour d’horizon to characterize the state of science between 1492 and Steiner’s lifetime. Chapters three to sixteen are devoted to life phases and tasks and examine the extent to which Steiner addressed the concepts mentioned in the title. Each chapter concludes with a reader-friendly summary. For example, while Steiner celebrated Bismarck as a “statesmanlike genius” on the occasion of his death in 1898, a few years later, he criticized him for pursuing ruthless policies when the opportunity arose. Steiner likewise revised his judgments about Wilhelm II and Germany’s war guilt in World War I.
More serious for today’s discussions are statements on the subject of “race,” which Schmelzer always places in quotation marks since it is now regarded as a concept devoid of reality. Steiner often used the word unguardedly and uncritically—in the style of his contemporaries. In his teachings, he initially described the connection between incarnations by establishing hierarchies according to degree of development, for example, in the “root races,” introduced by the theosophists Sinnett and Blavatsky, which he situated in history through his reading of the Akashic Records. But Steiner also established a hierarchy of skin colors that is also not accepted today. He later relativized this position by claiming that an individual incarnates at one point here and at another there in order to strike a balance. Schmelzer clearly points out the contradictions between this concept, a relativization of “races,” and Steiner’s rejection of racial ideals from 1917 onwards, ultimately leading him to spontaneously make fatal statements about white “superiority” in his Lectures for the Workers. It remains open how such a change of position could have happened to a spiritual researcher. Schmelzer cites Steiner’s lack of research as one cause of these contradictions: he did not explore fluid concepts in greater depth, as it was a rather marginal topic for him. In order to make a fair judgment, it should be borne in mind that the majority of the Collected Works contain lectures that were freely formulated according to the audience and situation.
According to Schmelzer, another contradiction lies in the answer to the question of whether, according to Steiner, history proceeds teleologically or is freely shaped by human beings: evidence can be found for both positions. Ultimately, however, the assumption of individual self-determination of the consciousness soul outweighs the other. According to Schmelzer, Steiner corrected his negative posture toward Jews over time (unlike Kant, Fichte, and others). While, as a young man, he had adopted the stereotypes of his environment, he later distanced himself from rampant anti-Semitism. He also corrected his cultural chauvinism. However, Steiner consistently maintained his emphasis on the individual, consequently evaluating his Philosophy of Freedom as his most important book.
For me, the main merit of Schmelzer’s new volume seems to be that it demonstrates how Steiner—depending on the current political situation, the fruits of his reading, the contemporary discourse, his audience, his intentions, etc.—repeatedly adopted new vantage points and emphasized different aspects. Schmelzer has the courage to go into painful issues and, with historical distance, to question Steiner’s ambivalences, changes of opinion, and even prejudices, stereotypes, and errors in many phases of his life and fields of work, and to historicize them as products of their time. This fruit of Schmelzer’s decades-long struggle with Steiner’s much-criticized concepts is highly recommended to anyone interested in the subject.
Book Albert Schmelzer, Rudolf Steiner im Spannungsfeld von Freiheitsphilosophie, Menschenrechten, Nation und “Rasse” [Rudolf Steiner in the tension field of freedom philosophy, human rights, nation, and “race”] (Frankfurt am Main: Info3, 2025).
