Johannes Kronenberg has been researching and working on sustainable development and its spiritual and anthroposophical dimensions for seven years. Now, he’s establishing a field of work for this within the Section for Agriculture. Wolfgang Held joined him for a conversation.
Wolfgang Held: What does sustainability mean?
Johannes Kronenberg: Sustainability or sustainable development is a young discipline that has been institutionalized worldwide over the last forty to fifty years. Initially, it meant using “resources” in a way that preserves their natural, regenerative capacities. The classic example is forestry or fishing: only cut down as many trees as will grow back; only catch as many fish as the population can replenish. These activities have an eye towards the future, so we also say they create a future fit for our grandchildren. In the classic model, sustainable development spans three main areas: the ecological, social, and economic dimensions. Climate change, for example, has ecological and social dimensions because many people living on the coasts will have to leave their homes. Of course, there are also economic consequences. So, it’s clear that these three areas are closely interconnected. Our actions become “worth living for” when they are social and ecological, they become “viable” when they are ecological and economical, and they become “fair” when they are social and economic. If all three apply: fair, viable, and worth living for, then it’s sustainable.
This can hardly be said of today.
That’s why it’s about a transformation of the economy, social life, and ecological life. There are many possible solutions, many models, and well-developed technologies. So, we could actually overcome poverty or malnutrition; we could stop climate disruption and the extinction of species—but it’s not happening. There’s a fundamental gap in our actions, a “mind-behavior gap.” Our behavior does not correspond to our conscious awareness. Understanding something and recognizing it does not yet bring us to act. This has led sustainability researchers to speak about an interior dimension of sustainability, which includes our values, beliefs, etc. This is where a transformation must take place.
Even the pioneers of sustainability, the Club of Rome—a worldwide association founded near the beginning of the 1970s whose members are focused on ecology and guiding entrepreneurs—recently emphasized the idea that we need more than technical solutions. We need to see the spiritual dimension of human beings—as is becoming more and more clear today—if we want to understand why we don’t change our actions despite becoming aware of the need. More environmental activists have come to this conclusion. Paul Kingsnorth, for example, in 2018, said that he never thought he’d find himself declaring publicly that the ecological crisis is ultimately a spiritual crisis and that everything else is only a symptom of this deeper reality. I would say it’s a crisis of “Know thyself,” where the relationship to the self, to others, and the world and environment should be built up and revitalized instead of being broken down and called into question.
Has this interior view of sustainable development reached the universities?
Yes. Harvard University and Stockholm University have just recently helped to develop the Inner Development Goals. They define areas that we should transform inwardly and talk about “being,” “thinking,” and “relating, collaborating,” which is really feeling, and “action,” or willing. This fourfold approach can be developed and transformed. I find it interesting that the vanguard of sustainability science has come to this point. We can’t create an outer transformation without an inner one. This has been known since Aristotle and his doctrine of virtue, which was written at the temple of Apollo at Delphi: “Know thyself” (inner sustainable development) and “nothing in excess” (outer sustainable development).
This is the Greek ideal of striving for the middle?
Yes, exactly; and this is where sustainability science comes in. Previously, there were three fields, “economic,” “social,” and “ecological,” and now the cultural-spiritual dimension is being added as a fourth dimension. This permeates the other three fields. The spiritual dimension begins with the questions, Who am I? What is the environment? What is the economy? What is society? And what is development or evolution?
Integrating the soul like this has dramatic consequences for our idea of science. Are the researchers conscious of this?
Yes, that’s the question! The question emerges concerning the relationship between subject and object, which have been contrasted one against the other for so long: I and World as opposites. This way of thinking brings them together. I am the world, and the world is me. The result is a new relationship to the world. The carrot I eat, the field where it grows, that’s me.
A major summit on sustainable development and the Inner Development Goals was recently held in Stockholm. One of the keynote speakers was Ha Vinh Tho. He talked about the Gross National Happiness Index in Bhutan, which not only measures the development of national value in terms of the economy but also takes into account the happiness and satisfaction of its inhabitants. It’s worth noting that anthroposophy has been practicing this in relation to knowledge as well as the practical implementation for over a hundred years in order to achieve economic, social, and ecological sustainability, but also to integrate the cultural-spiritual dimension.
Specifically, the anthroposophical contribution goes like this: the Earth is not a broken machine to be repaired but rather a living organism, actually, a being. In sustainability science, we talk about systems thinking. In other words, you have to understand the whole system before you can comprehend the individual parts. Anthroposophy moves from systems thinking to the idea of an organism, i.e., to “organism thinking.” The Earth is not a system but an organism. In addition, anthroposophy doesn’t see human beings as destroyers of the Earth—nowadays, people like to say we’re living in the Anthropocene—but rather, anthroposophy posits that we’re the potential co-creators of the Earth. This doesn’t refer to the anthropocentric view that we’re the fulfillment of all creation, but that we aspire to be co-creators of the Earth. In 2150, will the Earth be one large city with demarcated “nature” zones? Or will we create a co-creative and integrative existence and reality with the landscape, plants, animals, and our fellow human beings? When Bruno Latour talks about the “habitability of the Earth,” we should add a “constructive anthropocentrism” to this dialog.
What’s the homework assignment then that comes out of anthroposophy?
We ought to make it more visible that biodynamic agriculture is about working towards an ecological, social, and economically just society. This isn’t just about the conservation of nature, regeneration, or fair wages and biodiversity. It’s a holistic approach that includes the cultural-spiritual dimension. Beyond nature conservation and regeneration, it aims to “generate” and transform the Earth—so that work on the evolution and development of the Earth becomes our meta-consciousness. A second homework assignment concerns our own self-understanding. If you live with anthroposophical thoughts, that alone doesn’t mean you are ecologically, socially, and economically positive. Rather, on a personal level, the question becomes even more intensified if you’ve formed a consciousness of what sustainability would require but then do nothing about it and stop at merely thinking about it.
In the same way that anthroposophy is a pioneer, for example, in organic farming, it’s equally important for it to get involved in sustainable development. One obligation concerns the question of how we can contribute to building up sustainable development—how we can make a spiritual contribution, in particular. It’s not easy because weather conditions and economic conditions in agriculture have become more uncertain. Extreme weather conditions are more frequent and can ruin an entire harvest. The economy has also become unstable, so under this kind of pressure, it’s not easy to work with surplus fluctuations. This shows that what is currently known as the “polycrisis” is manifested in the loss of real human encounters, real quality, and reciprocity—something that can be achieved through a broad and deep understanding of development.
You’re now planning a comprehensive publication with many different authors on sustainable development and anthroposophy. How did this initiative come about?
Some of the Agriculture Section’s collaborators took part in the UN Climate Change Conference COP27 in Egypt two years ago. We’d written a small booklet entitled Breathing with the Climate Crisis for the conference.1 We were encouraged to do this by a foundation that asked if we could make the basic maxims of anthroposophy on sustainability and the climate accessible to a wider audience. Some readers asked: Where are your practical contributions? Where can I find and see them? This motivated me to create a compendium that answers the question of what sustainable development means from various anthroposophical perspectives—from agriculture, medicine, education, and even from cosmology! There were also many practical examples from anthroposophical enterprises; so now, thirty companies and their projects are presented in the publication, and around twenty committed scientists and experts contributed different perspectives from the fields of education, medicine, agriculture, and art.
What personal experiences have you had in this field?
There were touching experiences for me, for example, at Sonett, the German company that manufactures laundry detergents and cleaning agents. I asked them: Can you show me the inside and outside of Sonett? What’s your relationship to the anthroposophical picture of the human being and the world, the relationship to sustainable development? A short time later, I had an incredibly inspiring text in front of me that spoke of inner depth and outer success.2 Recognizing how these two sides are connected was very moving for me. What’s interesting is that they don’t work for profit—that’s their mindset. They transfer the surplus to a foundation that then invests in the company and promotes culture. That sounds like a commonly known theory, but they really put it into practice.
Generating profit is old-fashioned? That used to be considered the most modern thing!
Not only is it old-fashioned, but it’s also worn out and lop-sided because this profit really comes at the cost of the Earth and humanity! Actual profit is when the Earth and human beings come out better than they went in. By also creating culture through profit, Sonett forms another layer around the whole thing. It all starts in their communal kitchen office, which creates an inspiring atmosphere in the company, and extends all the way to massage offers for their co-workers, for example, and contributing to broader societal projects. In addition to the three classic parameters of sustainable development (ecological, social, and economic), those involved become part of a greater development of humankind and the Earth through their cultural and spiritual commitment. And this brings the question of development and evolution into focus. In my opinion, this is often overlooked when people talk about sustainable development. The question is forgotten: We’re talking about sustainable development and sustainable evolution, so yeah, to where, then? What do we want to evolve into as humans and as a planet? This question is not actually asked in the sustainability discourse either. The United Nations hasn’t changed the definition in forty years: “Sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” in harmony with the Earth.
So, does sustainability mean maintaining the status quo?
Right, the status quo of a system actually means that it remains stationary. However, we have to add to the concept of development and evolution. This is very important because otherwise we’ll lose our way. Thinkers from the so-called global South also criticize this. They say sustainable development is elitist, it’s imperial, it’s neo-colonialist. Because what do people end up doing? They drive expensive electric cars, live in luxurious wooden houses, and hold onto all the power.
The devil comes back in through the back door.
Exactly. We have an absurd situation here because eighty percent of the world’s population has access to only twenty percent of the resources, while twenty percent of the world’s population claims eighty percent for itself. So the criticism from the global South is: How can you even think about saving in your rich world of abundance and then also forcing this idea onto us before we even have enough bread and water? There’s a huge tension and a radical injustice, which is why sustainable development must always integrate the social side of sustainable development, as the United Nations also stipulates. Certainly, awareness has increased, but people’s active effectiveness has decreased. We know more and do less.
You’re focused on sustainability. What kind of “being” is this knocking at the door?
This is a being that asks us to bring as much as possible into thought-permeated activity. It loves applied knowledge and applied anthroposophy. What we understand, what’s in front of our inner eye, must come into daily life with consistency and authenticity. It’s not a grand model or a government that will bring about great change through legislation. Rather, it’s the steps you and I take each and every day. I’m connected with the Section for Agriculture. That’s why I often come to the conclusion that, actually, I should become a farmer. Many people implement the idea of sustainability very radically—in China, for example. Some people there have planted so many trees that the new planting has swallowed up all the groundwater and thrown the environment out of balance. One also has to understand what one is doing well.
Where is the source of inspiration to discover what is good?
This may sound simple, but it’s how it is for me: goodness reveals itself through encounters with the other, through encounters with nature, and, ultimately, through encounters with the stars. I find the good—as inspiration, as intuition—in the quality of the encounter.
Footnotes
- Lin Bautze, Ueli Hurter, Johannes Kronenberg, Breathing with the Climate Crisis (Dornach: Verlag am Goetheanum, 2023). Download it for free.
- Read more about Sonnet in “Giving Back What You Take”, Goetheanum Weekly Issue #49.
