A new scientific mindset and environmental education
There is not THE science to follow. What science has to say should be understood, not «followed». A contribution by Dušan Pleštil.
«Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, no matter how it turns out» (Václav Havel).
We live in a time of various crises. The crisis of our relationship with nature and the earth is one of them. Everyone knows the call to «follow the science». But we often forget that science is part of the problem. Scientific thinking characterises the way we see the world today, the way we act in nature and with nature. Natural beings are turned into things, natural processes into natural mechanisms, mindless and lifeless. Biology, a science of life, has long since resigned itself to the question of what life is. The question of life is not asked. The attempts of the 1950s to create artificial beginnings of life in the laboratory were only completed with a few organic molecules. There is also not THE science to follow. It reminds me of my youth, when the communists also had a «scientific worldview» to follow. What science has to say should be understood, not «followed».
But if we accept, with all due respect for the achievements of modern natural science, that the situation of the earth and the natural world is a consequence of the way we think about life, we come to the realisation that we urgently need to make an inner turnaround, discover a new scientific attitude, and new ways out of the crisis. And these paths can only be individual. There are only scientists, but not THE science.
In his speech at the founding of the first Waldorf School on 7th September 1919, in Stuttgart, Rudolf Steiner spoke about the need for this new scientific attitude. He chose, as an example, the modern understanding of the human heart, which was and still is regarded as a mechanical pump. A mechanical understanding of the human body and its functions can never become a basis for a human-centred pedagogy; today, we see that it can also never become a basis for a natural approach to the living world.
«We are looking for a science which is not merely science, but which is life and feeling itself, and which, at the moment it flows into the human soul as knowledge, at the same time develops the power to live in the soul as love, to flow out as active volition, as work immersed in the warmth of the soul. Work which connects directly with what is living, and to the becoming human being. We need a new scientific attitude.»1
This new scientific attitude can be understood as Goetheanism, although Steiner did not express it directly on this occasion.
It is remarkable how little Steiner speaks about Goetheanism in the context of his lectures on Waldorf education. In fact, I’m aware of just two places where he makes a direct connection between Waldorf education and Goetheanism. The first is in the sixth lecture of the lecture series, «The educational question as a social question», where he presents the future of recognising the dead mineral world as an impetus for grasping life. He describes Goetheanism as the keynote of this endeavour.2 Secondly, the word Goetheanism appears in the teachers’ meeting discussion in which a suitable name for a new school is being sought. One of the names suggested by Steiner was Goethe School!3
I suspect that Rudolf Steiner so rarely related Waldorf education directly to Goetheanism because it is actually a form of Gotheanism itself. As an example, let us take a basic description of the initial teaching of the human and animal sciences epoch after the Rubicon of the 9th year of life. The starting point for the «inner mood» of the lesson is the idea of the human being as a synthesis of all the other kingdoms of nature, but on a higher level. Today, we have much more scientific evidence in favour of such a view than was possible in Steiner's time. Let's just take the fact that the human genome is probably largely of viral and bacterial origin, including, for example, the genes that are essential for the formation of the placenta. Humans have actually internalised the whole of evolution. Furthermore, the way in which Steiner describes the course that the lessons take is a morphological approach. He himself describes the method as «working out the concept from the form.»4
In the sensitive period after the Rubicon, the child wakes up especially to the outer aspects of the world, to the form. Steiner encouraged the teachers to make an exemplary comparison of the human form with the forms of invertebrates «far from humans» and mammals «close to humans», naturally according to the age of the children. The shape, the form of the human being and the animal, is a revealed secret of its essence in the Goethean sense. From this morphological consideration, Steiner moves on to a moral consideration of human hands, which represents a high point of the lessons. For Steiner, it is not only the brain, the intellect, but also the uprightness of the human being, which frees the hands to work for the world. For Steiner, this freeing of the hands the most human aspect of humankind. It lends a strong impulse for the children, who, according to Steiner, thereby come to an active «healthy feeling towards the world.»5
This approach is an important support for the child's development and at the same time a significant contribution to environmental education in the sense of Waldorf education.
The first lessons of nature study lead to a sense of responsibility towards the natural world and have the potential to appeal to the will. Today, we know so much about what is going wrong in nature, but we do little or nothing. But the earth needs our actions. The Waldorf teacher and Goetheanist Andreas Suchantke wrote in his excellent book, «Partnerschaft mit der Natur»:
«The search for a new approach to nature, the resumption of dialogue, the approach to overcoming dualism, obviously begins today not from the level of knowledge, but from the level of action. One almost gets the impression that the field of knowledge is, on the one hand, «externally occupied» by theoretical consolidations and the development of traditions in the field of science. On the other hand, knowledge is undervalued by the positivist primacy of the feasible, and thus not accessible, or at least not accessible for the time being, to the «new consciousness» that is ignited by the absolute historical novelty of the ecological crisis. It is looking for other ways.»6
The structure of the first natural history series of lessons, which was already sketched out at the beginning of the 20th century, when the environmental crisis was not yet known, is certainly a great help in better mastering the crisis of the present. But is it enough? When you meet so many of our students today who, grieving for the environment, see no hope for the future of the earth, and neither for themselves, you can feel that it is not.
A well-known American environmental educator, Joy Palmer, sees environmental education as having three legs. It consists of education about the environment, secondly, education through the environment, and thirdly, education for the environment.7 In Waldorf schools, I think we are very good at learning about the environment. Although there are certainly good examples of the two other types of learning, the Waldorf movement still has a lot to do in this area.
If children today are confronted with images of destruction – and they are exposed to them in abundance through their lives in the digital space – they cannot develop confidence, hope in the future.
I recently saw a biographical film – Salt of the Earth – about Brazilian photographer Sebastião Salgado. Through his work, he came so close to what people can do to other people during conflicts and genocides that he lost all trust and hope in people, which led to a serious life crisis. He subsequently began photographing the animals and came to a very intimate experience of life and living. Together with his wife, he began to revitalise the devastated and deforested landscape on his father's farm through planting and irrigation.
In just twenty years, they transformed 17'000 acres (approx. 6900 hectares) of desert into a rainforest. In doing so, he not only healed the landscape, but also himself – and took photographs again. His message was simple. It works!
And that should also be an educational mission for environmental education in the approaches of Waldorf education. There is hope. And hope is best achieved through doing, through an active encounter with nature that is meaningful. If the children can experience, through meaningful work in small-scale projects, that nature can be helped sustainably if it is cared for, and thus transformed, they will build hope for the future, they will become more resilient, healthier.
Dušan Pleštil
References
1. Steiner, R.: Allgemeine Menschenkunde als Grundlage der Pädagogik (GA 293). Rudolf Steiner Verlag, Dornach 1992, S. 208.
2. Steiner, R.: Die Erziehungsfrage als Soziale Frage (GA 296). Rudolf Steiner Verlag, Dornach 1991, S. 103.
3. Steiner, R.: Konferenzen mit den Lehrern der Freien Waldorfschule in Stuttgart 1919 bis 1924. Erste Band (GA 300a), Rudolf Steiner Verlag, Dornach 2019, S. 196.
4. Steiner, R.: Erziehungskunst. Methodisch - Didaktisches (GA 294). Rudolf Steiner Verlag, Dornach 1990, S. 100.
5. Ebenda S. 105.
6. Suchantke, A.: Partnerschaft mit der Natur. Entscheidung für das kommende Jahrtausend. Urachhaus, Stuttgart 1993, S. 170.
7. Zum Beispiel Palmer, A. J.: Environmental Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice, Progress and Promise. Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1998.