& Friends - Anthroposophical Society in America

internet. The “words” in that article are, of course, not words atall; on the computer they are an arrangement of 0s and 1s, and,on the ink-jet printed page, a carefully choreographed condensationof microscopic drops of ink. The powerful art works thataccompany the article are said to be the dramatic and colorfulcreations of Van James and Michael Howard. When examinedwith a magnifying glass, however, they prove to be just a lot ofpixels and sprayed ink. (At the end of the article, Michael Howardmakes it possible to obtain a higher quality reproduction ofhis piece. He provides his email address so that you can orderit…via the internet.)There certainly are other ways to get hold of Prokofieff’sarticles and a great deal of anthroposophical material, but morepeople seem to be less inclined to go to any source other thanthe internet. This past summer, Prokofieff appeared, “live andin person,” at Encircling Light, Expectant Silence, an inspiringconference in northern Canada. The stunning brochure thatannounced the gathering gave no fewer than 12 email addressesand/or internet URLs to use in signing up for and receivinginformation about the conference. Indeed, it would have beennext to impossible to register, make flight arrangements, settleon a hotel room, and make plans for meals, without using theinternet.And one more example: When I cite a Steiner quote in a lectureto younger generation teachers, I can be sure that, withinmoments, one or two audience members will be on the internet(using a notebook computer or an iPhone), finding one of themany Steiner books that are already online and checking the accuracyof my citation. (This doesn’t bother me at all; before mylecture, I also visited the internet and checked my references inadvance.)Such internet dependency may sound dire, but what would ithave taken to convene a fully-fledged anthroposophical conferencein White Horse, Yukon Territories, without the internet?Probably something akin to transporting Sergei Prokofieff tonorthern Canada by dog sled rather than by plane. And howcould we make Steiner’s writings so readily accessible to themany “Michaelites” who need them without publishing thoseworks on the internet? Given the very limited number of peopleable to explain and interpret Steiner, and the small number ofSteiner books in print, there may be no other way to reach thosepotential readers who are spread all over the world. The internetmay serve anthroposophy as the printing press once servedRosicrucianism—a means by which a relatively small number ofindividuals working out of the depths of esotericism can reach amuch wider public. In the 17th century, that “public” numberedin the thousands; given the needs of our time and the power ofopposing forces, today’s “public” must certainly number in themillions.Should anthroposophists be protective of Steiner’s works orproactive and assertively public with them? Should we hide, orshould we seek? These are questions that have long vexed ourranks, and the answer is probably not “either/or,” but closer to“both/and.” On the whole, over the past century, anthroposophistshave done a better job “protecting” (remember thosepolice dogs!) than “proacting,” yet, even so, Prokofieff tells us:Already today one can find the most awful and defamatoryattacks on Rudolf Steiner, anthroposophy, Waldorf schools,and other institutions connected with anthroposophy on theinternet.As one whose book, The Waldorf Teacher’s Survival Guide,has been the subject of such attacks, I can attest to the accuracyof Prokofieff’s statement. And, as one who has overseen aWaldorf-related web site for over a decade, and who has seenthe internet articles and videos about Waldorf education thathe posted draw tens of thousands of viewers annually, I canattest to the fact that one can find the most positive, revelatory,and deeply grateful statements about Anthroposophy on theinternet as well.“The best defense,” as they say in the courtroom, “is a goodoffense.” Steiner’s opponents are unlikely to cease their attackswhether or not we choose to go on the internet, and it is likelythat their defamatory statements will only grow more virulentonline and offline. We don’t have to go searching for those whooppose Anthroposophy, but we will have to be far more proactiveto find those who seek it. In addition to the study groups,lectures, conferences, and performances that have representedus so well, we will have to use the means that the world providesand cast our net widely—even if that net is the internet.The importance of Sergei Prokofieff’s article lies in the eloquentand impassioned case that he makes for being completelyconscious about the internet’s provenance and sagaciouslycautious about its utilization. I concur with his principles andadmire his consistency. Prokofieff, I would contend, is invokingthe shield of Michael, protecting the core of anthroposophyfrom the destructive forces ranged against it. I would also liketo assert that there is merit in a very different approach to theinternet, one that understands its dark challenge as a force thatanthroposophy is empowered to meet. To face this challenge,however, it is not enough to invoke the shield. We must have theinitiative and courage to wield Michael’s sword, as well.Eugene Schwartz was a class teacher at Green Meadow WaldorfSchool for two decades, and worked with parents and colleagueson many media-related issues. He is now an educational consultantto Waldorf public and independent schools. His articles, podcasts oflectures, and links to videos about Waldorf education may be foundon his web site, www.millennialchild.com. Starting January 8, 2010he will give a series of lectures “The Media and Their Message,” atAnthroposophy NYC (www.asnyc.org).20 Evolving News for Members & Friends