For Ulrich Rösch - Goetheanum

For Ulrich Rösch
Autor Page
Paul Mackay 4
Hans Dackweiler 5
Aban Bana 7
Anna Kurbarova 8
Anežka Janátová 8
Ute Craemer 9
Christoph Klipstein 10
Dietrich Spitta 15
Peter Lüdemann-Ravit 16
Ulrich Rösch 21
Many thanks to Hanna Koskinen. She collected these texts and encouraged the
writers to contribute. This will at the same time be the end of a ten years long
fruitful collaboration.
Now we both are very excited to learn, what the future will bring to us.
photos on the left side:
1. lecture in Bangalore for the Bio-dynamic Association India (BDAI), 2009
2. with the 98 years old father of Aban Bana in Mumbai, India
Ulrich Rösch
3. at the conference in Prague 2008 "The Soul of Europe" (with Mathieu van
den Hoogenband, Hans Hasler and Peter Selg)
3

Paul Mackay
Goetheanum
For me, Ulrich Rösch is someone who lives faithful to the idea. Earlier in his life
through Wilfried Heidt he met the idea of the threefold social order as an
organism. Then, through Wilhelm Schmundt and Joseph Beuys he met again
and internalised this idea. This allowed him to recognise this idea faced by social
reality. He is a talented phenomenologist. Moreover, he has an exceptional
talent for education and method. In an exemplary manner, he knows how to
lead his listeners to the idea of the threefold order of the social organism. It is a
pleasure to listen to him. You are led immediately into a world of pictures and
of social relationships that allow you to experience the reality of powers at work
in social life.
I still see fresh before me my first meeting with Ulrich Rösch. It must have been
a meeting of the Social Science Section in the early ’80s of last century, when he
was asked by Wilhelm Schmundt to give his view of the threefold order. Already
then I was impressed how he formed his contribution.
When Ulrich Rösch became a colleague of Manfred Schmidt-Brabant in 1999, a
fruitful collaboration began, which, as successor in leading the Section, it has
been my pleasure to continue.
Dear Uli, for our collaboration, which I value very highly, I would like to express
my warm thanks. May there be many opportunities out of your faithfulness, for
you to introduce the idea of the threefold social organism to many, especially
young people!
4
Yours, Paul
English by Alan Stott

Hans Dackweiler, Deckenpfronn
Ulrich Rösch has attentive eyes. He takes notice of people. He observes their
appearance, how they move, but above all how they behave towards each
other. He follows social interaction.
It can happen that he keeps quiet for a long time during meetings, although a
contribution from him would be helpful; he is silent and observes. He exudes
calmness, since his gaze is not disturbing. What he weighs up concerns the
questions under discussion, and also relates to the people concerned. These
concerns always look at what wants to come about between people. He lives in
what wants to become.
I got to know him in the middle of the ’70s of last century. He was visiting the
master-weaver in Lautenbach and asked her whether she could weave a stole
that was to go with a dress of the Rakattl collection. Frau Peters, the weaver,
could indeed weave the piece, but only at a price that would exceed a successful
prospective marketing. This is one of the greatest problems facing production in
Europe. Ulrich stood by Frau Peters, whose view was justified. He weighed up
the question and finally saw he had to order the woven part from South-East
Asia.
This was my first impression – a businessman who plans carefully. The second
impression concerned the lady’s dress to which the woven stole should belong.
It was beautiful; it had style. It was made out of natural material, had a simple
pattern, and created a form for the person who would wear it. Ulrich Rösch
recounted that Rakattl is a firm whose products are made in the Wangen
Waldorf School. The first product was a doll, then came dresses for women and
children. These are beautiful items.
Ulrich Rösch with others founded the Wangen Waldorf School and worked
there for many years. He taught, and has carried the responsibility of the
school’s new building. With all the calmness that he emanated – here he was
not an observer, but someone intensively active.
These activities of the will were supported during the years of collaboration in
Achberg, a centre for the study and research on social questions. Here Ulrich
worked on decisive directions in his professional life. On 22nd August 1968, at
17 years old, he meets Wilfried Heidt in the market-place in Lörrach. It is the day
after the Russians marched into Prague. Since then he has been close to Wilfried
Heidt. He became his pupil, and accompanied him to Achberg, near Lake
Constance. There with others they founded a centre for social science that was
to carry the name Achberg. Other founding members are Peter Schilinski, and
Jutta and Fred Lauer.
He studied Wilhelm Schmundt’s social scientific works. A world of ideas opened
up. He meets Joseph Beuys, whom he initially only knows as a threefolder, not
5

as a visual artist. This side of his work he only met after Joseph Beuys’ death.
In 1999 Ulrich was invited to come to the Goetheanum in Dornach. There he
worked first with Manfred Schmidt-Brabant, then with Paul Mackay, Leader of
the Social Science Section at the Goetheanum. There I came into contact with
him again in a working group dedicated to the study of conflict. The group
consisted of advisors in conflict situations, lawyers and others interested in such
issues.
Here Ulrich’s nature and way of working was evident. He listens, observes; he
intensively follows the thinking. He avoids appearing as the one who decides
and leads. Yet thoughts emanate from him that connect to what wants to come
about in the group. Humour, too, flashes up repeatedly.
Ulrich is often in Prague, speaking with the people, holding lectures; a large
conference is organised. It is moving to experience how Ulrich speaks about the
people of this country. His heart opens when he tells of their openness, their
spiritual search and above all of their warmth of heart. Ulrich also travels to
other places, taking note of people; he holds lectures. The people of Eastern
Europe are especially close to him.
I look at events in which he was involved. I see how he works in movement and
in speech. I look at the people in whose social context he stands and I see
concrete things. I look a little beyond the surface, hoping to approach the
essence of this human being.
I perceive new things arising through people. This is what deeply moves Ulrich.
A realm opens up which is not prescribed; something new, completely new, is
coming into being. Human beings together fashion something which humans
create, leaving their mark on the spirit of our times. That is one thing that I
perceive.
The other realm is not easily put into words. It belongs to Ulrich’s inner being. I
receive the impression that here is the source out of which Ulrich draws when
he weighs up that which leads him to people, what he wants to carry into their
midst. I will describe it with the name – justice. Ulrich would like to contribute
towards the essence of the human being.
Ulrich has read what I have written and complains: I am not like this! I also have
sharp corners and weaknesses! I am sure he is right. But I have not directly
experienced them.
Is that what makes a human being, his lighter and darker sides? What deeper
levels are reached by the good side, and what by the less good? It seems to me
that there are streams of being which point towards the future; others belong
to the past. I have attempted to mention the former.
Hans Dackweiler, Dorfgemeinschaft Tennental, Deckenpfronn
English by Alan Stott
6

Aban Bana
Mumbai, India
My sister Dilnawaz and I have known Ulrich Rösch and his wife Cornelia for
many years. We have met them in Europe as well as in India. They have a special
connection to India, which they have visited on a regular basis for many
years. Ulrich has been active in the Anthroposophical movement in India; he has
visited many of the initiatives like Waldorf Schools, Biodynamic Farms, Camphill
Homes, Branches and institutions and has met most of the members! It is always
a joy to welcome him in our country.
One pleasantly memorable episode, which I would like to recall, was during the
Christmas holidays 2008. Ulrich was at our home in Grant Road, Mumbai, at a
meeting of our Gateway Branch, where the branch members representing six
religions were assembled. In spite of the incessant traffic noise, Ulrich gave a
talk on the deeper meaning of Christmas and the social impulse. It was such an
intense atmosphere, that our 98 year old father, who was still alive then, was
deeply touched as were also the members present in the group. We are glad
that this year he will be back in Mumbai, again at Christmas time.
Next year Ulrich will celebrate his 60th birthday, three days before mine. We all
wish him Happy Birthday and many happy returns to India.
With best wishes,
7
Dilnawaz and Aban Bana
Mumbai, India

Anna Kurbarova
Kharkiv, Ukraine
With warmest greetings I would like to congratulate Ulrich with his birthday. I
am very happy that I have possibility to work with such experienced and kind
advisor. During our work I have learned literature about ideas of social threefolding.
Also during my studies at the Goetheanum I was happy to take part in his
workshop.
Especially I was impressed by the conference `Soul of Europe' in Gdansk,
Poland, where lots of people from different countries gathered together and
discussed different themes concerned with solidarity of european people and
shared their experience.
I am looking forward to work in our international research group and I would
like to wish Ulrich good health, happyness and harmony in his family and inspiration
for his further research work.
Kind regards,
Anežka Janátová, Praha Czech Republic
My dear Hanna,
My dear Uli,
Kurbarova Anna
Kharkiv, Ukraine
on the last weekend we had in Prague already our third congress related to the
rose cross; "The rose and the cross". My thoughts were very strongly with you.
It would have been marvelous, if you also could have been here with us. It
would give courage to both of you. It concerned the actual heavy times, and St.
Michael and Christ. We came down to earth for these hard times.
And so we have enough power for our fights. It is important, to have a sun sign
before our chest . Because all arrows, which aim at us, go through and the angel
behind us already knows, what is to be done thereby.
8
Anežka Janátová, Praha

Ute Craemer
Monte Azul, Brasilien
Dear Ulrich,
Congratulations on your birthday. Muitas felicidades e principalmente saúde
We got to know one another better at the Fórum Social Mundial in Porto Alegre
(Brazil), the great forum of all civil-society activities and often also merely great
slogans. Particularly impressive were Leonardo Boff, the Indian NGOs, the
minorities and of course also the many Brazilian social movements such as
Movimento Sem Terra, the minorities and especially also the Monteazul Group.
We were walking past your stand and it immediately attracted our attention as
it was not only discussion that went on there but artistic work. Members of the
Forum were able to work through the masses of information and the many
impressions by working with colours. This creates a very quiet yet dense
atmosphere. After the Forum you still had enough energy to give a talk for the
Anthroposophical Society.
These shared experiences no doubt provided the basis for our collaboration at
the Social Sculpture – Monteazul Conference at the Goetheanum in the autumn
of 2008. I was a major event – controversial, fascinating, and deeply moving.
We were sometimes more and sometimes less successful in relating the different
approaches - thinking to doing, doing to thinking – mainly thanks to art and
with the thinking of the heart. Symbolically this came to expression when about
300 people embraced the Goetheanum by tying a ribbon of love around the
building as they danced and sang.
Some important words spoken at the Conference:
It is the human being who matters.
The more you give yourself, the more life do you gain (Monte Azul)
Genuine social science is based not on something I study
but on something which another reveals to me. (Rudolf Steiner)
Thus I can well imagine that the planned 'Social Forum with spiritually inspired
initiatives' may fill you with enthusiasm.
All the best for the future.
Ute Craemer, Monte Azul, São Paulo/Brazil
9
English by Anna R. Meuss

Christoph Klipstein, Achberg-Liebenweiler
1 Early days in Achberg
In the early 70s of the 20th century we would have a staff meeting every
Monday evening in Humboldt House at the International Cultural Centre in
Achberg (INKA). Ulrich Roesch was one of the younger people among us. I had
got to know him as a student on the teachers' training course who was full of
enthusiasm for the idea of a social threefold order and had moved from
Loerrach to Achberg following Wilfried Heidt, the important co-initiator and cofounder
of INKA (e. V. = reg. charity). We were a mixed group, youthful idealism
and the long experience of life of the 'old hands' came together, and we talked
about God and the world, cleaning services, house rules, work in the kitchen
and tea room, about the situation after the Prague Spring and the year 68 in
Germany and Western Europe, as well as preparations for meetings and
conferences. Those first meetings gave wings and enthusiasm to Ulrich Roesch
and the rest of us. Just as young children delight their parents, so the early stage
of a new enterprise can be a wondrous thing – everyone has equal rights,
making their own free decisions and discussing and deciding together on
everything on the agenda. Insight into the need for differentiation, for
responsibilities and spheres of competence would later on lead to crises and
important learning processes.
2 Preparations for the future Wangen Waldorf School
The establishment of a Waldorf school was one of the aims at Achberg
International Cultural Centre. Some of us therefore established the 'Freie Schule
Achberg – Waldorf Schule e.V.' Association, and so it came about that quite out
of the blue I found myself to be the chairman of the association, for having
attended a Waldorf school myself I had been class teacher at a secondary school
in the Allgaeu region after I had moved to Achberg. Soon after this Uli Roesch
became a member of the council as well. He devoted himself with energy and
inner commitment to the work of preparing for the establishment of the school.
Having completed his teachers' training at Weingarten, he was class teacher at
the secondary school in Niederwangen near Wangen, gaining his initial
experience as a teach at a 'normal' state school, like myself. Meanwhile an
initiative group of future teachers at our Waldorf school had come together.
When my father, Hermann Klipstein, came to Achberg from Hibernia School in
Wanne Eickel in the holidays, he would work with us on The Study of
Man/Foundations of Human Experience. His second wife, Roswitha Klipstein,
would do speech work with us. Both were later to work at the Wangen School,
10

my father then in his retirement. Ulrich Roesch was very much part of the
initiative group, making a major contribution in holding it together with his
talent for organization, preparing for and following up our meetings. At a
weekend meeting of the group inthe 'Steinknickle' in the Swabian hill country
we decided that I would only join the future faculty some years later (following
Helga Latanowitz), since I was still very much involved in other, wider spheres of
work at the Achberg Cultural Centre. I lived through a number of tight
situations, being something of a Jack of all trades in my youthful innocence. I
therefore cut down on my activities in founding the school. Ulrich Roesch, on
the other hand, was wholly involved and committed to the enterprise.
Came the time when we needed a founding teacher. The German Waldorf
School Association would not accept my father for this, saying that he was
retired and too old for the burdens of such a post. Nor was Ulrich Roesch
accepted, for being too young and lacking experience. Our ideas and experience
also did not go exactly in the direction of having a single individual as the
Association-approved founding teacher. An autonomous faculty style had
already developed, with the school's affairs managed wholly on our own
responsibility. The problem then became a plus for us, with the evolving faculty
deciding that the two should take responsibility for the post together. Ulrich
Roesch and my father were accepted as a founder teacher team by the
Association. And this team spirit turned out to be a blessing for the further
development of the school.
Sponsorship of the Waldorf school in Ulm was sought in vain at this time, and
so, too, that of the Ueberlingen Waldorf School, in our very own, unorthodox
founder style, though a working relationship with them had started to develop
by then. In the end, Manfred Leist and Stefan Leber from the Board of the
Association of Independent Waldorf Schools had to be our personal sponsors, a
new development in the Waldorf school movement. Later these two 'important'
gentlemen asked Lotte Ahr to join them as educational adviser.
3 Anthroposophical Society in Wangen
At Michaelmas 1972 those of us who wished became members of the
Anthroposophical Society, Folkert Wilken from the Oberrhein Centre providing
the references for the 'Achbergers'. A relatively small group of us met for the
regular group work – Ulrich Roesch, Peter Schata and I were the younger
members, Jutta and Fred Lauer and Elise Kaspers (during the times when she
came to Achberg from Milwaukee and Paris) the older members of long
standing. In the personal and dignified atmosphere of the Lauer home our small
group functioned as 'our own branch leader', working together in a continuous,
intensive and dense way.
11

4 Wilhelm Schmundt
This was also the time when we in Achberg met and began to work together
with Wilhelm Schmundt, and Joseph Beuys also soon joined us. Wilfried Heidt
had originally arranged with Ruespe Study Centre that Wilhelm Schmundt
would come to talk to us. And so it came about that in a room off the main
auditorium of Humboldt House we, the younger members in Achberg, from the
student movement of 1968, were, well, not exactly lounging but certainly at
ease on our seats, and before us stood Wilhelm Schmundt, erect, friendly and
calm, with a subtle inner fire, wearing a formal dark suit, and developed his
ideas, the basics of which he had published earlier with the publishers of the
School of Spiritual Science under the title Der soziale Organismus in seiner
Freiheitsgestalt (the social organism configured in freedom). Using coloured
chalks, he carefully and slowly drew the curved lines of the different money
streams on the board. Wilfried Heidt and Peter Schilinski were not prepared to
accept him at first. As far as I know Peter Schilinski has not changed his views
much in this direction, but Wilfried Heidt later made Schmundt's ideas his own
with enthusiasm.
With Ulrich Roesch, the consequence was that he managed to get permission to
write about Schmundt's ideas in his final paper at Weingarten College of
Education: 'Die monetaeren Prozesse in der modernen Industriegesellschaft' (the
monetary processes in industrial society), and I, the Waldorf school student, was
able to assist in giving the illustrations artistic form. Later, when Wilhelm
Schmidt was again presenting his ideas to a larger audience at the 'Third Way'
annual conference in Achberg, using coloured chalks, he referred with some
pride to 'Mr Roesch, my assistant'. And Ulrich Roesch stood beside him, with the
longer hair of the time of 1968, in a suit of green cord, and with a long pointer.
Stepping forward calmly, 'dignified' and with a slight smile, he would point to
the areas of the money streams under discussion with the same care as had
gone into drawing them.
5 Nobody is perfect
We had to learn in our spheres of work that the ideals of the Social Law, and
also Schmundt's ideas, are not that easily implemented one to one in reality.
Antisocial impulses tend to arise not only in theory and not only in others as the
spiritual soul develops. Some of us felt that Ulrich Roesch seemed rather
domineering in his leadership style, tending to go his own way. Yet he was
shouldering much all by himself, and in some situations, though not in all, going
it alone may have been the only option open to him if anything was to happen
at all. I on my part found his management, and the financial management of
the young school not exactly 'revolutionary' if one considered our original ideals.
I was working on the concrete caissons for the new school at the time and had
12

a good, close relationship with the other building workers. A proposal I made -
today I realise it may not have been without a dash of 'moralic acid' to it - was
rejected by the faculty who did not understand it at all - it was to tell the
workers about the Waldorf school during their paid working hours and invite
them to our monthly festivals, for example. Their idea that if they were really
interested they might take up offers made by the school in their free time simply
was not in accord with the reality of a hard day's work and frequent overtime.
Conflict and hurt feelings arose among the faculty at that time.
One one occasion when after a faculty meeting Ulrich Roesch came into Adolf
Tiedemann's office (who was in charge of the building site and the school's own
building firm at the time), the latter asked him laconically if he had not been
able to stand all that head-nodding. But attempts were made to introduce the
building workers to the principles of Waldorf education and the threefold social
order over a glass of beer and a bite once a month.
I once complained to my 75-year-old father about the faculty in general and
Ulrich Roesch in particular. His response was that I had failed to make myself
fully part of the faculty at the given time. He added with humour, lovingly and
with some resignation that he, too, sometimes felt he was 'Mr Roesch's
assistant'.
In theory my critical attitude at the time was no doubt right in many ways. In the
art of social development as presented by Schiller in his On the Aesthetic
Education of Man, speaking of the clockmaker who quickly replaces a small
wheel with practised skill, so that function does not stop for even a moment in
that clock of inadequacies - in that art we are still very much at the beginning.
Ulrich Roesch simply went ahead in the way he was able then, consistently,
faithfully and with growing competence, and Fred Lauer, business manager of
INKA e.V. at the time, gave him much valuable support. And in the inadequacies
of the 'Wangen clock' the young Waldorf school came into existence and
proved viable.
I did not at the time succeed in finding my place in the Wangen faculty, and
continuing my work in other spheres of work in the Achberg context seemed
pointless by then, so I followed a call to be a class teacher at the Rudolf Steiner
School in Hamburg Wandsbeck.
We went our separate ways then, and my collaboration with Ulrich Roesch
stopped – for about 33 years!
6 Today and tomorrow
Many years later, when on holiday in the Allgaeu region, Ulrich Roesch invited
us to a meeting. And the impulses of the early work in Achberg were still alive in
us. Further meetings showed that other friends from that time in Achberg felt
13

much the same.
And so we have been meeting continually at somewhat extended intervals for
about five years now, a group sharing our thoughts and talking about the
original Achberg founding impulse in a 'kind of conference'. (Ingrid Dernte,
Gerald Haefner, Christoph Klipstein, Henning Koehler, Jutta Lauer, Ulrich
Roesch, Martin Roesing, Alfred Wohlfeil on a regular basis, others such as
Monika Klipstein, Dorothe Koehler, Ingrid Litze, Claudine Nierth and Rainer
Rappmann joining us sporadically). Wilfried Heidt, to whom we are all, each in
his own way, much indebted because of that earlier collaboration, does not take
part in these meetings. Without wanting to go so far as speaking of a tragedy, it
seems that it is not possible for us to collaborate with him at present.
To perceive and sense what the events of our time demand of us with their
global crises is one of our concerns, brought forward again and again in the
group by Ulrich Roesch. What preparations can be encouraged so that when the
situation of our age opens up and the call comes, loudly and clearly, for
solutions to the global social issue, there will be enough people who spiritually
will not be found wanting?
We deeply regret that for financial reasons Ulrich Roesch will no longer be able
to continue his work on these issues in the Social Sciences Section. For we feel
that right now this Section is the most important for the time being in the work
at Dornach. And we will not give up hope that in the not too far distant future
the Social Sciences Section at the Goetheanum will be able to take up and
continue the work on the issues which Ulrich Roesch also represents, with the
necessary financial provision and a greater number of workers.
My wish for Ulrich Roesch is that in future, too, he will be able to work for his
and our concerns, and we look forward to continued collaboration.
Christoph Klipstein, Achberg-Liebenweiler
14
English by Anna R. Meuss

Dietrich Spitta
Filderstadt
Dear Uli,
For your 60th birthday I wish you very warmly all the very best. It is now a few
decades since we have met and collaborated in the Social Science Section with
Manfred Schmidt-Brabant and for conferences, lately with the conference of the
Sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschungsgesellschaft e.V. (“Association for research
in social science”) collaborating with our Section on the “The challenges of
globalisation: concepts and bases for a solid economy“ in March 2009 in Rudolf
Steiner-Haus, Stuttgart. There you gave the important lecture on “Distinguishing
work and income as a task of the 21 st century“, which is now published. 1 The
main social law developed by Rudolf Steiner in his three essays “Social science
and social questions” (GA 34), and the renewed form of working life through
an associative, solid collaboration, are for you deep concerns and motifs for life.
For decades you were an active co-worker of the International Culture Centre,
Achberg, where, as far as I know, you met and were enthused by the anthroposophical
social impulse. There you worked closely with Wilfried Heidt; Wilhelm
Schmundt was your teacher, and you were closely connected with Joseph Beuys.
In Achberg in 1972 you were involved in the then new founding of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft
für Dreigliederung (“Working community for threefolding”). In
the Association for Research in Social Science, which on the initiative of our
meanwhile unfortunately deceased friends Manfred Schmidt-Brabant and Manfred
Leist was founded 30 years ago, as well by Stefan Leber and myself, you
were also a founder member and have remained faithful to this very day. In the
Section, which is now named the Social Science Section, you have been for
many years very active as the right hand of its leader, Paul Mackay, and with
your initiatives involved in the planning and organising of many conferences,
some large and very successful ones, e. g., in Prague and Gdansk. Besides your
successful activities as a business man, it is a cause of admiration and of gratitude
all you have achieved for the anthroposophical movement and in particular
for its social impulse.
And so I wish you good health and a few more decades for further fruitful activities.
Yours, Dieter Spitta
English by Alan Stott
1 A collection of lectures: „Die Herausforderungen der Globalisierung“. Verlag Johannes M. Mayer. Stuttgart,
2010.
15

Peter Lüdemann-Ravit
Pforzheim
Social Attitude and Social Cultivation
as a Path of Experience
Alongside my great respect for Ulrich Rösch, I am also at one with him in a
differentiated perception of human meeting. How can we live and work
together in a way that is stimulating and fruitful? What individual capacities and
what framework does it require?
Uli has been dealing with these questions for very many years. For him the fact
that one can meet them only with a clear mind, a big heart and a strong will
became his practice in life. These questions penetrate my life, too, as a constant
basic mood. Consequently, I would like to give you a glimpse into my “workshop”.
Things become clearer on the background of my social endeavours.
Initially, I approached the social questions more perceptually in the family
situation and in a group of the freie bündische Jugend (free county youth,
Switzerland), then more actively in school as class representative and on the
pupils’ council. Towards the end of my school-time, I began to approach these
questions more consciously. I joined politically active groups searching for
answers on the basis of socialistic communal criteria. When I began my studies
in law in Freiburg, I found – or it found me – an early edition of Rudolf Steiner’s
“The Renewal of the Social Organism” (GA 24). I was enthused; at the same
time I knew that I only understood a thimble-full of his concern, and what
evolutionary consequences it can have.
In my profession as a judge, I soon noticed how fruitful it is to be stimulated
through Steiner’s “Renewal of the Social Organism” and his lectures and essays
on the threefold order, and to be aware whether the weight of the oral
discussion really lies on the level of faculties, or the level of rights, or the level of
needs, in order then to tune my reaction or presentation. Throughout the many
years of my collaboration as an active parent of a Waldorf School, I experienced
how helpful and to the point it can be in such an institution to assess, with
reference to the threefold social organism, the training of the organs necessary
for autonomous governing.
Of course, for both realms of work I was able to explain why this was so, but
could not quite clinch it. Only through the work with students did this become
possible.
The Waldorf teacher training at the Institut für Waldorf-Pädagogik Witten-
Annen, offers a remarkable course of studies on the subject, work, rights and
management – social art. As a guest teacher there I was given the opportunity
16

to hold seminars. I experienced how difficult it is for the students initially to
engage in conceptual theories, in order later to use them as a basis for practical
work. I noticed that a steadily increasingly part of the younger generation is
inclined to learn from life, for life. This means that the need is there first to gain
experiences, in order through evaluating them to arrive at insights.
I had to take this into consideration when trying to introduce the threefold
social order to the students in Witten/Annen and through it a differentiated
perception of social meetings, as well as a resulting change in social behaviour.
Nearly all human encounters are based on needs, certain rules and individual
faculties. With social institutions such as partnerships, projects, companies and
states this is regularly the case. If this is so, then the proposed seminar on threefolding
itself can also offer to all participants an accessible basis for experiences.
In the seminar, we consequently looked at the coming-about and the beginning
of the seminar under three leading questions. (1) How were the changing needs
of the participants and the teachers acknowledged in the planning stage? (2) In
order to make it happen, what agreements were made, by whom and in what
ways? (3) Who set up free spaces to unfold faculties, and which spaces? After
working with the students on these questions, the question then arose whether
these three leading questions were sufficient, or whether there were not further
relevant questions. The answers would improve the gained bases of knowledge.
This counter-question was fully justified. Why three and not four, five or more
leading questions, and with them basic aspects? To answer this, we had to
clarify the finality of the basic questions, that is, what we wanted to know. The
questions aimed to ascertain whether the organisational prerequisites for a
fruitful seminar were given. The verification, whether this was indeed so, was to
arise in meta-reflections during the seminar and especially in the final review. In
order to pursue the question of “Why three?”, we looked at well known
threefold phenomena, for example, time with its past, present and future; space
with its three dimensions; the three soul-faculties of thinking, the feelings and
the will; the triad of spirit, soul and body, and in religion the Trinity of Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. What do they all have in common?
We discovered that all these triads shared one function. They create orientation.
This they achieve in highly complex contexts. Orientation means, I perceive a
phenomenon in full self-consciousness and can relate it to my situation. This
relationship enables me to deal adequately with the situation. It also makes it
possible to communicate this relationship. Without the help of the orientation, I
am always in danger of losing myself in the details, or of being possessed by one
thing. None of these triads is static. Rather, the three respective aspects
interpenetrate, standing in a mutual dynamic relationship. In cultural history,
they represent achievements. In pre-rational cultures they do not yet play a role.
In sick rational cultures they are not allowed to play a role – here the orientated
human being is feared.
17

The threefold order is still missing in life’s highly complex social realm, that is, of
living and working together. If it is to become culturally internalised and even
become a matter of course – as was the case, say, with perspective –, then
teachers are necessary. They would have to be able to orientate themselves in
the social realm in the same sovereign manner as they are in command of
perspective thinking. Teachers, that is, who do not lose their awareness in the
social dimension, and are socially competent in the manner they conduct things.
When the distant-learning course for Waldorf education was conceived, the
question was put to me to fashion the social science lesson. I agreed. With this
background, it was clear to me to choose the threefold social order as content
for this lesson.
Most children, youngsters and young people want as far as possible to learn by
doing. If their teachers do not want to go continuously against the grain, but
rather meet these basic needs in education and method, they should experience
the path of experience. This has consequences for teacher trainings. They too, as
far as possible, should follow the laws of the path of discovery. This, of course,
also applies to an educational distant-learning course and its lesson in social
science. In what follows, I describe how I have structured this.
In almost 20 pages, the students are introduced to what the lesson is about. After
this minimal introduction, they are to be allowed for one month to become
aware of the differentiated perception of their own and others’ social actions.
In the first three weeks observation is directed respectively towards one realm,
beginning with the micro-social realm of the family, partnership, living
community, or something similar. During the second week observations follow
in the meso-social realm, for example, of an institution, a school, or a company;
in the third week observations in a macro-social realm of a state and beyond, to
which belong towns, counties, the country, the EU and the UN. To each day of
the week one of the respective three levels of relationship is assigned, that is,
the level of ability, responsibility or needs. Human conduct in society can be
seen under various points of view. Consequently, the necessary focus arises
through the leading questions. At the end of the week a review takes place with
an evaluation. In the last week the students with their gained experience are
consciously to fashion their own social behaviour.
To conceive and work out these lessons was most stimulating. I was to proceed
the opposite way to the usual teaching manuals. There the conveying of
knowledge is the assumption. Then there follows, if at all, tasks that can be
solved with the help of the gained knowledge. If such a manual is good, then
the author himself has been observing. Upon this basis he has gained
knowledge which he can then convey. For the learner with the book on his
knees, there remains only to comprehend, so to speak on the dry land, why it is
so important in swimming to breathe in exactly the right way when the
18

outstretched hands are led from in front of the head in a semi-circular
movement back to the body.
In my lesson, observations stand as tasks at the beginning. The learner, to stay
with the image, has himself to jump into the water. He will get wet, and that is
good because he has to dive immediately into life and awake in life. For only
when he enters fully awake does knowledge arise in reviewing and evaluating,
as the master-thinker Martin Heidegger, remarks, “We never arrive at thoughts;
they come to us”. 2 It is obvious such gained knowledge lasts longer than the
sort gained from reflection of foreign knowledge.
I was looking forward to see the student feedback. They mostly confirmed my
expectations. In particular the working out of the micro-social realm was felt as
fruitful. It was often mentioned how within the family a differentiated
perception of meetings reduces the amount of conflicts, or is even helpful in
crisis situations. I am astonished how personal these reports were. I am very
happy about it, because when something is led into abstraction warmth and will
are always lost. These two elements are still strongly to be experienced in the
reviews. Through this it becomes evident that the students are themselves
immersed in the social path of experience with their whole personality – not
only with the head. Through the reported insights, I can more or less measure
how strong the awakening is through the experiences.
Even the situation in the workplace during the week dedicated to the mesosocial
realm is very often experienced in a more wakeful manner. It becomes
clear why some things are more strained and unfruitful, whereas others are
satisfying and successful. For many, the third week is the occasion, for the first
time consciously, daily to read the political part, the business part and the
reviews of a newspaper, and to reflect on what they have read.
For myself, the social-science lesson is likewise a path of experience. When I
agreed to fashion it, I had no idea what would meet me. I only knew that I
could not fall back on examples, for hitherto the anthroposophical social
impulse had been founded and presented in a mental manner – with the
exception of Rudolf Steiner’s accounts. There only remained my faith that it
would somehow work. It was just as difficult to judge how the participants of a
distant-learning education-course would take to my suggested paths. Here too I
had to trust my own human and professional knowledge, and be prepared to
deal with failure. I also prepared the readiness if necessary to change the lesson
radically for a second run. Meanwhile, I find myself in the phase of review and
evaluation; the present contribution forms an essential part of it.
I am renewed by confronting the question how method and content in schools
can be made so actual, that they can be orientated to what comes to us out of
the future. What do I mean by this? Now, all curricula, school timetable, etc. –
2 Martin Heidegger, Aus der Erfahrung des Denkens, Pfullingen 1967, S. 11
19

whether of state schools or free, independent schools – in the moment they are
issued, are already a part of the past. It doesn’t change the fact that the people
who formulated them have thought long and hard over what should be
important for the future. Our thought and concept nature is indeed of the past,
that is formed by own socialisation, family origins, religious persuasion or its
opposite, training, cultural group, the spirit of the age, etc. Past things have
permanently formed us. From this side there is no escape. This is confirmed
impressively by glancing at forty years of endless failure in educational policy in
the German Republic. With plans of that sort the past is projected into the
future, bringing results comparable to when poison of a dead body is instilled
into a living organism. The organism becomes ill. The central question is
whether with this background adults are permitted to define how the following
generation are to be, even if – as is highly likely – they want to be quite
different. This is a question where even the collegiums of free, independent
schools run into problems.
But how, then, are method and content to be orientated, both of schools and
colleges? With developmental and learning needs there appears in the
consciousness of the present what wants to become the life-style of the future.
Precisely in this realm, however, the developmental and learning needs of adults
no longer play a role. Their life-style is already formed. So, the needs of the
children, youth and young people have to be faced. Needs want to be
perceived, sensitively heard.
Is it possible to found schools and colleges on such perceptions? I do think so.
My initial certainty is based on my experiences with “captura”, a movement of
young teachers and upper-school pupils. It was shown in three meetings at
Pentecost of “captura”, that it is certainly possible to organise the content and
methods of the offered courses and working-groups according to the needs of
the pupils. This does not produce chaos. The working-groups and courses were
felt as very fruitful and stimulating. The adults learnt, increasingly from meeting
to meeting, to abandon structured organisation. They experienced that
everything over and above planning the outer framework only serves to banish
one’s own fear of failure.
Because the specific needs of particular students cannot be known beforehand,
but have always to be felt and perceived in the moment, a training based on this
can only be a path of experience for all involved – students and tutors. This
means that, ever afresh, following a need and the intuition arising out of this, a
first step can be taken together. Review and evaluation follow, upon which the
resulting next step is linked.
And how is this to happen in a school with its many teachers, pupils and
parents? It can only happen when the teachers possess a high degree of social
competence. And without doubt belonging to this is the ability to orientate in
the social realm. Peter Lüdemann-Ravit, Pforzheim, English by Alan Stott
20

Making human dignity economic or having an economy for human dignity
Brief points of view by Ulrich Roesch
The world we live in is not for sale – this postulate comes from our modern civil
society movement. It is a desperate reaction to a development where everything
may be bought – rights, services, capital, property, nature, human labour. The
last in particular is now used in a massive attack on human dignity.
All social services and values are also becoming merchandise. University and
other education, schools, care provision, services for others – everything is
considered only from a limited economic point of view. This is only logical with
an approach where soul and spirit are wholly denied. Everything is seen merely
from the limited point of view of creating material value. Anything that
interferes with this value-creating process is reasoned away or denied for
ideological reasons. Our humanity and many things achieved by humanizing our
existence fall victim to economic constraints.
It is not economic life as such that has created all these problems for us, but the
way in which developments in today's economic life are linked to the ideology
of liberalism which bases on egotism.
Rudolf Steiner characterized the abomination of this 'stock-exchange liberalism'
in the 19th century as follows. 'The principle of freedom has truly reached this
level of deterioration in recent decades, and "liberalism" as it is generally called
today is a caricature of the modern spirit.' (in 'Pabsttum und Liberalismus'
[Papalism and liberalism] 1888, German collected works 31, p. 137)
Adam Smith saw egotism as the driving force in all economic progress. If
everyone involved in the marketing process were to give priority to personal
gain, an invisible hand would invert the process to such effect that it would
serve to benefit the whole. Developments, particularly in the 20th century, have
taken this idea ad absurdum, it nevertheless holds a magic which makes some
people still believe in it. Actual developments have shown that open market
competition merely means that the rich and powerful grow more and more rich
and powerful, and that those who are 'powerless' have to stay in that state.
Anyone observing modern market developments will have no doubt of the
absurdity of Smith's ideas, yet they still fascinate, still have such a magical
attraction that the majority of today's societies still base themselves –
consciously or unconsciously – on this ideology. True humanity goes by the
board for good and all with this.
We still think about social problems in a medieval and therefore also preindustrial
way. Modern societies have, however, gone through tremendous
developments in the meantime which our concepts cannot follow, and they
must therefore be de-ideologized. An unbiased, unprejudiced look at social
21

phenomena can become the basis for a creative way of thinking that can be a
source for creative but realistic utopias. Yet this is something which people of
our time find particularly hard to do.
The social problems all lie in the field of tension between the endeavours of
every single individual to achieve the greatest possible freedom, self-realization
and individualism on the one hand, and the realization of society's endeavours
in collective and solidary working communities on the other. Between these
arises the sphere of justification and obligation, of anything connected with
rights that calls for a standard of justice that is in accord with modern humanity.
In the past, social unions ensured the survival of the individual, individual
interests had to be given up for the sake of the community. In modern times the
situation is reversed. Today, the whole endeavour of communities should be to
enable individuals to develop freely. We can see how progressive a society is by
the degree to which the individual is to the fore – this alone would make it
possible for liberalism to develop in a modern and truly human way.
The global revolution of today is a logical consequence of our modern method
of industrial production which is increasingly going in the direction of worldwide
economic relationships and integration. National boundaries and legal
constraints can impede global spread to a degree but not prevent it. We should
take serious note of this phenomenon and not bewail it. It is important,
however, not to connect this inevitably with the ideology of neo-liberalism. It is
part of sound economic development that firms develop progressive integration
across the globe. The economic organism has the inherent tendency to form a
whole, a worldwide web of subtle relationships and integration. This truly makes
it possible for people to create worldwide bonds with all their brothers and
sisters around the globe.
The danger with this global revolution lies in the power of wrong ideas that are
not in accord with reality. Essentially these arise from a wrong idea of money
and capital: means of production as property (incl. real estate), paid work
(labour as merchandise) and profit (shareholder value) driving the economy.
These three terms are a relic of medieval production methods for barter, not
appropriate in a modern, post-industrial private enterprise system. Such a failure
to see the real situation does, however, harm the human being and hence
human dignity.
Rudolf Steiner clearly perceived the dangers of an economy that had no soul:
'The element which has driven the modern world towards the capital growth
principle inherent in modern capitalism, has on the other hand ... become linked
with the lack of genuine interest as capitalism developed, a lack we see in
modern times particularly with regard to the deepest impulses in the human
soul.' (lecture of 1 Feb. 1919: Emancipation of the Economic Process from the
Personal Element. Anthroposophic News Sheet 1944: 13 - 16; German collected
22

works 188, p. 229) Needs and skills are, however, part of human nature and
destiny. Work always relates to the needs of others. We thus have the very
archetype of a social gesture in it. I need the other person so that I may develop
my gifts and abilities further, and the other person needs me so that he may live
in dignity on this earth, and vice versa. Give and take rank equal in the
balancing out of destinies.
Our abilities are the fruits of previous lives on earth. In the division of labour, the
principle of fraternity has become the element to shape economic relationships.
Division of labour and specialization, and also mechanization and virtualization
in the production process need to be consciously complemented with interest in
the other person. Working to meet the needs of another we actually bring a
profound impulse for the future to realization: interest in the other, love, which
here brings the impulse to shape our future, work towards a new state of the
earth, to realization in a free act.
Any kind of work done for gain will however inhibit such impulses of pure
humanity. Rudolf Steiner was again perfectly clear and radical on this point:
'that no real deep conviction of reincarnation and karma will ever thrive in a
world order where people think wages and labour have to correspond directly,
where one has to earn by one's labour what one needs in order to live.' (lecture
of 21 Feb. 1912, in Reincarnation and Karma. German collected works 135, p.
88)
Personal advantage will gradually give way to interest in our brothers and sisters.
This does, however, need a philosophy of life where we understand the essential
nature of the human being. 'The only thing which will help is a spiritual view of
life which in itself, with all it has to offer, enters wholly, in a living way, into the
thoughts, into the feelings, into the will, in short the whole human soul. ... In
those who do not have a philosophy directed towards the spirit, the very
institutions that promote material wealth must of necessity also increase
egotism and so gradually lead to need, misery and poverty. – It is indeed right,
in the original meaning of the word, that we can only help individuals by
providing them with bread; bread can only be provided for whole populations
by helping them to develop a philosophy of life.' (Anthroposophy and the Social
Question page 28; Spring Valley: Mercury Press 1969/82)
Our social development has continued, bringing tremendous changes, but our
thinking has retained the old forms. From a barter economy, the functional
principle of which was exchange of goods and which based on direct work on
nature (the soil), we have from the beginning of our present age moved to a
money-based economy. Originally human rights and human dignity could
become visible in this exactly because of modern 'free' labour. The step was not
taken consciously, however, and the old idea of paid work remained. The step
towards an economy of abilities, where free individuals become active for others
23

and freely dispose of capital generated through the human mind and spirit was
thus taken in real terms but not yet in conscious awareness.
Human needs are the starting point and give direction in all economic
endeavour. Economic values arise as nature is changed by human work and with
abilities (mind and spirit) that organize the work – always aiming to meet the
needs of the consumers. We have to develop a completely new perception,
thinking and sentience for the natural basis (ecological dimension: sustainable
protection of nature) and also human labour (socio-economic dimension: 'right
to work in accord with human dignity'); this can then give rise to creative, active
shaping of social life.
A brief description of creating economic values may follow. We start from
human labour and hence the archetypal phenomenon of a socially active
person. Labour always serves to produce something, to do something that will
meet the needs of another. This reflects an original social gesture: one individual
has needs in this world, another – someone who has the abilities needed – is
prepared to meet those needs. The direction of the process is always changing.
Each has particular abilities which he is able to use to meet the needs of others.
On the other hand he, too, has many different needs and is therefore
dependent on the work done by others. Abilities and needs – both bear the
stamp of the special individual nature of whoever has them.
Labour thus exists between two opposite poles. It is guided by the abilities, out
of the individual's inner world, as it were. It brings its influence to bear in the
outside world. It is only when the 'work' becomes visible to others that the
product gains its (economic) value.
With and thanks to division of labour, modern economics already have the
potential basis for the principle of fraternity inherent in them. However, the old
egotistical principle of means of production as private property, which is not in
accord with present reality, prevents the solidary methods of production that are
needed.
Whenever there is 'unemployment', whilst needs are not met, the economic
system has gone wrong. New forms must be found to organize it functionally,
horizontally and vertically, so that a sound relationship between human needs
and abilities may be sustained.
The extent to which human abilities and needs have been made individual, i.e.
how far people are able to do things for others in freedom (liberty), gives us a
measure for the degree of a society's advancement.
The principles that apply in our modern economic society are division of labour,
dependence on others, collective production methods. No part of the world is
independent of others today. It needs comprehensive, global collaboration to
meet the conditions of post-industrial production systems.
24

'Global players' know this, but still need to be freed from the 'repression' of
shareholder-value thinking. Modern production methods, where one is
comprehensively working for another group of people or one other person, also
call for the economic functional principle of solidary or fraternal (brotherly and
sisterly) collaboration (fraternity).
The flow of economic values, the origins of which were described above, goes
hand in hand with the rights or legal processes of employment contracts or
agreements for 'workers' and consumers' rights to obtain the goods produced.
These processes are made possible with money. Money as an element of rights
regulates these rights relationships – the money system and our whole sphere of
rights must be put on a democratic basis. In a new 'agreement' the rights
processes can be based on equality (equality).
Liberty – equality – fraternity are the principles by which a modern society
based on self-management functions. It can, however, only be said to have
human standard if given a corresponding threefold order – liberty in cultural life,
equality in the sphere of rights, and fraternity in economic life (Rudolf Steiner).
Or we may also adopt the formulations of the Prague Spring and say that the
goal is 'socialist with a human face'. Such a society will also be regionally
organized and a differentiated global society. It would be a central task for
modern humanity to make this come true.
For centuries, the human race has suffered from having to earn its bread by the
sweat of its brow. Today people can be freed from this immediate labour
because we now have developed so many abilities. Jean Ziegler, Swiss Special
Rapporteur for UNO, travelled widely to see where poverty is most severe and
what might be done about it. He said that our planet is bursting with riches, and
people die of starvation not because of objective but because of social deficits.
Death of starvation is not destiny. A child dying of it has been murdered. The
year before, he said, six million children under 10 years of age died of starvation.
(L'empire de la honte [the empire of shame] 2005). We live in a rich world and
are producing enough to let everyone live in dignity, but do not manage to
distribute the goods in a way that is even reasonably fair.
In conclusion I would post a question. Who was the greatest representative,
most effective in the public domain, of the threefold social order movement in
the second half of the 20th century? The artist Joseph Beuys. He was a genius in
taking up these impulses for humanity, right down to its deepest dimensions.
In the 1970s we spoke of limits to growth, to a one-sided economic growth that
was seriously threatening the environment. Beuys went directly to the heart of
the matter: 'The term "economic growth" must be got rid of; it is wrong. There
has to be further development in economics. The question is only what should
grow and what needs to be held back. The question needs to be considered in
much greater detail. We might say that there has to be further economic
25

growth, and social sculpture must truly grow in the economy. At present we
have alienation between people as a "policy of coldness", we might say. It has
to be filled with the plasticity of warmth. Warmth has to be generated between
people, love. It is this which lies in the mysterious concept of the Christ.' (in
Soziale Plastik (social sculpture), ed. Harland, Rappmann, Schata, Achberg 1976)
This brings us to the spiritual dimension which is needed if we want to consider
the modern social question objectively. Rudolf Steiner was very clear about this,
though many of our anthroposophical friends do not want to hear of it to this
day. We cannot progress in our spiritual and cultural development and cannot
achieve our mission on earth 'and humanity will no longer be able to join in the
discussion in future unless it organizes its social organism in a threefold way,
with socialism in economic life, democracy in the life of rights and the state, and
freedom or individualism in cultural life. This will have to be seen as the only
weal, the true salvation for humanity.' (The Foundations of Human Experience.
Hudson: Anthroposophic Press 1996).
Much remains to be done. May people learn more and more to distinguish
between the things that matter and those that do not.
photos on the right side:
left hand side:
1. with Prof Hans Christoph Binswanger at the Goetheanum
2. with Rainer Rappmann and Otmar Donnenberg
3. panel at the conference in Prague "The Soul of Europe", 2008
4. money circulation in the social organism
Ulrich Rösch
English by Anna R. Meuss
5. with Rajah Banerjee in the bio-dynamic Makaibari tea-project in Darjeeling,
India
right hand side:
6. in Achberg near Lake Constance in 1972
7. in the school of Sevapur, India
8. with the women's committee in South India
9. with Seth Thomas Jordan in Spring Valley, USA
26