The Social Archetype E-Book

Nigel Hoffmann

• Herausgeber: Clairview Books
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Seitenzahl: 362

Beschreibung

We live in a time of multiple challenges to our rights and freedoms – not only in authoritarian regimes but also in liberal democracies around the globe. As the storm clouds of crisis gather, Rudolf Steiner's social vision – now a century old – offers a clear way forward. Radical in his time and still so today, Steiner's 'social threefolding' is not conceived as a logical 'system'. Rather, his picture of society as a living threefold unity, as a social 'organism', is an artistic insight that needs to be grasped imaginatively. To understand its three dimensions – the economic, the political-legal and cultural-spiritual spheres – and how they relate to each other, is to experience them inwardly. This requires a living, creative thinking that is able to enter the archetypal forces behind the concepts: a modern-day, truly Goethean approach to the social sciences. In an illuminating study, Hoffmann's dynamic presentation enables us to develop precisely such an artistic–imaginative understanding of the threefold social organism. He achieves this through clear descriptions of its principles and practical governance, whilst offering wise advice regarding the adaptation of education – at school and tertiary levels – for a threefold society.

Leseprobe

THE SOCIAL ARCHETYPE

Realizing Society’s Threefold Unity

A New Goetheanism

Nigel Hoffmann

Clairview Books Ltd.,Russet, Sandy Lane,West Hoathly,W. Sussex RH19 4QQ

www.clairviewbooks.com

Published by Clairview Books 2024

© Nigel Hoffmann 2024

This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Inquiries should be addressed to the Publishers

The right of Nigel Hoffmann to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 1 912992 64 5

Cover by Morgan CreativeTypeset by Symbiosys Technologies, Visakhapatnam, IndiaPrinted and bound by 4Edge Ltd, Essex

Contents

Acknowledgements

Introduction

PART I — THE THREEFOLD SOCIAL ORDER

Chapter 1 — Rudolf Steiner’s Social Impulse

Society on The Edge

Beyond Socialism and Capitalism

Chapter 2 — The Threefold Social Order

Order

Polarity in Nature and Society

The Threefold Archetype

Spirit and Matter

Chapter 3 — The Differentiation of the Three Social Spheres

Thinking Social History

The Threefold Social Organism: An Evolutionary Picture

The Germinal Unity

The Birth of Theocracy

The Birth of Democracy, Aristocracy and the Emancipation of the Political-Legal Sphere

The Emancipation of the Economic sphere

The Emancipation of the Cultural-Spiritual Sphere

A Conscious Evolution

PART II — A NEW SOCIAL SCIENCE AND SOCIAL ART

Chapter 4 — Social Science Re-imagined

The Human and Social Organisms

Goethe’s Way of Science

Goethe’s Phenomenological Method

The Realm of Colour

The Plant

The Whole Animal

Human Physiology

Animal Physiology

A New Goetheanism: Exercises Toward A Living Social Imagination

The Social Whole in Historical Study

The Individuality/Communality Polarity

The Living Threefold Social Wholeness

The Whole Manifesting in the Parts

Social Metamorphosis and Intensification

Chapter 5 — Social Art

Social Science and Social Art

The Gestation of Social Art

The Rebellion Against Forms: Beyond The World of Art

The Threefold Social Order As Social Artwork

A Social Art Case Study — The Coronavirus Crisis and Its Aftermath

Social Scientific Research Stage

Qualitative Research through Cognitive Feeling

Shaping an ‘Inner Spiritual Picture’ Through Cognitive Will

The Initiation and Potential of a Social Art Action

PART III — THE THREE SPHERES AND THEIR GOVERNANCE

Chapter 6 — The Economic Sphere

The Economic Process and The Arising of Capital

The Economic Sphere and The Social Whole

The Liberation of Work

The Associative Economy

Chapter 7 — The Political-Rights Sphere

The Bestowal of Right and The Democratic Striving

Rights and The Making of Laws

The Mediatory Role of The Political-Rights Sphere

Justice and A New Jurisprudence

Beyond Roman Law

Chapter 8 — The Cultural-Spiritual Sphere

Freedom

The Pathway of Free Creative Origination

A Society of Individual Wills

Cultivating The Will to Work

Chapter 9 — The Question of Governance

Threefold Governance

The Trias Politica As Prophetic Form

Governance of The Economic Sphere

Governance of The Political-Rights Sphere

Governance of The Cultural-Spiritual Sphere

National and International Governance

PART IV — EDUCATION TOWARD THE THREEFOLD SOCIAL ORDER

Chapter 10 — School Education

School Education and The Threefold Social Order

The Structuring of School Life As A Social Art

Schooling as The Womb of Social Existence

Chapter 11 — Tertiary Education

The Threefold Social Order and The Idea of the University

Stages of University Transformation

The Lecture and Seminar Re-imagined

Academic Freedom and University Governance

Notes

Picture Credits

Acknowledgements

Thanks go to Seth Jordan, Dr Luke Fischer and Tony Voss for reading through the manuscript and offering many valuable suggestions. Numerous conversations over the years with my wife Luisa have had a great influence on the text. The publication of this book was made possible through the generous support of the Ligsma Kirpe Trust Fund.

Introduction

A century has passed since Rudolf Steiner presented to the world his insights into social organization and social renewal. His idea of a threefold social order was radical in his time and remains so today—radical and insufficiently understood. We live in a time when concerns about social freedoms and rights are on the lips of very many people, in ‘democratic’ states across the face of the globe. As the storm clouds of crisis gather, Steiner’s social vision will reveal a clear way forward if it is grasped imaginatively, in a living, creative way—for that is how it was conceived.

The artistic imaginative capacity, so important in the education of children, so valued in the life of culture and spirit going back through all civilizations to paintings on the walls of caves, might seem to have no relevance whatsoever when it comes to the hard-headed conceptualizations of economics, politics, and the sciences. Yet it is precisely this imaginative capacity that connects us deeply with the world. Could it be that our clever abstractions must also be considered a form of impoverishment?

The view persists today that artistic intelligence—or what we will be calling cognitive imagination—has nothing to do with the development and teaching of social science. However, a deep and powerful stream of European thought has always known otherwise. Hegel, Herder, Kant, Schiller are just a few of the philosophers who have maintained that aesthetic-creative considerations are all-important if we are to find our way to a social organization which is balanced and just. From Kant comes the view that political judgement must be aesthetic in nature. Schiller was concerned with the kind of aesthetic education necessary to integrate the psyche and prepare every individual for a healthy social existence.1 Essentially, the idea we discover in this philosophical stream is that a genuine social science must draw upon much more than the logical intellect if we are to understand society in its deeper dimensions and wholeness.

Rudolf Steiner was heir to this tradition and made a unique contribution to it in his articulation of the threefold social picture. However, this contribution was not just another theory amongst the many theories which populate the history of social philosophy. Steiner’s view that society is a living threefold unity is an artistic insight. To grasp the different dimensions of the three-membered social organism and how they relate to each other, to enter into this social being imaginatively, is to inwardly experience it. Philosophies of political democratic process, new socialist or capitalist outlooks, theories of liberty and human rights, even the reappraisal of Romantic social aesthetic philosophy—none of these amounts to the central imperative for our time according to Steiner. What is most crucial is the development of the kind of thinking which can engage with the creative forces at work in the social world, living forces which are only perceptible through an imaginative thinking. The artistic sensibility wakes up as an organ of cognition when thinking is able to dwell within these creative forces intimately; then ideas themselves become active, creative powers. Thus Steiner laid the foundations for a new social science which is the natural companion of a social art.

It is in large part the artistic quality of his thinking that still renders Steiner’s social ideas inaccessible to the academic purview. Actually, although he rose to prominence as a scholar when in his twenties, he never had the slightest inclination to adapt himself to scholarly expectations in terms of intellectual content and methodology. For this he was far too much of an original thinker—but it has meant that his social outlook has to this point not been seriously considered beyond limited circles. His social thinking simply cannot be gauged in the usual scholarly ways. He produced no comprehensive volume of systematically worked out social thought which could be placed assertively on the library shelf next to Marx’s Capital or Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Rather, he offered his social indications mostly through articles and lectures to a variety of audiences, each of whom he addressed with a different emphasis. This itself speaks of Steiner’s artistic orientation; his social ideas are not conceived as a logical ‘system’ but are brought forth from different angles and perspectives, just as an artist shapes a work of art.

The fact that Steiner stands well outside the academic sphere in his consideration of physical and spiritual realities seems to be the reason that, even if one just quotes him, one can be branded a follower rather than someone who simply has made reference to his ideas.2 In such a unscholarly state of affairs scholarship becomes impossible. If ideas are truthful and important then any author has the right and duty to quote them, or perhaps devote a whole book to them. Just because one focuses one’s effort on the task of understanding and explicating the ideas of an eminent thinker doesn’t mean one is bound to that thinker by some kind of emotional dependence. If that were the case then all those scholars who have spent their intellectual energies on Aristotle, Marx, Plotinus, or any other philosopher of significant standing, should all be branded followers and have opprobrium heaped upon them.

Steiner’s ideas on the threefold social order most certainly warrant dedicated texts. These ideas are profound and original; they are rooted in the depths of the Western tradition of social thought yet are compelling in their quality of futurity. In the 1890s, through his involvement with circles connected with the celebrated Polish socialist philosopher Rosa Luxemburg, Steiner found himself at the epicentre of revolutionary thought in Germany. In 1902 he shared the lecture platform with Luxemburg at a gathering of the proletariat in Spandau.3 For four years beginning in 1899 he gave lectures and cycles of lectures to workers at the Workers’ College in Berlin, an institution founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht, the socialist reformer and friend of Karl Marx. Marxism, however, did not form the basis of Steiner’s developed social thinking. From 1917, in the social chaos after World War 1, Steiner gave hundreds of lectures on social issues, some to large audiences of the general public, some to private circles. He wrote a number of essays on ‘the social question’ for journals which had been started in relation to his social thinking; he also wrote one small book—Toward Social Renewal (1919)—which was really only a summary of his thinking. In addition to his writing and lecturing he made appeals directly to politicians, some of whom embraced his social picture as vital for the development of a peace plan for Europe after the war.4 Reviews and discussions of his threefold social vision were published in newspapers across Europe and America and one reviewer described his Toward Social Renewal as ‘perhaps the most widely read of all books on politics appearing since the war’.5 As a result of this very intense work on Steiner’s part we have today a significant legacy of potent social conceptions.

In 2020 the coronavirus mayhem engulfed the world and its consequences are continuing and building. It is obvious that this is much more than a medical situation; it is a social catastrophe of immense proportions. In times of crisis people perceive in an almost instinctive way that an opportunity for change presents itself. From many directions we hear talk of possible futures but the dominant themes represent a struggle between the left and the right, just as in Steiner’s time but in a new guise. What we have seen develop is a profound conflict in attitudes to public health measures. There are those in favour of public health authoritarianism—that is, placing the health of the public above the interests of the individual—and this tends to be the socialist orientation. It is opposed by those who defend civil liberties and basic rights (‘my body, my choice’); this is the more libertarian orientation. Of course, there are many shades between, as there always have been on the left-right spectrum. Steiner perceived the fruitlessness and danger of the struggle between the polarities of left and right, socialism and liberalism. That is why he took upon himself the difficult task of showing that society has in truth a threefold constitution, the third principle being a mediating, reconciling factor. In the present climate of acute and ongoing social disruption, the task and responsibility of realizing society’s threefold unity has never been greater.

Steiner’s outpouring of social ideas in response to the chaos in the aftermath of the First World War was a first step in the direction of conscious social threefolding. Many efforts were made, during his time and after, to implement these social ideas, in particular through businesses, schools, and curative centres. These vanguard enterprises did not always last—some faltered, in others the founding impulse became diluted and the enterprises were forced into the mainstream. Such cases could be used to argue that Steiner’s social ideas are utopian and not viable—but this wouldn’t be a valid critique. Any number of examples could be taken from the history of social innovation, science and technology, to demonstrate that certain impulses may be important and groundbreaking yet nevertheless may take very many decades of trial and error, perhaps even outright rejection at the beginning, before they are finally properly understood and embraced. As is always the case with such efforts and initiatives, much is learned in the process.

It is true that some elements of Steiner’s social thinking appear utopian; they do so until we realize that these aspects become practicable only when other aspects have first been realized. There are stages in any creative process and, if we picture a highly creative work of social transformation, some elements are going to seem impossible, even fanciful, before foundations have been laid and certain necessary forms are in place. For example, an associative economy as Steiner conceived it requires that we first bring a new consciousness to the forces involved in economic life and what we call ‘the market’. This is still only partially the case today. Remuneration based on needs rather than a wage structure is going to require the development of a new and highly developed understanding of the nature and function of capital. Steiner asserted that, in the future, there must come about a will to work completely outside the wage nexus, and this is obviously going to seem utopian unless seen in the context of his broader assertion that such a will can only come about through a transformed cultural and spiritual life. This last point is taken up in this book in Chapters 10 and 11, on school and university education.

Each and every aspect of Steiner’s social vision will require learning about new ways of organizing society and working together; the growth and circulation of capital, new forms of governance, freedom in education and so on—all will need to be submitted to the discerning eye of imaginative intelligence. There can be no predetermined programme of unfoldment, nor is an integrated threefold social organism going to arise in any miraculously rapid way. First and foremost is the imperative of gaining insight into the principles inherent in the three aspects of social life through an artistic form of thinking which enters into the archetypal forces at work within them—for without proper understanding of this social picture very little with real strength and durability could ever come of it.

The development of such a capacity of imaginative social insight requires a particularly dedicated striving because the young people of today are in no sense prepared for it through our conventional intellectually-orientated education. So here we have before us a fundamental task which is addressed in this book: to explore ways toward developing an adequate artistic-imaginative understanding of the threefold social organism, at all levels of education.

PART I

THE THREEFOLD SOCIAL ORDER

‘Modern humanity has only a first inkling of the real nature of the social question. It will assume its real form when the structure of the social organism is such that the three life forces underlying all human existence can rise in their true form from a vague instinct into conscious thought.’

Rudolf Steiner6

‘Citizens, no matter what happens today, in defeat no less than victory, we shall be making a revolution . . . it is the revolution of Truth. In terms of policy, there is only one principle, the sovereignty of man over himself, and this sovereignty of me over me is called Liberty. . . The common law is nothing but the protection of all men based on the rights of each, and the equivalent sacrifice that all men make is called Equality. The protection of all men by every man is Fraternity, and the point at which all these sovereignties intersect is called Society.’

Victor Hugo7

‘. . . the most important impulses of humanity have been tending unconsciously in the direction of [the] threefold membering for centuries, only they have never gained sufficient force to carry it through . . . the work must now be taken in hand for which preparation has been made for centuries; the work of bringing order into the social organism.’

Rudolf Steiner8

Chapter 1

RUDOLF STEINER’S SOCIAL IMPULSE

Society On The Edge

It can scarcely be doubted that the coronavirus has unleashed a social crisis of a magnitude comparable to the world wars of the previous century. Connected more or less closely with this crisis are other immense challenges facing humanity today. New nanotechnology and genetic engineering techniques are irreversibly transforming nature and human life. Digital identity and surveillance technologies are creating intractable dilemmas in relation to human freedoms and rights; this goes together with the transhumanist agenda of marrying artificial intelligence with the human brain in the name of progress. Immense disparities of wealth are leading to rapidly growing social instability. Political structures of leadership the world over are fraught; autocratic regimes with reduced press and Internet freedom are prevalent and growing. In comparison to the power of today’s political-economic alliance the hegemonies of any previous time in human history seem extremely limited.

The situation we experience today is really only a heightening of the conditions and tendencies which Rudolf Steiner saw in his contemporary world. For Steiner, the conclusion of the First World War with the Treaty of Versailles, far from resolving the social situation of Europe, cast its future into a perilous uncertainly. Into the difficult social situation he saw around him Steiner presented a vision of social renewal which he wanted to have more than just theoretical value; he wished the ideas to have an awakening power, an actual force of transformation. In this he was inspired by the German philosopher Johann Fichte whose biography he knew intimately through his doctoral studies. This is how Steiner described Fichte’s work as a university teacher:

[Fichte’s] purpose was to awaken spiritual activity and spiritual being. From the souls of his hearers, as they hung upon his words, he sought to call forth a self-renewing spiritual activity. He did not merely communicate ideas.9

As Steiner saw it, only through an enlightened art of teaching and by means of a new art of education could a power of dynamic, self-renewing thought germinate and take root in modern humanity. During the years 1917 to 1924 when his focus was very much on ‘the social question’, he set about creating the kind of educational institutions in which such enlivened thinking could be cultivated in young people. He perceived conventional education to be deeply and fixedly intellectual in nature, shaped by a very old ideal of learning—the doctoral ideal—which had its origin in the medieval universities and which, according to Steiner, is unable to serve contemporary and future social needs.10

The schooling movement initiated by Steiner is far better known than his thoughts on world economy, work and capital, human rights and democracy, but it is insufficiently appreciated that the schools are immediate fruits of his social vision. In historical fact, this movement sprang—like an offshoot of a river—from his broad and original vision of social renewal. Everything carried out in these schools—not just in terms of pedagogical method but in their entire artistic mood and gesture—is a picture of how renewal could take place in broader social spheres. The schools are the embodiment of this social impulse. The aim of this method of schooling is to educate the child toward freedom—and freedom is the ideal behind what he called the cultural-spiritual sphere of the threefold social organism. Steiner sought an education through which every child could go forth from school in freedom so that their individual capacities could be made fruitful in social life.

One of the charges Steiner faced even in his own time in relation to his social thinking was its supposed utopianism. This was levelled at his radical views on work and human rights, on money and true price, on educational and religious renewal—indeed, his social picture was thought to be utopian as a whole and in its each and every aspect. A century later we should be very cautious about making such a claim. Let us consider what, in the early 1920s, was Steiner’s ‘merely utopian’ view on the education of the child: ‘The spiritual-psychic individuality of the child is something most sacred . . . the teacher must remove whatever might hinder the development of [the individuality of the child], and shield it with the utmost reverence.’11 This proclamation of an education for human freedom was made at a time when school education worldwide was carried out in the traditional doctoral manner, through rote learning of a certain intellectual content primarily in order to prepare young people for a role in society (a methodology which usually included corporal punishment, something still prevalent in schools even in the 1970s). The world is evidently beginning to catch up with the respectful, reverential character of Steiner’s approach because education today is by and large more child-centred and more focused on the needs of the human individual. The truth is that Steiner’s pedagogy is not utopian at all but is groundbreaking, based as it is on a perception of the soul-spiritual nature and individual requirements of the developing human being. And it is equally true that his broader picture of social renewal is not ‘merely utopian’; everything pertaining to it flows from a perception of the needs of the modern age and all indications for renewal are made in such a way that will allow new ways of thinking and conducting social life to become realities in our time and into the future.

In certain circles of social life Steiner’s educational ideas made rapid progress and the schooling movement quickly spread to many countries. Today it is one of the fastest growing educational movements in the world. The same thing cannot be said of the broader panoramas of social renewal which Steiner entered into, such as world economy, social governance, work relations and taxation—but then, it is obvious why it is not so easy to bring about change on this level. There is always an immediate need for children to be educated and parents and teachers to take up the task of creating schools on a grassroots level. With economics, for example, with questions Steiner raised concerning capital, true price and the meaning of work, we are really dealing with the broadest possible social relations and quickly come up against deeply entrenched and powerfully resistant economic and political structures. Groundbreaking though such social ideas may be, relevant as they are to our contemporary social malaise, no one person or group in isolation will ever be able to effect significant social transformation through them. This question must then arise: How do such far-reaching ideas achieve efficacy in the world today, disinclined as we are to take up violent revolutionary causes? People nevertheless are seeking social renewal at a time when faith in the value of the conventional political process has become utterly eroded.

Steiner’s far-reaching ideas will never become efficacious unless they are properly—that is, artistically—understood. However, such understanding does not come easily in the intellectual climate of our schools and universities, and the very notion of a threefold social organism can cause resistance because it is taken to be merely an alternative ‘social system’. Steiner himself was aware that his only written work on the subject of the threefold social order had been ‘fundamentally misunderstood on all sides’.12 We need not assume that the difficulty of Steiner’s social thinking lies in its intellectual obscurity; for abstruseness we already have the example of the social philosophies of Kant and Hegel. The real difficulty lies in another direction altogether, in the fact that he sought to understand human society as a soul-spiritual being, as something alive in a certain sense. As with Goethe’s way of science from which he drew, he did not wish to impose mechanistic procedures on the living body of society. The living, dynamic body of human society requires a living, creative thinking in order to be understood—this is one of his key insights.

The way forward for the healthy development of society springs from a living, imaginative form of knowledge. This is a thinking which is concrete, practical, non-abstract and non-theoretical; it is a truly living social thinking because these ideas are not merely mental constructs but are ‘saturated with the forces of reality’ and ‘possess the strength to take hold of the will and to live on in action’, as Steiner expresses it.13 This is a great challenge to the cultural and spiritual life of our time: the development of our thinking such that ideas themselves become suffused with will forces. We can gain a sense of what he means if we consider the ideals of justice and freedom which still to a degree carry within them a sense of imperative and an impulse to action. We can imagine all social scientific ideas having this living, dynamic quality because society itself is something living and dynamic and can only be properly understood through a thinking imbued with feeling and will.

We may come to value such a living form of social thinking more highly when we realize the cultural depths from which it has emerged. If we consider what are sometimes disparagingly called the ‘Romantic thinkers’—Kant, Fichte, Schiller, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Goethe, to name only some of the more prominent—we find in all of them a rebellion against the abstract rationality of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. In each we discover an attempt to think with more than the intellectual mind, to bring into cognition the power of imagination and creative intuition. To think is to reflect on life; to imagine is to enter into life, to cognitively participate in and actually experience the forces through which formation and transformation take place. Imagination, we might say, carries the impulse of creation within it. When the imagination is consciously intensified into a power of cognition, we have what Goethe called ‘exact imagination’, a capacity of thought which can be applied to both the natural and social worlds. The whole question of a ‘will-saturated thinking’ is taken up in Chapters 4 and 5 in relation to a Goethean-inspired social science and social art.

The social crisis of our time can be seen as a threshold and opportunity—a threshold to a vital, imaginative way of entering into the social question, a way which doesn’t involve new political agendas or rehashed versions of socialist or capitalist theories. Only through crossing the threshold to a new kind of living thinking will the threefold nature of the social order be grasped and made fruitful for the human future.

Beyond Socialism and Capitalism

Every age has its crises and its flowerings; what is important is how each crisis is understood and how it is worked with or resolved. The influential work published in 1918 by philosopher of history Oswald Spengler—Decline of the West—predicted the slide of Western civilization into utter chaos. In our time there is a tendency to expect solutions from our political leaders, something which reflects our dependence on the paternal state. Yet everywhere the evidence is that our leaders are not up to this task, that the whole traditional concept of ‘leader’ is virtually meaningless in the modern world of highly educated ‘followers’. Given this situation, the focus of this book is perhaps not surprising: it is not about political dissent, insurrection or revolution. It is about invoking and enhancing the free creative activity of individuals who make up the cultural-spiritual realm of the social organism.

When, a hundred years ago, Steiner presented the world with his picture of the threefold social order—at the very time Spengler was amassing considerable evidence for Western civilization’s irreversible decline—he laid great emphasis on freedom in the cultural-spiritual realm.14 This was a moment in European social history when events were moving decidedly away from cultural and spiritual freedom. The Great War had ended and the European social world was in a ferment, leading not long after to National Socialism in Germany and the Second World War. On another front, a struggle was taking place which resulted in the Russian Revolution and the totalitarian state of Stalin. This Russian Revolution sprang from a social programme based on the analytical philosophical system of Karl Marx and Lenin, which focused on class conflict leading to the proletariat gaining ownership of the means of economic production. In terms of this communist-socialist thinking, cultural and spiritual life is merely a reflector of class ideology and had no place in the revolution unless it supported and promoted the economic agenda.

For the suffering and alienated workers of the period around the time of the First World War, bourgeois cultural and spiritual life offered little succour. The proletariat of the early twentieth century looked to socialist ideas because they were roused by the ideal of fraternity and the promise of equality in the purely material framework of economic and political production; cultural-spiritual ideas did not press on them as a pathway to their liberation. However, at the same time, the ways of capitalism were powerful influences on them and they were moved by the possibility of freedom through financial betterment. This struggle between capitalism and communism continued through the twentieth century and capitalism is generally now said to be victorious over communism; it has risen up as a mighty and dominating force in the contemporary world. The ‘free world’ is the world of capitalist states, meaning states whose economic system is based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Freedom has come to be associated with capitalism in the sense of free enterprise; it means freedom for anyone to climb the ladder to success, free from restriction, with unlimited opportunity for development and private accumulation of capital. This capitalist freedom is purely economic and in its modus operandi has nothing essential to do with cultural life. What is practical, pragmatic—where the wheels of society actually turn—that is understood by the capitalist way of thinking to be the economic-political realm.

By the end of the twentieth century it seemed capitalism had won the day; the Soviet Union had fallen and the socialist revolutionary zeal which was so evident at the beginning of that century had all but dissipated. It seemed a forlorn hope to believe that, as humanity moved into the twenty-first century, a brand new socialist political system was going to appear which would deliver humanity from capitalism’s immense inequalities, from its lack of a truly inspiring economic fraternity, from its subtle and not-so-subtle social enslavements.

A striking fact is that the two social systems which have dominated the modern world as the bitterest opponents—capitalism and socialism—have something fundamental in common: they both conceive of society and its transformative potential primarily in economic and political terms. The reason for this is obvious: having capital and controlling the means of production gives power, whether that power is in the hands of the many or the few. In truth, the economic and political make for very congenial company and the cultural-spiritual tends to be seen as the poor relation, unwanted and uninvited at the main feast table even if valued for entertainment and other diversions. But this fundamentally distorts the social outlook, weighting it toward economic and political power.

For its part, cultural life today itself tends to resist the idea that it has any direct, practical responsibility for social transformation and renewal. The twentieth-century avant-garde’s varied efforts to define and redefine itself moved it towards introspection, self-expression and experimentalism; the idea of art for art’s sake was like a call to freedom and untrammelled self-involvement. To the extent that culture reflects our social life it does so as from a refined conceptual height; it perceives, it analyses and evaluates, it comments, it argues and judges. Yet it is the economic-political workers who are ‘getting their hands dirty’ in the actual process of social transformation. Steiner diagnosed cultural life as ‘a sort of animated abstraction that runs alongside real economic and political events without having concrete effect upon them’.15 This can come across as something strange because culture and spiritual life is normally not even expected to play a practical role today. Yet, just here, in this conception of culture, lies the crux of our social problem according to Steiner.

All of this can be put in more immediate, personal terms in relation to the realities facing people today. It is impossible not to see the strife and discord around us, but when it comes to actually doing something in relation to our greatest social dilemmas it is usually thought we have to take leave of the cultural-spiritual life and enter the political-economic arena—but, of course, that is something largely reserved for the powerful elite. Apart from the ignominious entreaties which can be made to them by means of letters of protest, lobby groups and demonstrations (which these days are always sanctioned and highly policed anyway) many people feel they must rest content with our entitlement to vote every three years or so. In truth, there is a mighty play of forces active in our time, an immense struggle impelled by the certainty that a great deal is at stake, that civil liberties are under profound threat. The struggle is taking place in the conscience of civil society—in conversations, in webinars, in educational institutions and in many other more or less ‘hidden’ ways. The cultural-spiritual sphere only appears to be impotent.

Chapter 2

THE THREEFOLD SOCIAL ORDER

Order

Inherent in the notion ‘human society’ is the idea of order. Disorder can reach the point of dissolution where we can no longer speak meaningfully of society; it can bring strife, violence, repression, and ultimately descent into the chaos which the ancient Greeks sensed as an ever-present danger to their city-states. The sources and potentials for social disorder have always been a central theme of political thought and in this connection we could refer to the Politics of Aristotle and his discussion of political enmity and disease, or what he called stasis.16 Civic disorder or revolution can be a transitional stage in social evolution before a new order asserts itself. Thus, in relation to the idea of a ‘threefold social order’, at least the notion of ‘social order’ is relatively straightforward. But how and why such order is threefold is something strikingly unfamiliar.

Throughout the history of social philosophy order has normally meant political order, the order which is instigated and maintained by a ruling individual or elite group. Thus the history of human social life is charted by the interminable struggles of the different political ordering forces—pharaohs, caesars, monarchs and their vast armies, the modern state with its judiciary and police executive, the determiners and maintainers of ‘law and order’. Said erstwhile American president Woodrow Wilson in his The State: ‘The authority of governors, directly or indirectly, rests in all cases ultimately on force. Government, in its last analysis, is organized force.’17 Wilson makes the point that this force is not always asserted but that order depends on its readiness-at-hand. And the notion of the ‘new world order’ which rose like a spectre in the first decades of the twenty-first century—this is a political order, a totalitarian form of world governance which will undoubtedly require policing on a global scale, a vast magnification of the kinds of political ordering methods which currently prevail.

In times of crisis the veils fall aside and we are able to see a situation in its stark reality. This is what has occurred in the coronavirus crisis; democratically elected governments the world over have revealed, in an extraordinarily short space of time, a normally more hidden, inherent authoritarian tendency in the ways they have asserted ordering measures. The methods of the Roman oligarch linger on in our democratic social processes—we are still very Roman in our laws and approaches to human rights, as Marx and Engels noted.18 In this recent crisis our elected leaders have shut down the economy, prohibited the greater part of cultural-spiritual life, and dramatically curtailed human rights—all at the stroke of a pen. The concern here is not whether such modes of order enforcement are necessary in terms of public health; what is important is that it reveals to us the very tenuous and actually juvenile nature of our democratic forms and processes. The ‘free world’ prides itself on its democracies, but the fact is that only through profound and undaunted efforts toward social renewal in our time will the democratic spirit be able to advance and mature.

Because order has mostly been conceived and enforced politically, the political state is considered to be the only possible source of order in society. It is for this reason that the state is felt to be the enemy of freedom by libertarians—and in fact, this has largely been justified when we consider humanity’s long history of enslavement and tyranny. Anarchism rose up in the nineteenth century as a movement of radical opposition to the threat to human freedom posed by the hierarchical ordering power of the state, the control of the many by the few. Anarchism is a celebration and assertion of human individuality, the free human creative spirit which does not wish to be ‘ordered’ in any way whatsoever. Anarchism has remained a powerful voice in political philosophy but its significance has often been clouded because it is associated with the very opposite idea, with chaos or lack of order—that is, with anti-social forces.

In fact, anarchist philosophy is only saying that there are sources of social order, of balanced social existence, other than from a centralized unitary government and its law-enforcement agencies. Anarchism puts the focus onto the integrity of the individual as the source of social wellbeing. Nevertheless, because anarchy is an ‘anti’ position, it perpetuates the dilemma which has always existed in political philosophy—namely, the unresolved conflict between individual and society, freedom and authority. As the philosopher Martin Heidegger sagely comments: ‘Everything “anti” [is] held fast in the essence of that over against which it moves.’19 Thus it follows: anarchism is held fast in the essential thrust of centralized political power against which it struggles. It should be noted that in recent history anarchistic, anti-authoritarian struggles such as the Occupy movement, whatever they may have achieved, have also served to reinforce the idea that if ‘people power’ is let loose then the power of the state will reassert itself in the most forceful way.

We need and expect order in our social lives and normally entrust this order-making role to the unitary political state when we elect a government. In doing so we take for granted that we are giving to that government the power to enforce an order which extends into all areas of society, including economic strategy and regulation of education. The order-making, controlling powers of the modern democratic state are vast and encompassing. The ‘democratic moment’ of the general election of government is held to be of key importance in that it distinguishes democracies from dictatorships. What is false is the idea that this vote is fundamentally a gesture of freedom, even if this is the general belief. The essence of the ‘democratic moment’, its fundamental gesture, is not freedom but equality; it is the fact that it grants every human individual the equal right to have their say—‘one person, one vote’. Of course there is a degree of freedom of choice in a democratic election but this is a very limited choice and it is not the hallmark of freedom in modern society. It is absurd and dangerous to conflate freedom with equality, and if that happens then both are diminished.

In truth, freedom has its primary expression and reveals its predominating ordering gesture in a realm of society quite distinct from the political. Freedom is the ideal of the cultural-spiritual sphere and it is here that we can assess a society in terms of its fundamental liberties. Steiner writes: ‘Man is free in so far as he is able to obey himself in every moment of his life.’20 This is something entirely different from political order; freedom is self order, self creation. It means that the only sovereign power over a person is her or himself. The reality and potential of freedom is something immensely more than what takes place in the political realm. It is the condition which a free culture and free education strives for: to bring forth human beings who are free because they are masters of themselves, not because they are mastered or managed by others. Freedom only becomes a ‘social problem’ when we insist that it is fundamentally a political determination. The political determines the equal right of human individuals to be free but only individuals who, through a proper education and through self-development, can become free in themselves. The political state cannot create freedom, and freedom does not belong in its essence to the political-rights sphere. When freedom is properly valued in human life, the recognition will arise that freedom is the essence and ideal of a realm of society entirely distinct from the political-rights sphere.

Further, there is a social ordering force which works in the way people cooperate with each other to produce goods and provide services, and to utilize those goods and services. The vast majority of people spend their waking hours working cooperatively in this way. This ordered form of human activity is what we call ‘mutuality’ or ‘solidarity’; it is a social order not determined politically but simply through the way people live and provide for each other. This cooperative activity defines the economic sphere of society. The political-rights sphere does not and cannot control how individuals work together economically; what it can do is only to formulate and maintain the rights which allow people to live their lives fraternally. These include the right to freedom of movement and freedom of association.