HUMOURESQUE
& NOT SO HUMOURESQUE

Categorizing Students Hurtfully

Let’s look again at the work of Anthroposophist Hermann von Baravalle, who was a follower and acquaintance of Rudolf Steiner. I’d like to consider a lecture that von Baravalle delivered to Waldorf teachers here in the USA. The lecture was not meant for us as parents, students, or critics. But by reading it, we can get a glimpse into the actual workings of Waldorf schools.

Included in von Baravalle’s book WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA [1] is a lecture titled “The Four Temperaments.” It has profound importance because its tenets may be applied by Waldorf teachers in every class and every subject area. And, I might add, the lecture is as interesting for what it does not say as for what it does.

The lecture begins with the sensible argument that parents should not impose preconceived goals on their children: A minister, for instance, should not insist that his son become a minister. Parents and teachers must, instead, be sensitive to each child’s inner nature and treat her/him accordingly. Well and good.

But then von Baravalle begins to give “practical” guidance to the Waldorf teachers in his audience. He says that students can respond to their teachers in two ways: They can have immediate reactions and they can form lasting impressions. He then divides students into four categories: 1. those who are susceptible to both kinds of reaction, 2. those who are more susceptible to immediate reactions, 3. those who are more likely to form lasting impressions, and 4. those who are resistant to either type of reaction. [2] It’s a neat little schema, and at first blush it seems logical. Two ways to react; four possible combinations; the math is undeniable (“There are mathematically only four combinations that could occur with these two criteria” [3]); so it must be true.

But what if there are other possible reactions? What if a student does not have an immediate reaction, then slowly begins reacting, but then forgets so that there is no lasting impression? If we add “slow-but-short-lasting reaction” to the schema, suddenly the neat logic falls apart. And the more types of reactions we add, the more completely the two-reactions, four-combinations paradigm recedes from plausibility.

But let’s let von Baravalle have his way; let’s say that there may be some sense in a four-way division of all possible students. And let’s use the labels von Baravalle suggests: 1. choleric temperament (for the first group described above), 2. sanguine temperament (second group), 3. melancholic temperament (third), and 4. phlegmatic temperament (fourth). [4]

Von Baravalle does not inform his audience that these four “temperaments” are adaptations of the discredited ancient Greek concept of “humours.” [5] Nor does von Baravalle mention that, according to Steiner’s doctrines on karma and reincarnation, our situations in this life result from our actions in past lives. A melancholic child, for instance, may be atoning for past errors, in which case s/he should be allowed to remain sad to work out her/his karmic needs. Von Baravalle avoids mentioning Anthroposophy in the lecture (although he does refer to Anthroposophy’s main man, Rudolf Steiner). He does not discuss karma or past lives. Instead, he simply says that there is no point, for instance in trying to cheer up a deeply melancholic student. The child’s reaction would be “How could the teacher be so superficial with this talk of joy or fun? I can’t stand it anymore.” [6] Children are in their various categories for a reason. The Waldorf teacher should not try to alter these categorizations.

Consider the melancholic child, again, for a moment. Von Baravalle’s (i.e., Steiner’s) approach is to accept the melancholic’s destiny. So, there will be no joy or fun for that kid. Here we begin to see the dangers in Steiner’s/von Baravalle’s simplistic categorization of students. While von Baravalle speaks of treating each child as an individual, categorization militates against that fine ideal. “You have four distinct challenges from your class”—the four types of students [7]. In other words, if there are, let’s say, twenty kids in a Waldorf class, von Baravalle does not urge the teacher to treat them as twenty different individuals: He urges the teacher to treat them as members of just four groupings. Granted, there are shadings within each grouping, but the underlying tenet is that a choleric child, for instance, is identifiable as such and is therefore quite different from a member of any of the other three groupings.

Consider the plight of the Waldorf teacher, standing in front of twenty kids, trying (on what basis? with what expertise?) to divide them into four categories. But let’s pass over this, too.

Von Baravalle inadvertently reveals how impersonal and prejudicial his schema is when he lists not only the psychological characteristics of each category of students, but also their physical traits, the dangers to which each category is prone, and the best educational approach to take with each category. (Note how von Baravalle tells the teachers how to “handle” members of various categories.) I’ll summarize briefly. 1. Cholerics are very attentive and critical. Most cholerics are boys. They may have high shoulders; they often seem bony. They may turn into bullies or become prey to tantrums. “To handle cholerics, give them challenges...Choleric people show themselves best in emergencies.” 2. Sanguines are appreciative and “want to be with you.” They are “harmoniously built;” they do not find their bodies to be encumbrances. They are in danger of drifting through life unconstructively. “They can be handled well with the books that they make in the Waldorf schools, reflecting what is learned in diagrams.” 3. Melancholics are not quick; they yearn for depth; from this depth, they may derive “an ethical impulse.” “They do not like being called to the [black]board.” One typical group of melancholics consists of “junior high school girls who suddenly grow thin and tall with slumping shoulders.” Melancholics may be moody, given to headaches, unfriendly, and worried about their health. “For these melancholic children biographies are a wonderful thing...They see that they are not the only people in the world who have suffered.” 4. Phlegmatics are extremely sensitive to the atmosphere in the classroom. Confusion makes them tense. They often have rosy cheeks and may be overweight because they do not expend much energy. They may be in danger of “becoming dull and uninterested in the world.” “For the phlegmatic children there is one thing that suits them well: the arts, painting, music, eurythmy.” [8]

Pause a moment to let some of the foregoing sink in. Choleric kids should be given challenges; but not the other students? Sanguines can be “handled” by having them focus on their class books (which, in a typical Waldorf school, largely consist of careful copies of whatever the teachers write or draw on the board). Melancholics should be offered the cold comfort of knowing that their suffering is not unique. Phlegmatic children should be herded in a single direction, toward the fine arts (not the humanities or physical sciences or social sciences or sports or math or...).

One of Anthroposophy’s worst characteristics is its insistence on categorizing people. This evil is most evident in the racial hierarchies Steiner repeatedly described—e.g., “On one side we find the black race, which is earthly at most...We also have the yellow race, which is in the middle...The white race is the future, the race that is creating spirit.” [9]. The same pernicious tendency can be found in the distinctions Steiner drew between true humans and “people who are not human beings.” [10] We see the same evil again here, in the separation of innocent children into preconceived, nonsensical categories. This is just another form of discrimination, as harmful as any other. Consider one final quotation, this one taken from a different von Baravalle lecture (bearing the unintentionally ironic title, “How to Treat Children as Individuals”): “If...the teacher has cholerics in front of him, in the first row, something like a short circuit could easily occur...the course of instruction would be flowing exclusively between the teacher and them. In making the seating order, therefore, it is better to have the cholerics sit on one side...the melancholics may be seated on the opposite side...the sanguines...feel at ease in the front rows...The phlegmatics like to have some distance [so they sit in the back]...” [11]

Here we see the literal, physical segregation of students based on a spurious ancient system of categorization. It is deplorable. Deciding that Aryans should sit in front and non-Aryans in back would be worse, but it would arise from a similar enthusiasm for senseless discrimination. Most importantly, consider the effects on the children. Imagine being slotted as a melancholic—thereafter, your teachers never seem to care whether you (unlike other kids in the room) are enjoying yourself. Or imagine being adjudged a phlegmatic and pressured into eurythmy, when your actual talents are for math and physics. Von Baravalle’s advice is tantamount to child abuse.

The two essays, above, are edited versions of items I posted at the free-speech forum
associated with http://waldorfcritics.org/. The new address for this ongoing discussion is
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/.

I encourage anyone with an interest in Waldorf education or Anthroposophy
to consider joining the discussion.

[1] Hermann von Baravalle, WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA (Parker Courtney Press, 1998).

[2] Ibid., pp. 97-98.

[3] Ibid., p. 97.

[4] Ibid., p. 102.

[5] See Mark Grant, “Steiner and the Humours: The Survival of Ancient Greek Science,” British Journal of Educational Studies, Mar. 1999.

[6] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p.103.

[7] Ibid., p. 102. Steiner’s teachings on the temperaments, as on so many topics, were inconsistent, and sometimes they have been expurgated or badly translated. Here’s a statement that suggests that temperaments can become intermingled (which, inferentially, suggests that there could be more than four temperaments: sanguine melancholics, for instance, or choleric phlegmatics, etc.): “The temperaments that are next to each other merge into one another and mingle; so it will be good to arrange your groups as follows: if you put the phlegmatics together it is good to have the cholerics on the opposite side, and let the two others, the melancholics and sanguines, sit between them.” [Rudolf Steiner, RHYTHMS OF LEARNING: What Waldorf Education Offers Children, Parents & Teachers Translated by Catherine Creeger, Contributor Roberto Trostli (SteinerBooks, 1998), p. 72.] Despite the possibility of mergers, Steiner still talks, here, of four temperaments, and he urges steps to minimize the possibility or magnitude or any mergers. In general, Steiner taught that merging one thing (nation, race, temperament, etc.) with another is almost always wrong. The following essay, “Not So Humouresque,” explores Steiner’s teachings concerning the temperaments.

[8] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, pp. 102-105.

[9] Rudolf Steiner, VOM LEBEN DES MENSCHEN UND DER ERDE (Verlag Der Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, 1961), p. 62

[10] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998, p. 650.

[11] WALDORF EDUCATION FOR AMERICA, p. 91.

NOT SO HUMOURESQUE

Perhaps we should hear more from The Man. Did von Baravalle understand Steiner on the subject of “temperaments”? Here are comments Rudolf Steiner made to the teachers at the first Waldorf School [1]:

1. Addressing a teacher about her students: “[Y]ou have few choleric or strongly melancholic temperaments. Those children are mostly phlegmatic or sanguine...You can get the phlegmatic children moving only if you try to work with the more difficult consonants. For sanguine children, work with the easier consonants.” [2] The grade level here is not specified, but I infer that these were young children, learning consonants. However, since they were learning the eurythmic moves for these consonants, the picture is a bit blurred.

2. A teacher: “I believe I have perceived a relationship between the phlegmatic children and a deep voice, the sanguine children and a middle tone, and a higher voice with the cholerics. Is that correct?” Dr. Steiner: “In general, it is true that phlegmatics have lower voices....” etc. [3]

3. A teacher: “How can we have such differing opinions about the temperament of a child?” Dr. Steiner: “We cannot solve that problem mathematically...In judging cases that lie near a boundary, it is possible that one person has one view and another, another view...The situation is such that when we see and understand a child in one way or another, we already intend to treat it in a particular way. In the end, the manner of treating something arises from an interaction. Don’t think you should discuss it.” [4] This is a particularly unhelpful answer. Steiner leaves the puzzle for each teacher to solve, without discussion. Evidently without realizing it, Steiner comes close to invalidating the entire concept of four temperaments by saying that each teacher can make up his/her own mind, at least in cases that lie near a boundary (and perhaps in other cases as well: “when we see and understand a child in one way or another...”) In practice, this would mean that some kids would be put in one category by some teachers, and in other categories by other teachers. This is chaotic and senseless, as I believe Steiner himself came to realize. Read on.

4. “The choleric temperament becomes immediately annoyed by and angry about anything that interrupts its activity. When it is in a rhythmic experience, it becomes vexed and angry, but it will also become angry if it is involved in another experience and is interrupted...In cholerics, you will generally find an abnormally developed sense of balance (Libra)...In sanguines (Virgo), in connection with the sense of balance and sense of movement, the sense of movement predominates. In the same way, in melancholics (Leo) the sense of life predominates and in phlegmatics (Cancer) the sense of touch predominates physiologically because the touch bodies are embedded in small fat pads.” [5] Cholerics take a particular beating in this passage, although I’m happy to see confirmation of my earlier assertion that cholerics have short tempers (i.e., prey to tantrums), etc. What is even more interesting, however, is the association Steiner makes between temperaments and signs of the Zodiac. This links us back to some of our earlier discussions, in other essays on this site, about Steiner’s astrological proclivities.

5. “We should always correct left-handedness. However, in this connection [i.e., learning to play the piano], we should also take the child’s temperament into account so that melancholics give the right hand preference. You can easily find a tendency with them to play with the left hand. We should emphasize the left hand with the cholerics. With the phlegmatics you should see to it that they use both hands in balance, and the same is true for sanguines. [6] Above, Steiner associated the four temperaments with four signs of the Zodiac. Here he prescribes different handedness for the various temperaments (except that in this case phlegmatics and sanguines are treated the same). Steiner seems quite clear that there are just four temperaments, and they are almost always distinct from one another. Steiner, here, does not suggest that the various temperaments can be mixed in a single individual. In this passage (other Steiner quotes lead us to a different conclusion), you are either this, or that, or one of the other two.

6. Finally, reflect on this statement by Steiner: “In my lecture today [‘Deeper Insights into Education’], I mentioned that we need to find our way past the temperaments. The goal of my lecture was to show how to come to an inner understanding that lies beyond people’s temperaments.” [7] This statement does not utterly disavow the concept of the temperaments. Steiner was almost incapable of admitting that he had made an error, but he did come to realize that the four-type categorization of students was unwieldy and superficial. The passage I quoted in point 3, above, in which Steiner alludes to “cases that lie near a boundary,” is dated June 14, 1920. The passage quoted here in point 6 is dated October 16, 1923. It took Steiner more than three years, but he ultimately decided that pigeonholing students according to temperament was not sufficient. This would be cause for quiet celebration, except that categorization by temperament remains entrenched in Waldorf doctrines, and following Steiner into deeper examinations of students’ mental/moral/spiritual natures leads to such considerations as karma, which is intimately linked to Steiner’s weird conception of human evolution, which is intimately linked to dreadful teachings about race. Half a step forward, three steps back.