Steiner’s book Basic Issues of the Social Question (GA 23), first published in 1919, introduced the necessity of a social organism in which the activities of the economic, political (rights) and cultural domains unfold autonomously and of necessity do so in such a way that each interpenetrates in their rightful place the other two through human-to-human relationships. Only in this manner can human development and activity be healthy in our time. In late October 1919, Steiner developed this concept further in a series of lectures entitled, The Social Future (GA 332a), giving much more grounding for an understanding of the three domains and laying out in particular detail the workings of what he had spoken of as ‘associative economics’ (Lecture 2). Between 1919 and 1920, Steiner wrote many articles, some of which were published as The Renewal of the Social Organism (GA 24), which further deepened the concepts that inform the three-membered interpenetrating structure of social life. Although the terms ‘tripartite’ and ‘threefold’ do not suggest the interpenetrating nature of this truly social structure, for brevity I will use the term ‘tripartite,’ but amend it as ‘tripartite society.’
In the works just mentioned (and others) Steiner described the situation that led up to World War I, discussed the concerns of the proletariat after the war, and provided an intricate and detailed analysis of a tripartite society that would correct the inequalities experienced by the proletariat and ideally prevent the catastrophe of a world war from ever occurring again. Steiner’s work is highly relevant today, with the issues he discussed exacerbated greatly by the circumstances we now face which involve the environment, technology, race and gender equality, class disparity, and ongoing conflicts across the world.
In my collaboration with Kate Reese Hurd on a book entitled, The Three-Membered Organization of the Social Organism (The Threefold Social Order) In the Context of the 21st Century and America and its Individual and Group Realization, I have become aware that when we are attempt to work with the ideas of social renewal, and in particular with the functioning of the three domains – economic, rights, and cultural – it is often the case that we are altogether missing the fundamental foundation upon which Steiner’s thinking is based. The idea of a tripartite society composed of three autonomous domains is not actually the foundation of social renewal. Instead, such a society and social renewal must be the outcome of fundamental changes in human relationships. Steiner pointed out the need for these fundamental changes in human relationships repeatedly, not just in the context of social renewal, but in much of the entire arc of his life’s work. In the case of social renewal, we can feel-sense-perceive and recognize that within the very nature of our relationships with each other we do in fact meet in three distinct ways, which require us to fashion a tripartite social organization and organism.
The foundation I will describe here is not a recipe of ‘do this first, then that next, then that third.’ The points I make here are dependent upon each other simultaneously. While this foundation is described in a linear manner due to the limits of how one can write about these things, they should, if at all possible, be held in one’s being collectively, explored individually or in pairs, and then brought back into the ‘collective.’
The core of Steiner’s social renewal is relationship, and in particular, real human-to-human relationships. The relationship between producers, distributors, and consumers; the relationship between those with capital and the entrepreneur in need of capital; the relationship between worker and entrepreneur, and so forth. Our understanding of social renewal must first and foremost begin with a deep understanding of the significance of human relationships. “People cannot be social if they do not see the human quality in one another, but live entirely within themselves. Human beings can only become social if they really meet one another in life, and something passes between them. This is the root of the social problem.”[i]
Once we really understand the need to start from human relationships, we can begin to apply two concrete and foundational activities: 1) taking a genuine interest in each other, and 2) acting out of interest in the dignity of our fellow human being. These are deeply entwined. One cannot act with dignity towards another without taking an interest in what that other person requires for the preservation of their human dignity. Just as Gary Chapman pointed out, that people experience love in different ways (the five ‘love languages’), each of us has a different set of ‘relational activities’ that we find honors our dignity as a human being. These can only be discovered by taking a genuine interest in the other person, which is in itself a path to the experience of human dignity.
This task of taking interest is developed in what Steiner said in his lecture, “The Work of the Angels in Man’s Astral Body” (GA 182, 9 October 1918, Zürich): “we must confront every human being with the full realisation that in him something is revealing itself from the divine foundations of the world, revealing itself through flesh and blood.” Holding the thought ‘here in this person is something revealed from the divine,’ not only eliminates racial, cultural, and ethnic biases, it actually spurs an interest in the other person to ask, “what is being revealed in this other?” and also to ask the question, ‘how can I help this other reveal what is living in them from the divine foundation of the world?’
We discover, however, that taking an interest in another human being regularly results in polarization because our thinking is almost always one-sided. Steiner remarked that “the truth lies in the middle between the opposing assertions/claims, just as the real tree lies in the middle between two photographs that I take from one side or the other. In this regard, one must point out the dangers of one-sided thinking.”[ii] Also: “A middle course is appropriate when the opposing sides are also present and are recognised as forces.”[iii] Rather than trying to solve/resolve the polarities, those polarities must be worked ‘in and through.’ The middle path is not a passive compromise but rather an active, evolving and creative space that constantly works with the polarities. The middle path requires concrete, human work. It is not sufficient to repeat abstract phrases about love and altruism in an attempt to ignore the conflict. Does Christ ignore the polarities of Ahriman and Lucifer? No! Christ is ever active in working with the necessity of those polarities to ensure that human freedom is continually developed. Similarly, when we as human beings are in conflict, we must willingly take on the active work in the middle space that recognizes the necessity of our polarities and that does so without creating a loss of freedom or impairment of dignity on the part of either person holding opposing views.
How do we work in the middle? Besides the various forms of conflict resolution that our society has developed, a primary requirement is that we see each other as co-equal. Steiner wrote: “Real relationships will grow up between people united in a social organism where each adult … is co-equal with every other adult.” Being viewed as co-equal is a foundational requirement for human dignity. It is also a fundamental requirement for the active work that the middle space requires. While we obviously have differences in skill and knowledge, polarities are usually not primarily the result of those differences or of those alone, but rather the result of differences in individual life experiences that result in differing viewpoints, visions, goals and needs.
Taking these foundational steps concretely into our thinking, feeling and willing can bring us to what Steiner refers to as an ‘ennobled egoism’ (from GA 332a, The Social Future, Lecture 6 – see the December 2022 Chanticleer Newsletter to read the whole passage):
For the point is, that he who meets his fellowmen with a purely human interest and understanding acts differently from one whose interests are narrow, and who gives no thought to all that fills the hearts and souls of his fellow creatures, and who is without interest for his surroundings. On this account, the former, who is truly interested in his fellowmen, need not be less egoistic in life than the other; for his egoism may be precisely his desire to serve human beings. It may call forth in him a feeling of inner well-being, of inner bliss, even of ecstasy, to devote himself to the service of his fellowmen. Then, as far as the outer life is concerned, deeds which are absolutely altruistic to all appearance may proceed from egoism; in the life of feeling they cannot be appraised otherwise than as egoism.
To think we are ever acting purely altruistically is self-delusional. There are two points here: first, we can be active in these foundational steps while still having a feeling life in which we feel good when we devote ourselves to the service of others. Second, an ennobled egoism is what is very much required to work with these foundational principles. Instead of an ‘egotistic’ (with a ‘t’ – meaning habitually talking about oneself; indifferent to the well-being of others; selfish) it is our egoism[iv] (the endnote offers an interesting discussion on egoism) that must be ennobled so that it becomes an interest in others as the foundation of morality.
Out of these foundational ways of relating with each other, we have the tools and means to develop the concepts of a tripartite society. As previously stated, these qualities of human relationship do not develop as a result of a tripartite society; rather, they are a requirement for the development of a tripartite society. Ideally, these new forms of human relationship would be accomplished through the education of our children in an autonomous cultural domain: “The kind of education that makes human beings of people also enables them to recognize people as human beings.”[v] This can no longer be the province and responsibility of our educators and our children to carry forward, but instead, as adults, we must take up our own re-education. In 1912, Steiner said: “Our modern culture and—more importantly—the prospects for the approaching future will doubtless lend ever-increasing importance to what is called adult education.”[vi] That ‘approaching future’ is upon us now.
To summarize the foundational steps of social renewal (imagine these points to be living in an interconnected, dynamic space rather than as bullet points):
- Keeping human relationships at the core.
- Taking a genuine interest in another person.
- Acting out of the interest in the dignity of the other person.
- Eliminating racial, cultural, and ethic biases by consciously experiencing that in every person is revealed something from the divine foundations of the world.
- Being active in ‘the middle’ as co-equals and working with polarities that leaves each person feeling heard and their dignity whole.
- Ennobling egoism: shifting from the focus on and role of self with regards to motivation to the focus on and role of the other with regards to our own motivation.
The realization of a tripartite society does not require us to be perfectly practicing the above steps, but rather that we at a minimum begin practicing these foundational steps. How can we start this practice? I propose that perhaps the simplest starting point of all is: instead of asking ‘how are you?’, ask instead, ‘what lives in you today?’, and accompany this with intentional listening. Another practice is to actively meet ‘the other’ with the conscious thought, ‘here is a person that is revealing something from the divine,’ and discover how this changes our interaction with the other person.
[i] GA 191, October 4, 1919, “Social Understanding Through Spiritual Scientific Knowledge,” a few paragraphs from end of lecture
[ii] Soziale Zukunft, GA 332a, Question/Answer following Lecture 6, translation by Kate Reese Hurd
[iii] GA 141, Between Death and Rebirth, Lecture 7
[iv] https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/politics/political-ideology/egoism/
[v] GA 191, “Cosmogony, Freedom, Altruism”
[vi] GA 61, March 14, 1912, “Self-Education in the Light of Spiritual Science”
Marc Clifton 