Richard Ramsbotham’s new book, Who Was Rudolf Steiner: An Untold Story (SteinerBooks, 2026), raises fundamental questions regarding the nature of the being known as Rudolf Steiner. While I disagree with the general tenor of this book, I whole-heartedly agree that it is time to reflect deeply on Steiner both as an initiate and as a human being. Central to this exploration is how we interpret Steiner’s numerous assertions about human nature and the spiritual worlds. In a presentation at Harvard Divinity School, Robert Karp summarized two distinct perspectives on these claims:
1. Steiner “was a great initiate and therefore everything he said and did was uniformly inspired and true.” From this standpoint, “seeming contradictions or biases in Rudolf Steiner’s work are the result of a lack of knowledge or understanding on our part.”
2. “While Rudolf Steiner said some things that are, or at least sound, very enlightened and progressive, he also had a shadow or an all-too-human side.” This viewpoint holds that “Rudolf Steiner’s weaknesses, his limitations, and his cultural and racial biases contradict his seemingly progressive teachings and, for many people, even call them into question.”
Robert Karp also offers a third interpretation, which you can explore here. Rather than elaborating on Robert’s model, this post takes a different approach by examining a specific claim Ramsbotham makes in his book.
The “Great Individual” Theory of Human Development
Drawing upon several of Steiner’s 1909 lectures, Ramsbotham asserts that “human faculties have first of all to be brought by one individual.” To support this, he quotes a passage from Steiner’s lecture of November 14, 1909:
“This is how it must be with every human faculty. At a certain point in human evolution, a faculty must first find expression in a single individual; only then can it begin to develop gradually among human beings as a faculty in its own right.”
Should we accept this claim as universally true based on Steiner’s spiritual insight, or might philosophical and cultural influences have shaped this statement? This is one of several places in 1909 where Steiner articulates the “great individual” theory of human evolution. In the November 14 lecture, he speaks specifically of the Buddha. In other lectures from the same period, he refers to an individual he calls Apollo (distinct from the mythological deity), as well as Orpheus and Aristotle. Steiner makes the same main point in all of these examples: each of these individuals brought something into the world that could originally achieve expression only through a single human individuality.
Historical, Cultural, and Philosophical Antecedents
Setting aside the specific spiritual claims Steiner makes about these historical figures, we can ask whether there are historical or cultural precedents for this “great individual” theory. The evidence suggests there are clear philosophical and cultural reasons why Steiner would frame his ideas in this manner to his contemporary audience.
To understand why, we must consider his audience at the time. In 1909, Steiner served as the head of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, and his audience consisted primarily of its members. These listeners were thoroughly steeped in the Mahatma (“great soul”) tradition established by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (HPB). The Mahatmas were spiritually advanced individuals who guided human evolution, most notably Master Morya and Koot Hoomi. Steiner referenced them frequently in his early Theosophical lectures, though they virtually disappeared from his work after 1913, when he broke from the Theosophical Society. In 1909, however, his audience was predisposed to expect references to exalted leading personalities who provided spiritual guidance. (Paul Johnson’s book, The Masters Revealed [SUNY Press], offers a detailed examination of the human identities behind these masters.)
The “great individual” model of cultural advancement also possesses a firm philosophical pedigree. G. W. F. Hegel’s theory of historical progression relies heavily on “world-historical individuals” who propel culture forward during periods of stagnation. According to Hegel, these figures serve as agents of the World Spirit (Weltgeist) and the spirit of a specific nation (Volksgeist). Given the expectations of his audience and his background in 19th-century Central European philosophy, Steiner was operating within a framework that naturally favored this perspective.
Insights from the Sociology of Knowledge
This raises a key question: Did Steiner speak purely out of independent spiritual clairvoyance, coincidentally aligning with his audience’s expectations and Central European philosophy, or did these contextual influences shape what he said? Is there additional evidence that might lead us to examine this second possibility?
Since Steiner’s time, a major field of academic inquiry has emerged: the sociology of knowledge. This field examines how interpersonal and cultural contexts shape the generation and reception of knowledge. While the field is vast and varied, its core insight can be stated concisely: All knowledge is embedded in complex social and interpersonal relationships that influence how that knowledge is experienced and expressed.
A complete overview of this field is beyond the scope of this post. However, I have provided links below to three papers I wrote on this topic, a key foundational book, and a presentation I delivered on this subject a couple of years ago. References in these papers will take you deeper into this discipline.
Toward a Mature Anthroposophy
The picture that emerges from this overview, and one I plan to expand upon in future posts, is of Rudolf Steiner as both an initiate and a human being, deeply influenced by his educational background, culture, and historical moment. My objective is to develop a methodology for engaging with Steiner’s vast opus in ways that genuinely foster our own spiritual development. While I will remain critical of certain claims, as well as the tendency among some anthroposophists to view him as infallible, my goal is to help us become more effective students of anthroposophy.
Kirchoff, B. K. (1996). Scientific Communities, Objectivity and the Transformation of Science (Institute of Noetic Sciences. Vol. CP-8). Sausalito, CA: Institute of Noetic Sciences.
Kirchoff, B. K. (1999). Consciousness, community, and the brain: Toward an ontology of being. In J. S. Jordan (Ed.), Modeling consciousness across the disciplines (pp. 243–268). Lanham, NY: University Press of America.
Gregen, K. J. (2009). Relational Being. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kirchoff, B. K. 2024 Everything we Know about the World is Shaped by our Communities and States of Consciousness. UNC Greensboro Last Lecture Series (YouTube)
Aside from the arcane spiritual pronunciations, it should be added that the practical manifestations of his work were extraordinary...
Steiner schools (our four, now adults, were "Steinerised" as they called it. And all the better for it.
Biodynamic farming
Camphill villages for the disabled.
NB. In the UK a full frontal assault by the ****ing Tories ended with many of 1 & 3 above closed down. Because they wouldn't toe the state line.
Thank you for these reflections. To me it fundamentally makes sense to understand Rudolf Steiner as both a high initiative, endowed with great vision as well as an individual circumscribed to the culture of his time. They are not disparate, incongruent realities. Isn’t this exactly how important contributions reach us: through the temporal /cultural modality of a given time? There is an edge to this too. We (as much as he did, I imagine) have to discern, for ourselves, the essence of the message from the cultural scaffolding.
That’s the discernment that allows getting Steiner’s message without becoming unnecessarily pious, ruffled, and/or intellectualise one’s own lack of understanding.
How do we reach such discernment? Through the cultivation of conditions that allow clarity. Here I also note another implicit divide; the one that separates philosophical knowledge from supra-sensible insight. In my understanding that was exactly what Steiner sought to synthesise in his own life. How we do that today leads to the “methodology for engaging with Steiner’s vast opus in ways that genuinely foster our own spiritual development”, which is a promising lead in this article.