luciferic and ahrimanic leadership

Goetheanum’s medical section publishes a research bulletin. This article is from the spring 2011 edition, and it’s written by Michaela Glöckler, anthroposophical MD, and the leader of the aforementioned section. It’s about the anthroposopical movement, the school of spiritual science, organization and, as in the passage I quote, on leadership:

The French revolutionary politician Robespierre stands as a historic example of thinking that, in pursuance of the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, lost touch with the heart. Where this occurs, guiding pictures and ideals turn into an ideology in which many become emotionally subordinate and dependent on one charismatic personality — in spiritual terms on inspirations emanating from Lucifer.

This is so very ironic.

Ahrimanic inspirations are at work where this ideological orientation is compounded by the enforcing of will and an external imposition of power and authority. As a result, various types of totalitarian systems and authoritarian styles of leadership arise that are characterized by the use of both ideological and material/practical compulsions as a means of power, including the use of financial shortages to achieve certain goals. Common to both luciferically and ahrimanically inspired social cultures is the greater or lesser restriction of individual freedom to think, hold opinions and act, along with heartless and inhumane elements in relations and agreements. We can protect ourselves against the fascination of Lucifer through love for the realities of life: “Those who take spiritual science seriously are not concerned with battling about different professions of belief but instead they wish to pursue serious work in all areas of practical life.”17 We can protect ourselves against the dangers of Ahriman by respecting each person’s individual freedom: “The individual first had to separate from his associations and connections so that the social element could be realized out of the individual.”18

No wonder anthroposophists worry so much about Ahriman and Lucifer. Clearly, they have a big problem with ahrimanic and luciferic influences in their organization! The rest of us try to balance these elements, you know — of course –, but I believe the anthroposophical movement has been in a permanent state of imbalance since Steiner’s (blatantly!) luciferic times; it’s the spiritual leaning tower of Dornach. Lucifer is dominating, according to my diagnosis, though he’s occasionally disrupted by severe ahrimanic attacks, trying to push the construction over entirely, and succeeding quite often. As you have probably guessed, anthroposophists aren’t very good at protecting themselves against Ahriman; respecting individual freedom sounds nice, but with Lucifer tugging and nagging at them, it’s easier said than done. As for Lucifer, then, one obstacle to achieving balance might be the reluctance of anthroposophists to love the realities of life, mentioned in the text. Reality is, after all, not always their strongest inclination. (As far as I can tell. And Glöckler’s text is quite instructive in this regard.)



6 thoughts on “luciferic and ahrimanic leadership

  1. They deliberately dig their borrows under one side of the Dornach-hügel, not the other. Clever guys! Of course with the intention of teaching anthroposophists how to battle with spiritual elements of all kinds in order to avoid lop-sidedness!

  2. Thank you! It’s the new comment system — I think you have to click on ‘Guest’ in the menu below the comment box and then enter your name!

    (I’ll edit ‘anonymous’ to ‘falk’ above!)

  3. Also: woof!

    The new comment thingy is probably good, but it’s more complicated. Thanks to the ahrimanic forces, the internet is constantly improving!

    ‘I think you have to click on ‘Guest’ in the menu below the comment box and then enter your name!’

    Maybe you did, of course, but then it really is a mystery!

Comments are closed.