Membership Matters

offered by Per Eisenman (written in 2009)

Walking through a lush, green biodynamic garden with water gurgling through flow forms, or strolling down the halls of a colorfully lazured Waldorf kindergarten, one cannot help but feel that Rudolf Steiner’s contributions are of benefit to humanity. Joining the Anthroposophical Society is a way for us to say, yes, Steiner’s work—work such as that done at the Goetheanum[1] in Switzerland—is worthwhile.

1 The fourth principle (formerly referred to as statute) of the Anthroposophical Society states: “…Anyone can become a member, without regard to nationality, social standing, religion, scientific or artistic conviction, who considers as justified the existence of an institution such as the Goetheanum in Dornach, in its capacity as a School of Spiritual Science…”

Joining the society is not a large step; it is a tiny step. It is a way to affirm our support of the kind of work Steiner did. It is similar to joining the Sierra Club, the Red Cross, or other organizations that do good in the world.

There is a misconception in the anthroposophical movement that it is a big step to join the society—that the threshold is high. Of course, many people treat the threshold into the society as a low one, as Steiner intended. However, the misconception is pervasive enough that many people do not join the Society because they feel it is too big a commitment.

Part of the problem is that people confuse the threshold of joining the Anthroposophical Society with that of joining the School for Spiritual Science. Joining the school is a serious commitment; you indicate willingness to represent anthroposophy in the world, and you commit to study the esoteric lessons of the school actively.

Recently, I spoke with a few young people who are very actively representing anthroposophy in the world. They run a program engaging people in a deep study of Steiner’s works. Even with their deep commitment, they did not feel comfortable joining the Anthroposophical Society because they had been given the impression that it was a BIG DEAL. They felt that the threshold was very high.

When I joined the society in the early 1990’s, it was necessary to have a sponsor in order to join. I am grateful that that practice has been discontinued since it seems totally out of line with the intent of a low threshold to membership.

Another problem is that the dues are too high. [Note: since 2012 “membership contribution” levels have been voluntary, and monthly payment made easy; see www.anthroposophy.org/join ] Money is both symbolic and practical. If I need to spend a lot, it becomes a significant step. I need to consider carefully spending $120 to join the society. The Sierra Club and Red Cross have starting membership dues of $15 and $10 respectively.

I am grateful for the student dues and for the footnote in the membership renewal form that says that no one will be turned away for lack of funds. (Why is that footnote not visible with the new membership form on the website?) I am grateful for the attitude of the new treasurer in his recent article. Gestures like these help us begin to shift consciousness, but they are not yet enough.

I understand that there is a depth of content that can be delivered to an audience that has a background knowledge of Steiner’s ideas, but “Society Members Only” lectures also perpetuate a sense of a high threshold to membership. It is no longer simply a matter of supporting the kind of work Steiner did, the pink membership card becomes an entry ticket into an elite group that can attend special events.

One of the wonderful things about anthroposophy is that it is about becoming more conscious, and students of anthroposophy are committed to growth and change. I am confident that, eventually, the message that the threshold to membership is high will be replaced by a welcoming gesture, and our membership will swell to encompass all those who consider Steiner’s work to be a benefit to the world.

Thoughts from the Editor (in 2009)

It would be good to hear from members and friends about barriers to membership. Do we confuse society membership with membership in the School for Spiritual Science? Should membership be as open as possible, resting only on Rudolf Steiner’s requirement that one must consider the existence of the Goetheanum as school for spiritual science to be justified?

On the website membership form, we’ll restore the missing footnote, that no one will be excluded for financial reasons, and please give us a call in such a case. The folks in our office like to talk to people and work these things out. Since we send an amount for every member to support the work at the Goetheanum, regardless of how much they are paying, a reduced membership fee can actually redirect other funds. So we hope that requests will be conscious situations, as when someone is unemployed or otherwise on a restricted income.

Meanwhile, we can make the payment easier, with quarterly or monthly charging. Such would come to $30 or $15 per quarter, $10 or $5 monthly (the lower for students and elders). Does spreading the payment out lower the financial threshold—and perhaps the psychological one?

Stepping back as Per invites us to do, can or should the standard, minimum membership dues be less? It’s true that dues start at $15 for the Sierra Club’s 1.3 million members. It has a simple, compelling message, does really good work, and had substantial assets as of 2007, around $100 million.

By contrast, the Anthroposophical Society is trying to sustain some measure of awareness across an extraordinary range of profound human needs, concerns, and resources, and in the USA we are around thirty-five hundred members. Our membership looks to be a much broader responsibility than what is implied by donating to the Red Cross or being a member of the Sierra Club. Do we perhaps need a relationship besides “membership” that expresses interest and shared values, receives this publication to stay informed, and involves the same maybe six-cents-a-day donation level?

Finally, is there a larger question here—in this disparity between anthroposophy’s great value and wide concerns, and the participation and financing being won for other valuable but much more narrowly focused efforts? Are we telling our story? Are our language and concepts understandable and credible? Is that a conversation we should be having, and if so, how should we go about having it?