Steiner's paired terms for cultural decay: barbarism is the head tyrannizing heart and mind, savagery is instinct tyrannizing the head.
Barbarism and Savagery in Anthroposophy is a single paired diagnosis of cultural decline that Rudolf Steiner set out in the Second Lecture of GA 338, How Can We Work for the Impulse of the Threefold Social Order?, given at Stuttgart on 13 February 1921. Barbarism, which Steiner assigns to the decadent East and especially to Russia, arises when an original instinct-wisdom is rationalized, so that the head tyrannizes the heart and the mind. Savagery is its exact opposite: the instincts rising from the rest of the organism tyrannize the head, a disposition Steiner locates in the Anglo-Saxon West and above all in America, where he says the European was inwardly overtaken by the life he had outwardly conquered. Steiner borrows the pair from Friedrich Schiller's Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man (1795). Both poles name a failure of balance between thinking, feeling, and willing, not a judgment on any people.
Barbarism and savagery are the two names Steiner gave to opposite ways a civilization can lose its inner balance. He was not describing tribes or technology levels. He was describing what happens inside a person when one member of the soul commands the others, and what happens to a culture when that imbalance becomes ordinary.
In Steiner's Own Words
Today, in a sense, the Orient, with its decadent ancient wisdom, has fallen into barbarism. For barbarism is nothing other than when the original human instincts are rationalized, when they are directed by the intellect and by the mere life of the head. But if we call an Oriental a barbarian and speak of barbarism in this Schillerian sense in the case of the Oriental, especially the Russian, then the further we penetrate westward, starting from England and going over to America, the more we must call this western civilization, in the same sense, not civilization, but savagery. This is the opposite of barbarism. The barbarian tyrannizes the heart and mind through the head; the savage tyrannizes the head through what comes from the rest of the organism, through the life of instinct.
What it Means Today
Read the barbarism half of the pair beside Iain McGilchrist's The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World (Yale University Press, 2009), and the two descriptions converge with uncomfortable precision. McGilchrist argues that the left hemisphere, whose office is to abstract and manipulate a world already given to it, has usurped the right hemisphere, whose office is to attend to that world whole and in context. He calls the left the emissary and the right the master, and his case is that Western intellectual history since the Reformation records the emissary seizing the throne. Steiner, eighty-eight years earlier, put the same collapse in one line: the barbarian tyrannizes the heart and mind through the head.
The savagery half has no equally tidy neuroscientific twin, and that asymmetry is itself the finding. Thalira synthesis: McGilchrist maps only the barbarism pole because a culture in the savagery condition does not produce books diagnosing itself, it produces appetite, and appetite writes no critique. Steiner's contribution is the second term, which turns a one-sided complaint about intellectualism into a polarity with two failure modes and a centre. The use is diagnostic rather than moral: when you meet a plan, a school, or an institution, ask which way it tilts, whether the head has silenced the feeling, or whether the wanting has silenced the head.
Where to Read More