Steiner's term for the organized scientific, confessional, and political hostility that swelled after 1919, which he said must be met by inner consolidation, never by counter-attack.
The Opposition to Anthroposophy in Anthroposophy is Rudolf Steiner's name for the organized hostility, scientific, confessional, and political, that gathered against the movement from 1919 onward and broke over it in the fateful year of 1923. Its record is GA 259, The Fateful Year of 1923 in the History of the Anthroposophical Society, the protocols of the meetings Steiner held after the first Goetheanum burned on New Year's Eve 1922. The opposition worked through agitation and systematic slander rather than argument: at a Catholic assembly near Dornach on 19 September 1920 a speaker had already called on Jung-Solothurn to storm the Goetheanum. Steiner drew one hard conclusion for members: counter-criticism only makes the opposition fiercer, so the Society must answer with vigilance, seriousness, and inner consolidation. Historians of esotericism now read the episode as a textbook case of how a culture manufactures rejected knowledge.
The Opposition to Anthroposophy names the campaign of hostility that surrounded Rudolf Steiner's movement after 1919: hostile professors and pastors, political agitators, threatening assemblies, and a press that traded in slander rather than argument. Steiner refused to answer it with polemics. In the protocols of 1923 he told members that every counter-attack feeds the fire, and that only the positive achievements and inner consolidation of the Society can meet it.
In Steiner's Own Words
One must believe that under the present circumstances, the opposition to anthroposophy will increase immeasurably if things continue like this. There could be no clearer sign of the growth of the opposition than the burning of this building. The opposition grows with each passing week. The inner consolidation and positivization of the Society would be necessary. It is not enough to criticize the mischief that is happening outside. If one continues to do so, the opposition will only grow. All those ventures that aim to show our opponents their own face only make the opposition more fierce. The opposition has grown because we have made many enemies in response to mere criticism. As long as we do not succeed in consolidating society, these conditions will not change.
What it Means Today
The hostility Steiner faced has itself become an object of scholarship. In Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture (Cambridge University Press, 2012), Wouter J. Hanegraaff, holder of the University of Amsterdam's chair for the history of Hermetic philosophy since 1999, traces how Western culture built a category of rejected knowledge: teachings expelled from respectability not by examination but by polemic, and remembered afterward chiefly through the caricatures their enemies drew. The campaign against anthroposophy ran on exactly this machinery. Pastor Kully's pamphlets, the professorial broadsides, and the nationalist agitation of the early 1920s did not engage Steiner's epistemology; they fixed a public image of the movement, and that image, as Hanegraaff's work shows for esoteric currents generally, tends to outlive the controversy that made it. This is why Steiner kept refusing the obvious weapon: answering caricature with counter-polemic only carves the caricature deeper.
Thalira synthesis: the opposition is the negative image of the Society's own unfinished consolidation, and Steiner read every attack as a demand that anthroposophy become more inwardly real and more visibly productive than the picture its enemies painted. The practical discipline carries over directly. When a school, a clinic, or a study group meets organized hostility today, the Steinerian move is not the sharper rebuttal but the stronger achievement, presented calmly and in public.
Where to Read More