Steiner's name for the archaic social order in which an inspired priesthood governed religion, law, morality, and economy as one undivided stream.
Oriental Theocracy in Anthroposophy is Rudolf Steiner's name for the oldest ordered form of human society, set out in his Oxford lecture of 26 August 1922 (GA 305, Social Questions), in which an inspired priesthood standing apart from the world received from the supersensible worlds the directives that governed religion, law, morality, and economic conduct alike. In such a community the three domains that later separated, spiritual life, rights life, and economic life, pulsed as a single stream. The commandment that told a person how to stand toward God also told him how to stand toward his neighbour, and what to do with land, livestock, and harvest. Because the economy rested on soil and agriculture rather than on trade, its rules could be given as inspiration and felt as divine placement, so that even a slave, Steiner says, felt himself rightly set in the world order. When trade, commerce, and free labour emancipated themselves, that one stream broke into two, and then into three.
Oriental Theocracy is where Steiner begins any honest account of the social question: temple, court, and field held together by one authority that nobody on earth had elected. He did not offer it as a lost paradise to recover. He offered it as the condition humanity has spent three thousand years leaving, and whose residue still shapes how we picture obedience, property, and the worth of work.
In Steiner's Own Words
First, we must look at very different conditions that once existed within the historical and prehistoric development of humanity. We must look at those social communities that can be understood as Oriental theocracies, which still have a strong influence on the West. These were very different social communities. They were social communities in which the structure of human relationships had been brought about by the inspiration of a priesthood that was foreign to the rest of the world. There, the impulses for the outer world were drawn from the spiritual impulses that were available.
What it Means Today
Karl August Wittfogel published Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power with Yale University Press in 1957, thirty-five years after the Oxford lectures. Wittfogel was a German sinologist whom the Nazis imprisoned in 1933 and who later broke with the Communist Party, and his subject was the same archaic formation Steiner had described. He argued that in Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus valley, northern China, and pre-Columbian Peru, agriculture depended on waterworks no village could raise alone, and that managing those canals produced one apparatus that was priesthood, bureaucracy, court, and landlord at once. He called the result total power, and meant something narrower than cruelty: an order with no separate rights life and no separate economic life to check the ruling stratum, because those had never divided.
Set beside GA 305, the two accounts circle the same object from opposite sides. Wittfogel counts irrigation ditches and grain levies. Steiner asks what a soul felt when the bread on the table was a gift from God and not a wage, and he remarks in the same lecture that even Karl Marx could think about the question only in legal terms. Both agree the order was bound to the soil, and that it dissolved once trade and money began to move independently of the harvest. Thalira synthesis: what Wittfogel diagnoses as a structure that failed to separate, Steiner reads as a structure that had not yet needed to separate, since separation is the price of freedom, and the theocracies were not yet asking for freedom.
Where to Read More