Here's to Fallibility

Institutions must recognize their own fallibility and establish mechanisms for self-correction if they want to ensure their continued existence through constant development. The more strongly an institution insists on its infallibility, the more often mistakes and missteps are attributed to the errors of individuals—and the more its capacity for development declines. Here, Harari draws a comparison with churches. Whereas, on the other hand, when an institution accepts its own fallibility as a matter of principle—for example, in academia or in a functioning democracy—self-correcting mechanisms lead to development: theses may be refuted, political mistakes admitted, and power limited through the separation of powers.

The fact that Waldorf schools and, with them, the Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen (BdFWS — Association of Independent Waldorf Schools in Germany) have existed continuously for almost 80 years and that Waldorf education remains attractive worldwide to this day shows me that we, too, have mechanisms that work and transcend generations. For a long time, we had the impression that we could manage without clear procedures, largely excluded them from our curriculum, and all too often assumed that grievances were attributable to fallible individuals. That is changing. A lot has happened in recent years: the BdFWS has developed tools such as contact points and regulated procedures and created corresponding statutory foundations. In the ongoing projects of the Pädagogischen Forschungsstelle (Pedagogical Research Center), curricula are being revised and adapted to scientific and social developments. However, if we want to remain vibrant in the long term, we must consciously avoid the «infallibility trap» and see ourselves as learning organizations. We should allow ourselves to rethink and further develop our long-established foundations, as well as acknowledge the possible fallibilities and errors of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Waldorf education who died 100 years ago. This is already happening with regard to questions about racist and discriminatory statements and a now outdated linear concept of culture and development. That is only the first step—correcting institutional errors, for example by decolonizing textbooks based on a partially outdated understanding of history, is the next.

I hope that we will take further steps carefully but consistently, even if they may be painful because they challenge the familiar and the secure. But this is the only way we can remain capable of development and continue to give young people access to schools with a lively, modern Waldorf education in the future.