By Michael Harslem
Some might regard the term leadership1 as questionable, the implication being that if there is a leader there must be others who require to be led. Leadership involves telling others what to do, having power over them and imposing one’s will on them. The current image of a leader is that of someone who knows better, who is responsible for others, understands the whole situation, represents the whole company, enterprise or school and, in the last resort, is the one on whom everything can be blamed. In countless variations – beginning with the family and ending with large industrial concerns, where top management is the term used – this is the image of leadership that dominates the way society conducts its affairs today. It involves there being a clear hierarchy not only in knowledge and ability but also in power, income and esteem. No- one doubts that leadership i.e. management, is necessary in any enterprise, including educational enterprises such as schools and universities.
Self-led enterprises, including Steiner Waldorf schools, are an exception. Here it is often thought that there must be no leadership because leadership is seen as being incompatible with self-administration.
Outwardly, self-led enterprises, including Steiner Waldorf schools, often present an impression of being leaderless. Parents and also other partners in the work frequently find that there is no-one who is in a position to answer their questions or who can be regarded as responsible for anything. They are fobbed off with references to some group or committee that might take weeks before getting round to tackling the subject the enquirer has raised.
In large, self-led enterprises like Steiner Waldorf schools with 50 to 60 teachers (or 120 to 130 if the school has parallel classes), the internal leadership structure becomes unclear, so that outsiders, parents, pupils and others who work there assume that there must be hidden leadership structures. They begin to ask who is pulling the strings behind the scenes, who is the hidden head teacher or most influential group. [This phenomenon is not unknown in schools with only 20 teachers. Ed.]
Any serious discussion on self-leadership must include the question of how the enterprise is to be run. In most Steiner Waldorf schools this remains in the realm of the unconscious or is seen only in its negative aspect of a power structure.
All Steiner Waldorf schools are based, more or less consciously, on the ideal of a self-led republic of teachers. This form can be elaborated in all kinds of ways to fit in with the existing College of Teachers and the different delegated areas of management.2 How the college of teachers should reach its decisions and what responsibilities can be delegated to mandate groups remains eternally debatable. This article will not go further into the question of republicanism versus/or/and democracy, since this is covered adequately in essays by Lehrs, Brüll and van Manen in the journal Erziehungskunst (including bibliographical references).
Many conversations have shown that the question of leadership is always seen in terms of personnel. This bias, which inevitably leads to the linkage of leadership with power, makes it very difficult to talk about the subject at the functional level that relates to the kind of leadership exercised by different tasks in an enterprise. These two levels of leadership cannot be separated. It always has a functional and a personnel aspect since you cannot separate leadership tasks from the persons who carry them out. On the other hand, some leadership tasks presuppose specific qualifications. So leadership is always a question of human, social and specialist capacities as well as of consciously building leadership tasks into the structures and processes of an enterprise.
To enable us to discuss leadership qualities in a self-led enterprise such as a Steiner Waldorf school we shall seek to approach the subject from the angle of leadership qualities before clarifying this in a concrete field of research.
Having an overall view of an enterprise is one of the main characteristics of leadership. Since it is impossible for most of us to have a full overview of an enterprise as complicated as a full-sized Steiner Waldorf school, I shall not use a school as my concrete field of research. Instead, I shall discuss leadership with reference to a field about which each one of us can have an overall view, namely the individual human being. I shall try to examine the functional dimension of leadership at the personal level of the individual human being. I shall therefore refrain from referring to the various leadership models to be found in different management theories.
A discussion of leadership or management in connection with enterprises calls for the use of certain concepts such as management, setting goals, policies, planning, organisation and supervision.
When this is applied to our selected field of research, the individual human being, we have to ask: What does this mean with regard to my own person, with regard to me as a human being? In what situations, at what moments in my daily life, do I have the experience of applying leadership to myself? In what situations do specific circumstances, pressure of time, other people, determine what I do? What is my inner situation in one case or another? In looking at these different questions we shall endeavour to track down the qualities leadership can have.
We are all only too familiar with situations in which our actions are determined more or less unconsciously and largely by external circumstances. Many times every day we react to situations mechanically, out of habit, laziness, or resignation and so on instead of shaping them consciously. Or perhaps we either cannot or do not wish to shape them ourselves. On the other hand it is essential for a considerable proportion of our lives to run along routine lines if we are to be able to act at all. This does not mean, though, that we have to be unaware that this is happening.
Looking more closely, we realise that our reasons for acting in a certain way, the reasons that lead us — without our becoming aware of them – come not only from the outside but also from inside ourselves. There are many occasions when a sudden wave of feeling makes us do something, react in a certain way or utter some specific comment. Often we are swayed by moods, either gloomy or euphoric. Frequently some prejudice or prior experience prevents us from approaching a person, a situation or a subject without bias. Repeatedly we decide on a course of action and then fail to carry it out. Time and again we start out on a train of thought only to find ourselves thinking about something quite different, or we want to discuss something specific but talk about all kinds of other things instead. Over and over again we find ourselves in situations we have not consciously arranged but into which we have stumbled unawares. Does all this imply that one may no longer be allowed to express one’s feelings spontaneously and without embarrassment? Must one be guided solely by one’s cool and sober intellect? Would this not mean denying oneself? Obviously this is not what is meant! But if one intends to be fully honest about the degree to which one actually applies self-leadership to one’s thoughts, feelings and actions in daily life, one will have to look at one’s situation frankly and without any frills in order to be true to oneself. Not that one either can or must carry out this self-leadership consciously all the time and in every situation. One should, however, be clear about the degree to which this quality of alert, conscious self- leadership is present in one’s daily life.
An important prerequisite for observing anything to do with one’s own self-leadership is to have learnt to accept oneself as one is, with all one’s strengths and weaknesses. Not until one has achieved this will one be able to discover the impulses that motivate one. Only if one accepts one’s immediate situation as it is, and refrains from trying to paint a picture of oneself that is untrue, will one be free to recognise one’s accepted but also one’s dark and hidden motivations. If one can succeed in observing how these work in oneself, one is also likely to discover a few of the enemies of self-knowledge. If one wants to be one’s own leader one cannot avoid tackling these matters within oneself.
If one regards oneself as a physical, psychological and spiritual unity that desires to be its own leader, then you could say that as an organism one ‘manages’ and ‘leads’ oneself. In a psychologically healthy human being all the components of his or her being and all his or her activities of soul together form a total personality in which the ego as the core of the soul is the actual authority capable of handling the different soul activities in such a way as to make meaningful thought, feeling and action possible. In this sense one is justified in using oneself as an example of a self-led organism when trying to analyse questions of leadership.
Levels of leadership in the individual human being
A human being functions on three levels in which self-leadership can be observed: firstly in doing, secondly in thinking, thirdly in feeling. Important differences can be observed in these three types of activity.
If we observe our actions we notice that most of them happen by themselves without our guiding their every detail consciously. They happen as though automatically e.g. walking, eating, riding a bicycle, writing and so on. Normally we are only aware of the result, and even then only if we pay proper attention and concentrate. For example, it is quite easy for us to forget whether we locked the door or turned off the oven before leaving the house this morning. Seen externally the action is often identical, regardless of whether we are aware of doing it and carry it out purposefully, or whether we do it automatically as a matter of routine. But there is a difference. A purposeful deed requires us to direct consciousness and concentration towards our actions. We notice that if we want to wake up in our actions we have to take hold inwardly of our consciousness and direct it purposefully towards what we do.
What is the quality in us that brings about this awareness, this alertness, this purposefulness and concentration of consciousness? We notice that we have to activate ourselves to a specific degree, that one has to develop a raised ego-presence in oneself. This in turn necessitates a raised effort of our will in order to make it take hold of our thinking. We lose this power, this possibility of self-leadership as soon as we ‘let ourselves go’, if we allow ourselves to be distracted, if we do several things at once, or when our consciousness is lowered by external or internal factors.
Looking at our thoughts we initially gain the impression that it is easier to be awake in them, since that is where we are usually most conscious. However, if we observe our thinking as well as our thoughts and see how far we think them on purpose and how far they merely ‘occur’ to us, we realise that consciousness in thoughts does not necessarily guarantee self- leadership in thinking. Even for this we have to exert and school ourselves inwardly. If we seek out the authority that is responsible for this effort, we arrive once again at our ego. It is from our ego that we have to apply our will to guiding our thinking of we want to take charge of it.
Looking at our feelings we find that what applies to acting and thinking is equally relevant here. If we pay attention to this activity of soul we notice that we are only partially aware of many of our feelings. Conversely they can grow so powerful that unbeknown to us they begin to determine or paralyse our thinking or indeed our actions. What we have to do here is to bring our feelings into consciousness through our thinking and take hold of them and guide them through our will.
We find that in his six basic or subsidiary exercises Rudolf Steiner has given us a method of systematically developing and schooling these qualities of conscious leadership by the ego of all three activities of soul: thinking, will and feeling.3
If we want to play an active part in thinking, feeling and doing in the world around us as self-led personalities, we shall have to develop a further quality, over and above this alertness and consciousness in the activities of our soul. Instead of calling a halt when we reach our own boundaries we must go beyond them and enter into a conscious relationship with the world outside ourselves and especially with our own deeds and their social consequences. We shall only be social beings once we are aware of the overall situation, as well as of ourselves as a part of that overall situation. Since we are not alone in the world but live in various relationships with many others, we can only say, ‘I am master of myself and master of my situation, I am my own leader,’ once we have developed this overall awareness.
All these observations and perceptions of ourselves and of other people depend on our having schooled our senses to the degree that makes these perceptions possible. I shall here include a brief summary of the twelve senses that cover all our fields of perception.4 Through Rudolf Steiner’s spiritual science we learn that apart from the five external senses (hearing, sight, smell, taste and touch) to which Steiner added the sense of temperature, we also possess others, which recent research is beginning to verify. On the spiritual side these are the sense of speech or words, the sense of thought and the sense of ego; and on the bodily side the sense of balance, the sense of one’s own movement, and the sense of life. I shall not go into further detail here, but it is obvious that we can handle a number of these senses consciously, while if we want to become conscious of the perceptions provided by others we first have to increase our awareness or work at schooling these senses. This applies for example to our sense of life through which we perceive our own well-being, our own awareness of how we are feeling e.g. whether we feel well or ill. Our sense of ego, as another example, helps us to comprehend the inner being of another person. These two instances will suffice to show that the effort to take on board the senses of which we are normally unaware is also a part of genuine self-leadership. So in order to make good use of all our bodily and psychological instruments in leading ourselves, we must go beyond consciously training our activities of soul and beyond cultivating an overall awareness of ourself as a person in a social context, and in addition consciously school our senses. Schooling our senses can be practised by means of phenomenological observation but above all by means of artistic activities, for example in painting, making music, modelling/sculpting and doing eurythmy — and also practising conversation as an artistic process.5 Working in the arts requires enhanced perceptiveness and also an increase in alertness in all three spheres of soul activity: doing, thinking and feeling.
There are still further differentiations we might explore, but I shall now draw this attempt at describing self-leadership to a close. It is a field of research accessible to all of us at any time. It is always possible to use oneself in exploring the different activities and problems of leadership.
I shall now attempt to apply the knowledge we have gained regarding self-leadership of the individual to the social organism of a Steiner Waldorf school.
As with the individual, the capacity for self-knowledge is the basic prerequisite for leadership in a social organism. It calls for mutual efforts to be honest and frank in recognising the social organism’s strengths and weaknesses. This alone is not enough, however. In teachers’ meetings, for example, we also need specific knowledge, abilities and social techniques in order to reach a common picture and judgment about the social organism. It becomes apparent that individuals who do not want to develop these qualities with regard to themselves, or who actually resist doing so, will have difficulties in developing the necessary qualities with regard to the common purpose.
In discussing the leadership qualities in self-led social organisms using a Steiner Waldorf school as an example, we shall have to begin by asking many questions that each school community can use for testing its own situation. The positive qualities and defects discovered will differ from school to school.
Levels of leadership in a Steiner Waldorf school
If we look at the levels at which the ‘social organism Steiner Waldorf school’ functions, we discover a great variety of activities that are on the whole carried out unconsciously by the younger and older pupils but which ought to be led consciously by the teachers and parents. Looking at the diversity of life in a school you realise how difficult it is to become aware of how this social organism functions inwardly and outwardly when you are a part of it. We can look at and think about all the separate activities together as one overall activity, the functioning of the overall organism. Just as you can draw conclusions about an individual’s character by observing his or her actions, so does the character of a Steiner Waldorf school represent an overall view of its activities, to which each individual act contributes a specific nuance.
In a social organism, where is the authority that corresponds to the ego in the individual human being, that authority that is aware of the whole gamut of actions, that activates the organism as a social being, and that leads its actions? A social organism, too, can ‘let itself go’, can act without awareness, can have a dull consciousness and so on.
Trying to observe how thoughts come into being in a social organism, how a social organism thinks, is much more difficult than in the case of an individual. When does a Steiner Waldorf school think? Do all the thoughts formulated by individuals go to make up the thought world of this social organism? When does the social organism of a Steiner Waldorf school think through and in the individual? When does it think communally? What can the individual do and what can the school community as a whole do, to allow the thinking of the social being to be experienced and become effective? How does a community take hold of its thinking with its will?
In many schools an awareness of this dimension has scarcely developed hitherto. Occasionally a Steering Group, a College of Teachers, a Council of Management, or a PTA might become aware of the way the thinking of the ‘social organism Steiner Waldorf school’ functions in connection with a specific situation or problem. I witnessed this after the Chernobyl accident, during the Gulf War, when a pupil died suddenly, and when a teacher died. The social organism in its entirety was so perturbed when these events occurred that you felt it had woken up and was taking responsibility for the thinking of the whole school. In everyday life there is usually not much awareness of this.
Similar questions can be asked about the realm of feeling in a Steiner Waldorf school. An outsider taking part in a meeting e.g. the teachers’ meeting, can detect certain moods and overall levels of feeling which show that a social organism does have feelings above and beyond those of its individual members. However, the group itself usually remains unaware of these feelings. Sometimes a state of feeling such as this can actually be described if the mood becomes particularly intense.
Genuine self-leadership in individuals includes an awareness not only of themselves but also of their relationships with the world around them and the effects their actions have on that world. In the same way a Steiner Waldorf school as a whole organism must be aware not only of itself i.e. of its inner stirrings, feelings, thoughts and actions in self-leadership, but also of its position in its surroundings, the effects of its actions and also how the outside world affects it. There are sure to be a few individuals in every school who do have an overall view of these things or who make efforts in that direction, but this does not as such amount to a quality of self-leadership in the school. A communal awareness is required if a school is to be counted as being self-led.
It is difficult in a social community to arrive at a mutual awareness of the community as a whole because for this to happen each individual must have the courage to articulate his or her own perceptions within the community. In addition there is the question of how the perceptions and articulations in the community can be schooled. Working together in an artistic activity is one possibility. Another is the conscious shaping of conversation processes in an artistic and social way.
How can a community learn to lead and shape itself consciously? One possibility would be to apply to the community as a whole the basic exercises mentioned above in connection with personal schooling.6 I have experienced these exercises as being very helpful in a number of situations where a community has taken a more conscious hold of thinking, feeling and will.
Can anyone be a leader?
Colleagues in self-led establishments often question the matter of leadership, and this derives from their wish for everyone to play an equal part in running the establishment’s affairs. Against the background of what we have pointed out this can be formulated as a direct question: Can anyone be a leader? The above-described capabilities of perception and self- leadership will be found in varying degrees in the different individuals working in a Steiner Waldorf school. How can these become the self-leadership and overall awareness of the social organism? Is it not a contradiction in terms to speak of a self-led establishment being led by individuals? Yet how can the quality of self-leadership come about communally?
One thing is obvious. Those individuals who do not develop the above-described qualities of awareness in self-leadership cannot take on leadership tasks in a social organism. This means that in a self-led establishment not all the colleagues can participate in its self leadership since they lack the specific capabilities necessary for this, which does not mean that they lack other valuable capabilities for other tasks in the social organism. The variety of human qualities and capabilities thus brings it about that at least in certain realms some colleagues lead while others are led. This will be different in each realm and will be constantly changing, depending on the questions under discussion.
Just as a horizontal division of labour is thus acceptable in a self-led establishment, so should a degree of vertical division of labour be accepted as well. This is where, at the very least, things get difficult in many self-led establishments. To what degree are individuals prepared to accept analyses, plans and decisions made by others if these have implications for themselves? Many people appear to find this incompatible with self-leadership. This is the core problem in the leadership of self-led establishments, for leadership always implies acquiescence by those who are led. This is particularly the case in self-led establishments that have no formal hierarchy and thus no formal structures or sanctions that could impose leadership against their will on those who are led (which does not mean to say that informal mechanisms do not sometimes have this effect in some situations).
This means that in a community like a Steiner Waldorf school, that sees itself as being a community of equals, an awareness must be developed of the fact that equality is acceptable in situations where everyone involved is capable of forming a judgment about the matter in hand. Only in such a circumstance is it right for everyone to participate in equal measure. This applies especially to the realm in which agreement is reached about how individuals will live and work together i.e. the life of rights. When special capabilities are required, on the other* hand, we are no longer all equal; here there are clear differences between individuals. This leads to ‘capability hierarchies’ that people find very difficult to tolerate nowadays, since they apply their wish for equality not only to the realm of rights but also to the realms of knowledge and of collaboration. I suspect that this arises out of experiences in which the realm of capability-hierarchies sometimes infringes individual rights and individual freedoms.
Leadership of a large social organism requires specific capabilities. If we can succeed in discovering and developing these capabilities and in accepting the differences in ability amongst colleagues, then we create one of the prerequisites for the acceptance of functional leadership. Another essential prerequisite for leadership in the social realm is that this leadership should be based on a general love of other human beings. Only if communal leadership involves the element of respect for the freedom of the individual, for equality in the realm of agreement, and for fraternity in collaboration can it work in a healthy way in a Steiner Waldorf school.
Reaching judgments in the social realm
So far we have chiefly been endeavouring to describe the necessary leadership conditions in self led establishments. Now we shall turn to the quality and the possible form of leadership in self leadership. We have seen that it is not enough for individuals to develop an overall awareness of a social organism only within themselves. This is so not only because a single individual has too few opportunities to apply this overall awareness to the whole social organism, but also because in the social realm the quality of a judgment is enhanced when several people share it; a variety of different viewpoints and individual interpretations will make both the picture and the judgment more realistic. Rudolf Steiner went so far as to say that in the social realm individual judgments were always wrong. This leads to the conclusion that an overall awareness and an overall judgment must be formed within a group so that the group itself can develop leadership qualities with regard to the social organism. This group ought to consist of individuals who are endeavouring to develop the above-described qualities with regard to their own self-leadership as well as with regard to the whole social organism.
In practice this group will, as a rule, be involved not only with leadership matters but also with numerous other tasks, so that the problem arises as to how it can learn to distinguish between the leadership questions and other activities and advisory tasks. In the everyday routine of a Steiner Waldorf school one is constantly experiencing how difficult this is. Usually those who possess an overall picture and feel responsible are so busy with the tasks that arise through the very fact that they possess this overall picture that they have little time left to deal with actual leadership matters.
This brings us to an important problem experienced by self-led establishments, namely the fact that those who bear the responsibility for decision and initiative taking are often overburdened.
In applying what has been said above to Steiner Waldorf schools, we find that there are usually three organs that could and sometimes do participate in the leadership of the school. These are: in the realm of education the College of Teachers; in the realm of rights and finance the Council of Management, which also has outward-facing leadership functions; and a Parent-Teacher Association, which can be the social consciousness organ of a Steiner Waldorf school. Collaboration between these three organs is an important function with respect to leadership. Only when all three collaborate in leading the school will their leadership be accepted by the whole school community. When differences or conflicts between the organs cannot be solved, this weakens the quality of self-leadership.
The College of Teachers, is always in danger of carrying out administration rather than leadership i.e. executing self-administration instead of dealing with questions of self- leadership. If they do achieve self-leadership now and again it is in most cases not realised that they are then dealing with quite a different level of consciousness calling for a different quality of awareness in their discussions. Therefore a leadership group in a social organism must develop certain quite specific qualities of awareness, just as one must do as an individual if one wants to act with awareness and on one’s own responsibility. The same goes for the Council and the Parent-Teacher Association.
What are the prerequisites for the development of leadership qualities by a College of Teachers, a Council and a Parent-Teacher Association?
Among other things it is essential that an overall picture of the ‘enterprise’ or social organism must be developed mutually over and over again. This includes not only an awareness of the present stage of development but also a mutual picture of future development. There must also be a sense for the overall state of health of the school. Included in this are answers to questions such as: How are the teachers feeling? Are they overworked? Can they cope? Do they feel overburdened? Do they feel pressurised by the parents? Do they set themselves aims that are too low or too high? What is the atmosphere in the school building? Are the pupils happy or depressed? Are they fresh or tired, jolly or aggressive? How many individuals are off sick? What picture do the parents have of the school and of the teachers? What is the mood of the parents like? What questions do the parents have? and many similar questions.
The aims of leadership
It is most important for the leadership groups in a Steiner Waldorf school i.e. the College, the Council and the PTA, to maintain and develop their awareness of the common aim of the school. This common aim should become so alive and be so clear to everyone that it can be a guideline in all fundamental decision-making. All colleagues and parents should be able to experience this and sympathise with it. This does not mean primarily the ‘operational’ aims, the aims in the realm of actions, but rather the spiritual aims, the aims connected with the idea of a Steiner Waldorf school as such and of the specific Steiner Waldorf school in question. Working with these ideas one can experience how these common spiritual aims become bridges between human beings that, on the one hand, leave intact all personal contrasts and differences while, on the other, helping to overcome these at a higher level. One can even find how these differences, that are often experienced as obstacles or disturbances in daily life, seen from the higher level of the overall aim, are actually necessary and fruitful and prevent the whole from becoming too one-sided. This helps one see the differences amongst one’s colleagues in another fight in daily life also.
The mutual search for and discovery of aims then contributes to a further quality that the leadership groups must develop: that is the capacity to integrate. They must be capable of tolerating, incorporating and integrating the different opinions, feelings and impulses into the whole without losing sight of the basic common aim.
Leadership in self-administration
One might ask whether the above-described self-leadership of a self-administrated organism is possible at all and how one can succeed in achieving the requirements formulated here. If we look more closely we are likely to find that in any Steiner Waldorf school one or other element of leadership has been developed to a greater or lesser degree. It is not as though none of this had been achieved. In my opinion, the important thing is to work at bringing this element of leadership more strongly into people’s common understanding. It needs to be more strongly practised as a quality both by the individual and in the whole school community — its various bodies and organs — so that the whole organism’s capacity to carry out self-leadership is developed and improved.
One step towards this is individual and mutual work on the spiritual foundations of Steiner Waldorf education in order, through an expansion of perceptive capacities, to develop an expanded understanding in all situations arising in the school’s everyday life. This can be present as a quality, as an effort of awareness, in all questions that are the concern of a College, a Council or a PTA, or of the whole school community. But only when we all take it into our consciousness and all stand by it shall we succeed in making out of it a quality belonging to the whole community. When these qualities are developed, leadership loses its external connotations of leading and being led. Instead it becomes a source of strength and a guideline, a motif and a stimulus for the solution of current problems.
A further step in the work of a College, a Council or a PT A would be to pay more attention to the quality of conversation appropriate for leadership questions as distinct from questions of administration. Leadership questions require an enhanced awareness of the organism as a whole, the ever-presence in one’s consciousness of the aims, and a conversation technique that allows a quality of community in conversation to arise.
We have seen that the question of leadership must be considered with the greatest care in self-led social organisms. Using the Steiner Waldorf school as an example we have endeavoured to specify what factors must be taken into account to achieve it. The quality of leadership is especially important for these establishments, and at the same time it is especially difficult to achieve. Although personal leadership qualities are essential, it is not solely a question of these. Groups of responsible, capable individuals must be formed. As bearers of initiatives they must develop the overall awareness, they must carry the overall responsibility, and they must become aware of these qualities of leadership in their meetings. A qualitative barrier has to be crossed when a group of people, who have just been discussing how a particular task should be handled, now turn to questions of leadership. Their whole attitude must change so that the group attains a quality of leadership and an awareness of leadership. Leadership as a necessary function and quality of a social organism is then no longer a matter for individuals who have to be regarded as leaders. It becomes a mutual task of development amongst those individuals who take on, or who are asked by the community to take on, this specific responsibility.
Translated by Johanna Collis
- The original German term Führung can mean leadership, direction or even guidance. The title and theme of this article has to do with Schulführung for which there is no English translation. We have used a variety of terms in the translation and hope that the overall concept becomes clear through the context.
- See Dieter Brüll, The Waldorf School and Threefold Structure, AWSNA books; Manfred Leist, Parent Participation in the Life of a Waldorf School, AWSNA; David Mitchell, Ed., The Art of Administration: Views on Professional Management in Waldorf Schools, AWSNA.
- See Rudolf Steiner, How to Know the Higher Worlds: a Modem Path of Initiation. Tr. C. Bamford, Spring Valley, New York.
- See Willi Aeppli, The Care and Development of the Senses. Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications.
- See Heinz Zimmermann, Speaking, Listening, Understanding. Lindisfame, 1996.
- See note 3.