Dreigliederung cont'd

I can agree with Christian von Arnim that the word 'order' does not necessarily exclude the idea of development, but this is exactly beside the point. The point is what else the word 'order' does not exclude. Above all, it does not exclude the connotations of authority, coercion, and prescription. And these are in fact the primary connotations of 'order', and have been for a long time.

What makes Steiner's soziale Dreigliederung different, is not that it is a better social prescription, but that it is not a prescription at all. It is not a program that can be either adopted or imposed; it is 'merely' a description of the principles of any healthy social organism. People must freely develop solutions out of their own insight into a particular situation.

But people were used to prescriptions and could not understand what Steiner intended. How much more difficult is it for people to grasp Steiner's intentions when they are translated in a way that sounds and smells and tastes like a prescription? When people hear about 'The New World Order', they expect authority, coercion and prescription (and they get it); who would expect anything different from 'The Threefold Social Order'?

Nevertheless, this is not a categorical rejection of 'threefold social order'; for instance, the phrase rings quite differently if it is preceded by 'a' rather than 'the'. As far as alternatives go, it should be clear that we need phrases with few connotations, which can be newly defined by their context. I originally suggested 'social threefolding'; Christian von Arnim suggested 'threefold society'. After giving this some more thought, I am beginning to like 'social tri-unity' as a 'flagship' phrase for Steiner's social impulse.

Malcolm Gardner 6/3