The notice appears in the appendix. Page 137. It is very succinct: only four words: “Waldorf Schools: written contribution”. But enough, to understand that the “Waldorf schools” brought their vision to the commission on the effects of screens on children, whose conclusions were handed over with great fanfare to Emmanuel Macron on April 30. Nothing could be more normal, one might think. We must involve the various French school representatives on this subject which partly affects the students and the school…
Except that these establishments are not just any establishments. They are in reality particularly controversial, being the subject of numerous accusations of sectarian excesses in recent years. In its latest report, the interministerial mission to combat sects (Miviludes) is concerned about the implementation of a potential “mental control” over the children who attend school there. Not really reassuring about their “expertise” in pediatric well-being.
These structures, all brought together by the “Waldorf Foundation”, claim to be part of the philosophical heritage of Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian alternative thinker who died in 1925 and was fond of spiritualism and occultism. Rudolf Steiner notably founded anthroposophy, a philosophical movement which is interested in the influence of the moon or “cosmic energies” and which is regularly the subject of reports to Miviludes. In 2021, around thirty referrals were made to it on this subject. As much as for Scientology. Far, very far, from a reliable source for public policies.
“We only had three months, there were bound to be a few misses”
Why include such an interlocutor in a report which aims to be based on science and which must establish national “expertise”? Questioned by L’Express about this choice, Professor Amine Benyamina, the president of the commission on screens, admits that he was not aware of the reputation of these actors before the controversy arose and understands that the mention could pose issue. “We only had three months. There are inevitably some failures, but I find that the controversy is damaging in relation to the work that has been done,” he retorts, between two consultations.
The person concerned, a practicing psychiatrist, on the other hand refutes any “influence” of the Waldorf schools or of anthroposophy in the recommendations given to Emmanuel Macron. “We have collected a large number of contributions, often from the initiative of the actors who wanted it. That of the Waldorf federation arrived on Monday, the day before the closing. We took note. Out of honesty and transparency, we mentioned that it had arrived. But this mention does not serve as validation and our conclusions obviously do not go in the direction of anthroposophical positions.
Same story with Grégoire Borst, professor of developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience of education at Paris Cité and researcher at the CNRS. Co-author of the report, he had to defend the integrity of the commission’s work on platform X, also recognizing an error due to the delays left by the President of the Republic. While reaffirming the independence of the work: “The contribution of Waldorf schools should never have been accepted and appeared on the report […] The report is not a summary of the hearings or spontaneous or requested contributions but the result of its analysis alone.”
A questionable link between screens and worsening autism symptoms
It remains that the mention, which at the time when L’Express writes these lines is still visible, strains with regard to the positions defended by anthroposophy: “To cite them is to recognize in them a quality of expertise and to give them a visibility while their argument has no scientific or educational basis and is only the emanation of their delusional beliefs. For them, computing is the work of a demon”, regrets Grégoire Perra, former anthroposophist turned. alert launcher. The organization regularly denies this mystical vision of the subject. When contacted, she was unable to respond.
The presence of anthroposophy is not the only one to have been noticed. In addition to the absence of reputable and consensual experts, like Anne Cordier, forgotten from the credits in the rush, another line caused a reaction. We can read there that the “overexposure – screens” collective also gave its opinion. The organization, led in particular by doctor Anne-Lise Ducanda, is however criticized for its alarmist assertions contrary to scientific literature on the links between screens and autism. A position recognized as marginal by the president of the commission himself.
Anne-Lise Ducanda, very active on the subject, has long denounced “virtual autism”, to describe the alleged ravages of screens. She thus suggested that autism could be induced by screens, as they would be so harmful. A theory contrary to what we know about the causes of this neurological development disorder, partly genetic and also linked to the health of the fetus. Nothing in the scientific literature suggests that autism can occur due to overexposure to screens.
“Hear the whole ecosystem”
Staring for hours and hours at a phone, just out of the cradle, with a pacifier in your mouth is well associated with developmental delays. At least that’s what a French study published in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in September 2023. But this does not mean that the screens themselves give these problems. And above all, these delays are not of the same nature as autistic conditions, which are very specific.
In the interviews that she still gives very often on the subject, Dr Ducanda now speaks of “disorders that can be confused with those of autism”. A less radical opinion but still controversial on a scientific level. Here again the participation of such a source raises questions. “We simply chose to interview Ms. Ducanda because she is a public figure highlighted in the media who, in fact, participates in discussions on the subject. But at no time do we endorse her positions or these theses in the report”, justifies Amine Benyamina.
The chairman of the commission considers that it is legitimate, within the framework of this general public work intended to support policies in this area, to hear the entire “ecosystem” on the subject. It is not possible to see this as a legitimization of this or that actor, he defends. “We listened to people from different backgrounds, different approaches, for example we heard TikTok, Meta, obviously criticizing their position, when necessary. If we deliberately put aside points of view, we are would also accuse of being biased”, continues Amine Benyamina.
L’Express checked. In the report, there is no trace of anthroposophical elements, nor of the thesis of “virtual autism”, in fact. “Screens are not the cause of neurodevelopmental disorders or autism spectrum disorder,” it is clearly written. But its authors nevertheless provide a surprising nuance: “It should be noted that excessive exposure to screens can aggravate symptoms linked to these disorders in children who suffer from them,” it is written. An idea that Professor Catherine Barthélémy, child psychiatrist, leading French specialist in neurodevelopmental disorders and current president of the Academy of Medicine, refutes: “To date, I have not seen any scientific studies validated by the international community providing proof that excessive screen use could worsen autism spectrum disorders or their symptoms,” she confirms.
This position taken in an official report worries this expert: “We are starting from afar on this question, with this very widespread but false idea that autism is a consequence of the use of screens. I would not like us to let the slightest doubt arise again on this question. Amine Benyamina evokes a “precautionary principle”. But Catherine Barthélémy emphasizes that if there must be precautions, they are no different for children suffering from these disorders, including particular vigilance on the effects of screens on sleep.
In certain cases, underlines a former expert with public authorities on autism spectrum disorders, screens can also be beneficial for these children: “These technological tools can help non-verbal autistic people to make themselves understood with other methods of communication , pictograms, etc. We should not deprive them of this in a great anti-screen pendulum movement. The report highlights this, including among toddlers. These nuances will still have to go behind the general message of prohibition.
.