Indoctrination

Indoctrination
Differentiating it from Education
Advance Organizer
Advance Organizer
Definition of Indoctrination
Criteria of Indoctrination
Method criterion
Content Criterion
Consequence Criterion
Intention Criterion
Indoctrination in Teaching
Religion
Moral Education
Politics
Is indoctrination desirable?
How do we teach students to be open-
minded?
Exploring Definitions 1
Exploring Definitions 1
1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2. To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of
view: a generation of children who had been
indoctrinated against the values of their parents.
"WordNet 2.0" defines "indoctrination" as "teaching
someone to accept doctrines uncritically."
"To teach systematically partisan ideas propaganda."
This definition opens the most basic difference
between indoctrination and education: indoctrination
teaches the doctrina that structures a subject, as
observed from within, whereas educatio literally
"leads out" from a subject, one that is being
dispassionately observed from without.
Closely connected is brainwash - submit to
brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly
Exploring Definitions 2
Exploring Definitions 2
The word indoctrination has accumulated
negative connotations over the past
century. As a result, it is difficult to
distinguish it from education, without
raising genuine issues of controversy.
However, this was not always the case.
Indoctrination used to mean the
preparation a person has to undergo
before s/he is exposed to special secret
knowledge.
The word is derived from doctrine meaning
principles (especially of religion).
Indoctrination, brainwashing and
conditioning are associated terms.
Issue with indoctrination
Issue with indoctrination
We study indoctrination in Education because
indoctrination is not a desirable activity of the
teacher. B this statement itself is problematic.
Some people believe indoctrination is desirable
and every institution practises it.
May teachers may be indoctrinating without
realizing what they are doing.
Education teaches that skepticism is always
appropriate. Indoctrination forbids inappropriate
examinations of ideas.
Is there mass indoctrination?
Is there mass indoctrination?
"For those who stubbornly seek
freedom, there can be no more
urgent task than to come to
understand the mechanisms and
practices of indoctrination. These
are easy to perceive in the
totalitarian societies, much less so in
the system of 'brainwashing under
freedom' to which we are subjected
and which all too often we serve as
willing or unwitting instruments."
Noam Chomsky
Method Criterion
Method Criterion
Some think of indoctrination as the method used
by totalitarian regimes as distinct from the more
human methods favoured by democrats. If
teacher tried to prevent a student from searching
for evidence other than the say-so of an
irrelevant authority, s/he is probably
indoctrinating.
Teacher is authoritarian allowing little discussion
or questioning.
The content is drilled or drummed in in some
way.
There are threats of some sort which are held
over the children.
Free discussion is not allowed.
Arguments against Method as a Criterion
Arguments against Method as a Criterion
The expression using a certain method is vague
and arbitrary. For example, how long should a
teacher use a non-rational method to qualify
him or her as an indoctrinator?
Methods and acceptability cannot be
adequately assessed apart from the content
being taught. If a teacher makes the students
chant pro-Communist slogans we may say he
is indoctrinating. What if he is making the
students chant multiplication tables?
With very young children rational methods are
rarely possible. Reasoning is of little value.
Consider a child being taught alifu baa.
Content Criterion
Content Criterion
Some philosophers argue that it is the content
taught which determines whether indoctrination is
taking place.
Some areas of knowledge such as mathematics
and natural sciences are subject to experimental
verification. Their truth can be tested. But the this
is not the case for theories of politics, religion and
morality.
Thus it is argues that to pass information in the
knowledge areas is to educate whereas to pass
teachings in the belief areas is to indoctrinate.
In other words indoctrination can take place only
with doctrines.
Without comment:
Without comment:
Arguments against content criterion
Arguments against content criterion
1. When we delve deeply into subjects such as science and math we find
ways of distinguishing between truth and falsity becomes obscure and
elusive. Karl Popper hold that we can never finally prove that a scientific
law is always true.
2. To teach all science and math and avoid indoctrinatory subjects such as
politics and is to reduce education to a worthless activity.
3. Etymologically indoctrination was equivalent to teaching; doctrines stood
for what was taught. Both terms have evolved. Doctrines became
restricted to religion and indoctrination broadened to include the whole of
education. Those who want to establish a a conceptual link between
indoctrination and doctrines want to limit the possible content of
indoctrination, but they do not want to limit it to religious matters. They
do want to extend it to other doctrinal matters such as politics, history and
morals. Thus there is no etymological warrant for their views at all.
4. Regardless of the way doctrines are defined they are not a necessary
condition for indoctrinating. The deliberate teaching of what is false must
be subsumed under indoctrination. Consider an example. Indoctrination is
frequently associated with ideologies because they provide one of the most
cogent (i.e. convincing) motives for indoctrinating. Even doctrines can be
taught in a non-indoctrinating way.
Consequence or Results as a Criterion
Consequence or Results as a Criterion
Some philosophers argue that
indoctrination is distinguished from
education in terms of the end product:
the indoctrinated person does not hold
his beliefs evidentially.
Defining indoctrination in terms of
consequences gives practical guidance
to the teacher. We can never know the
result of our teaching but if we know
what kind of results to be avoided we
can work towards it.
Arguments against consequence as the criterion
1. Defensiveness when criticized, refusal to admit mistakes,
reliance from authority, persistence with an argument
after it has to be shown to be invalid, etc., may be
explained in many ways: low intelligence, temperament,
home problems, drugs, psychological problems, etc.
Indoctrination is only one possible explanation.
2. The reason for this is that indoctrination is both a task
and an achievement term. We would not call a person an
educated person if s/he displayed the signs of educated
person. Indoctrination refers primarily to a process or
activity. We would not call a man indoctrinated unless we
had reason to believe that he had been subjected to some
process we call indoctrination.
3. Since indoctrination refers to some process it follows that
we can fail to indoctrinate but we would not say that the
instructor had not been indoctrinating. Indoctrination can
occur without anyone being indoctrinated.
In so far as indoctrination is an evil, some
philosophers argue that intention is the key
criterion. A parent cannot be accused of
indoctrinating if she: 1. intends to give
reasons when it becomes possible to do so,
2. uses no methods which would inhibit free
inquiry later. In other words, two parents
may do the same thing (identical method) to
their children to induce certain moral
attitude (identical content) and yet one may
be indoctrinating, the other not.
In this view, a teacher is an indoctrinator, if
her intention is that the child should believe
a proposition in such a way that nothing will
shake that belief.
Intention as the Criterion
Arguments against intention as a criterion
Arguments against intention as a criterion
The practising teacher is interested in a definition that will
guide teaching. A definition based on intention is not useful.
Intentions are mysterious. We cannot determine whether a
person is indoctrinating or not unless we ask him. He has only
to deny an indoctrinatory intention and the charge must lapse.
The appropriateness of a particular intention will depend on
the views of the parent or teacher on the nature of the subject
matter in question. What about the parent who thinks that
moral values are firm and objective and teachers them to be
believed firmly?
If a teacher is profoundly committed to one point of view, he
may present it in a highly persuasive manner and may end up
indoctrinating the students.
There is a possibility of indoctrinating children by values
implicit and covert in curriculum. Children may pick up these
values without reflecting them.
Indoctrination in Religious Education
Indoctrination in Religious Education
Imagine we hold intention as the criterion:
Indoctrination is the teaching of any subject with the
intention that it be believed regardless of the evidence.
Indoctrination so defined is morally reprehensible.
Religious propositions are meant to be true but the
evidence for all of them is inconclusive.
If the parent or teacher teaches them with the intention
that they be believed, he indoctrinates.
It is difficult to see what else the teacher of religion
could intend.
Indoctrination is inevitable if religion is taught.
Therefore, the teaching of religion is an inmoral
activity.
Most morals are derived from religion, as such, moral
education can be considered as indoctrination.
What is morally appropriate varies with time and the
communities (at least, in Western societies). Since
absolute morals are almost non-existent, then moral
education can be indoctrination.
The way to avoid indoctrination is to teach thinking
about how one ought to behave and thinking in a way
which holds good irrespective of whether the thinker is
himself the subject of it or somebody else is.
However, none would call a person who knows about
morals a moral person. Morality is about behaviour
what you and others observe of your actions.
Indoctrination in Moral Education
Indoctrination in Moral Education
It has been argued that so far as political
education is concerned a teachers aim
should be to make his pupils politically
literate. Literacy is defined in terms of
two characteristics: empathy and
effectiveness.
Empathy consists of recognizing the
plausibility of the varying viewpoints one
encounters.
Effectiveness in knowing how to argue
persuasively for ones own viewpoint and
to act triumphantly in support of it.
It is indoctrinatory for teachers to seek to
influence the substantive political beliefs
or values of their pupils.
Indoctrination in Political Education
Indoctrination in Political Education
Almost always, it is claimed that the basis of knowledge claims in
science is empirical. Accordingly, the student is brought to see science
is exemplar and well-founded knowledge that is rivalled only, if at all,
by the rational constructions of mathematics and logic.
There is little direct observation in modern science. Observations
through instruments are accepted because we either take the
instruments on trust, or we have a theory to explain the validity of
the instrument, How much of this theory is observational?
Scientists observe through theories. To confront and observe nature
without presuppostions is impossible. They cause to postulate entities
what no one has ever seen. Also incompatible theories may persist
side-by-side unresolved by observations.
Scientific theories are resilient because they can accommodate
counter observations in many ways. challenging the observer or his
instruments, postulating special explanatory factors.
For these reasons, much science education is indoctrinatory because
it blinds us to the possibility and importance of rational criticism just
where this is most called for.
Indoctrination in Science Education
Indoctrination in Science Education
Is indoctrination necessarily bad then?
There are very few things which are absolutely and
undeniably true. Therefore, we should worry less about
teaching absolute certainties than about giving evidence to
support the things that we do teach.
All four criteria appears to suggest that we ought to teach
children how to think not what to think. The issue is can
we teach one without the other?
There may be good psychological reasons for the teacher to
hide what he thinks. Teachers can openly reveal why they
believe certain beliefs and expose their trains of thought.
Some argue that this will inspire students to think more
deeply. Others argue that teachers disinterest can be taken
for uninterest and may do not lead students to make good
judgements between opposing views.
4. Education for young children who have not as yet
developed their thinking would be difficult if
reasons are to be given for everything taught.
Reasons themselves may not be comprehensible to
their young minds.
5. All countries indoctrinate their children. The extent
and methods vary. Examples can be found in USA,
UK, Japan, etc.
6. For a culture to continue, the new generation has
to be enculturated. Often there are not rational
justification for some cultural actions.
Is indoctrination necessarily bad then?
Is indoctrination necessarily bad then?
How can one teach without indoctrinating?
How can one teach without indoctrinating?
Remember that education involves:
The transmission of knowledge and beliefs, and the
justification of both by the teacher to the learner,
as well as the understanding of both by the
learner.
The intelligent use by the learner of the knowledge
and beliefs required.
Willingness and voluntariness on the part of
learner.
The development of cognitive perspective in the
learner.
Consideration by the teacher of the well being of
the learner in all that he undertakes to do with the
learner.
End
END