indoctrination_part_2.pdf

8/10/2019 indoctrination_part_2.pdf

1/24

IndoctrinationIndoctrinationDifferentiating it from Education


2/24

Advance OrganizerAdvance 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?


3/24


4/24

Exploring Definitions 2Exploring Definitions 2

The word i n d o c t r i n a t i o n has accumulated

negative connotations over the pastcentury. As a result, it is difficult todistinguish it from education, withoutraising genuine issues of controversy.

However, this was not always the case.Indoctrination used to mean thepreparation a person has to undergobefore s/he is exposed to special secretknowledge.

The word is derived from doctrine meaningprinciples (especially of religion).

Indoctrination, brainwashing andconditioning are associated terms.


5/24

Issue with indoctrinationIssue with indoctrination

We study indoctrination in Education becauseindoctrination is not a desirable activity of theteacher. 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 inappropriateexaminations of ideas.


6/24

Is there mass indoctrination?Is there mass indoctrination?

"For those who stubbornly seekfreedom, there can be no moreurgent task than to come tounderstand the mechanisms andpractices of indoctrination. These

are easy to perceive in thetotalitarian societies, much less so inthe system of 'brainwashing underfreedom' to which we are subjectedand which all too often we serve as

willing or unwitting instruments."

Noam Chomsky


7/24

Method CriterionMethod Criterion

Some think of indoctrination as the method usedby totalitarian regimes as distinct from the morehuman methods favoured by democrats. Ifteacher tried to prevent a student from searchingfor evidence other than the say-so of an

irrelevant authority, s/he is probablyindoctrinating.

Teacher is authoritarian allowing little discussionor questioning.

The content is drilled or drummed in in someway.

There are threats of some sort which are heldover the children.

Free discussion is not allowed.


8/24

Arguments against Method as a CriterionArguments against Method as a Criterion

The expression using a certain method is vagueand arbitrary. For example, how long should ateacher use a non-rational method to qualifyhim or her as an indoctrinator?

Methods and acceptability cannot be

adequately assessed apart from the contentbeing taught. If a teacher makes the studentschant pro-Communist slogans we may say heis 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.


9/24

Content CriterionContent Criterion

Some philosophers argue that it is the content

taught which determines whether indoctrination istaking place.

Some areas of knowledge such as mathematicsand natural sciences are subject to experimentalverification. Their truth can be tested. But the thisis not the case for theories of politics, religion andmorality.

Thus it is argues that to pass information in theknowledge areas is to educate whereas to passteachings in the belief areas is to indoctrinate.In other words indoctrination can take place only

with doctrines.


10/24

Without comment:Without comment:


11/24

Arguments against content criterionArguments against content criterion

1. When we delve deeply into subjects such as science and math we findways of distinguishing between truth and falsity becomes obscure andelusive. Karl Popper hold that we can never finally prove that a scientificlaw is always true.

2. To teach all science and math and avoid indoctrinatory subjects such aspolitics and is to reduce education to a worthless activity.

3. Etymologically indoctrination was equivalent to teaching; doctrines stoodfor what was taught. Both terms have evolved. Doctrines becamerestricted to religion and indoctrination broadened to include the whole of

education. Those who want to establish a a conceptual link betweenindoctrination and doctrines want to limit the possible content ofindoctrination, but they do not want to limit it to religious matters. Theydo want to extend it to other doctrinal matters such as politics, history andmorals. Thus there is no etymological warrant for their views at all.

4. Regardless of the way doctrines are defined they are not a necessarycondition for indoctrinating. The deliberate teaching of what is false mustbe subsumed under indoctrination. Consider an example. Indoctrination isfrequently associated with ideologies because they provide one of the mostcogent (i.e. convincing) motives for indoctrinating. Even doctrines can betaught in a non-indoctrinating way.


12/24

Consequence or Results as a CriterionConsequence or Results as a Criterion

Some philosophers argue thatindoctrination 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.


13/24

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 beexplained 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 taskand an achievement term. We would not call a person aneducated person if s/he displayed the signs of educatedperson. Indoctrination refers primarily to a process oractivity. We would not call a man indoctrinated unless wehad reason to believe that he had been subjected to someprocess we call indoctrination.

3. Since indoctrination refers to some process it follows thatwe can fail to indoctrinate but we would not say that theinstructor had not been indoctrinating. Indoctrination canoccur without anyone being indoctrinated.


14/24

In so far as indoctrination is an evil, some

philosophers argue that intention is the key

criterion. A parent cannot be accused ofindoctrinating 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) totheir 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, ifher intention is that the child should believe

a proposition in such a way that nothing will

shake that belief.

Intention as the Criterion


15/24

Arguments against intention as a criterionArguments against intention as a criterion

The practising teacher is interested in a definition that willguide teaching. A definition based on intention is not useful.

Intentions are mysterious. We cannot determine whether aperson is indoctrinating or not unless we ask him. He has onlyto 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 subjectmatter in question. What about the parent who thinks thatmoral values are firm and objective and teachers them to bebelieved firmly?

If a teacher is profoundly committed to one point of view, hemay present it in a highly persuasive manner and may end upindoctrinating the students.

There is a possibility of indoctrinating children by valuesimplicit and covert in curriculum. Children may pick up these

values without reflecting them.


16/24

Indoctrination in Religious EducationIndoctrination 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 theevidence 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 religioncould intend.

Indoctrination is inevitable if religion is taught.

Therefore, the teaching of religion is an inmoralactivity.


17/24

Most morals are derived from religion, as such, moraleducation can be considered as indoctrination.

What is morally appropriate varies with time and thecommunities (at least, in Western societies). Sinceabsolute morals are almost non-existent, then moral

education can be indoctrination.

The way to avoid indoctrination is to teach thinkingabout how one ought to behave and thinking in a waywhich 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 behaviourwhat you and others observe of your actions.

Indoctrination in Moral EducationIndoctrination in Moral Education


18/24

It has been argued that so far as political

education is concerned a teachers aimshould 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 arguepersuasively for ones own viewpoint and

to act triumphantly in support of it.

It is indoctrinatory for teachers to seek to

influence the substantive political beliefsor values of their pupils.

Indoctrination in Political EducationIndoctrination in Political Education


19/24

Almost always, it is claimed that the basis of knowledge claims in

science is empirical. Accordingly, the student is brought to see scienceis 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. Observationsthrough instruments are accepted because we either take the

instruments on trust, or we have a theory to explain the validity ofthe instrument, How much of this theory is observational?

Scientists observe through theories. To confront and observe naturewithout presuppostions is impossible. They cause to postulate entitieswhat no one has ever seen. Also incompatible theories may persistside-by-side unresolved by observations.

Scientific theories are resilient because they can accommodatecounter observations in many ways. challenging the observer or hisinstruments, postulating special explanatory factors.

For these reasons, much science education is indoctrinatory becauseit blinds us to the possibility and importance of rational criticism justwhere this is most called for.

Indoctrination in Science EducationIndoctrination in Science Education


20/24

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 canwe 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.


21/24

4. Education for young children who have not as yetdeveloped their thinking would be difficult ifreasons are to be given for everything taught.

Reasons themselves may not be comprehensible totheir young minds.

5. All countries indoctrinate their children. The extentand 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 rationaljustification for some cultural actions.

Is indoctrination necessarily bad then?Is indoctrination necessarily bad then?


22/24

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 thelearner.


23/24

End

N


24/24

Documents

indoctrination_part_2.pdf