1. THEORY OF INDOCTRINATION
3. DEFINITION OF INDOCTRINATION In the philosophy of education, the concept of indoctrination refers to unethical influencing in a teaching situation. Indoctrination means infiltrating (drilling, inculcating etc.) concepts, attitudes, beliefs and theories into a student’s mind by passing her free and critical deliberation. When - on a general level - we define indoctrination in this way, it is easy to say that the indoctrinative teaching is morally wrong and that teachers or educational institutions should not practise it. The problem is how do we acknowledge indoctrinative teaching? By what criterion do we consider teaching to be a form of indoctrination or to have elements of indoctrination?
4. CRITERIA OF INDOCTRINATION
1.The method of teaching as a criterion of indoctrination
2. The content of teaching as criterion of indoctrination
3. The intention of teaching as criterion of indoctrination
4. The consequence of teaching as a criterion of indoctrination
5. METHOD AS CRITERION In the U.S. context, thanks to John Dewey, the tendency is to connect indoctrination to a certain teaching method. This illegitimate teaching method is said to include the following elements: a) Teaching is authoritarian, b) Teaching content is drilled in students’ minds, c) There are threading elements in teaching and free discussion is not allowed. Some writers label these as "irrational teaching methods".
6. CONTENT AS CRITERION
According to the trivial content criterion, the content of teaching determines whether or not teaching is indoctrination. As Anthony Flew put it: "No doctrines, no indoctrination"
7. INTENTION AS CRITERION The first person to use the term indoctrination in its pejorative sense was William Heard Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick emphasized the intention of the teacher in his concept of indoctrination. He did not deny the possibility of unintentional indoctrination, but nevertheless considered the teacher’s intention to be the most important criterion of indoctrination. John White defines a teacher’s so called indoctrinative intention in the following way: "The child should believe that ‘p’ is true, in a such way that nothing will shake this belief“.
8. CONSEQUENCE AS CRITERION When we consider indoctrination in the light of the consequence criterion, we focus our attention to the outcomes of teaching and education. According to this criterion, teaching is indoctrination if the outcome is an "indoctrinated person". John Wilson claims that an indoctrinated person lives in self-deception. She is a kind of sleepwalker. The ground of the beliefs of such a person are believed to be untenable, or beyond rational reasoning. An indoctrinated person holds her conviction despite of the counter evidence.
9. These four criteria - stated in this traditional way - include serious problems that could potentially render the entire concept of indoctrination useless in the context of a post-modern teaching situation. I agree with Snook, who claims that indoctrination cannot be defined by certain irrational teaching methods. It is clear that when a teacher teaches in an authoritarian style, she tends to produce non-discursive and indoctrinative learning, although this is a very ineffective way to indoctrinate in a modern teaching situation. It is mainly used in the military, in some private educational institutes, some workplaces and in other so-called “total institutions“. However, the lack of this kind of teaching does not necessarily remove the danger of indoctrination.
Rauno Huttunen’s communicative theory of indoctrination:
The communicative method and intention criterion
The empowering content and consequence criterion.
Read more at: