INTENSE

INDOCTRINATION
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY ASSIGNMENT

ANJANA UNNI
 INTENSE INDOCTRINATION
1. What is indoctrination ?
The process of instilling people with certain beliefs or ideas. The word
indoctrinate arises from a Latin word “doctrina” which simply means ‘to
teach’. As humans are social animals they experience indoctrination in
some or the other way. In many instances people concatenate the terms
“indoctrination” and “education”. But, in fact, education means teaching
someone to a in a certain way while to indoctrinate means teaching
someone to believe certain kind of information. While indoctrination is
viewed negatively, however, education is viewed positively. It was only
during this century when it was pejoratively connoted with words such as
“brainwashing” and “propaganda”.

2. How is it processed ?
As said earlier, human is a social animal and undergoes several junctures in life
which builds their emotional, rational or even irrational thinking. These kinds of
thinking are already present in the mind of a child in an inactivated or
undeveloped manner. Human child has the impeccable varieties of dormant
abilities which can be stimulated or awakened in order to develop and establish.
It is only deepened with experience and exposure. Human development is not a
simple consistent process, it involves several vicissitudes. Such processes might
lead to successful indoctrination. A person who is indoctrinated has an
ambiguous style of belief. He or she has beliefs that they are concealed from
adverse evidences. A person who has evidential style of belief acts or thinks in
a way that their belief are open to critical scrutiny, and his or her beliefs are
epistemically relevant. (Siegel 1988:37)

Content as a criterion

According to this criteria, indoctrination is implied as an attempt of inculcating

certain religious, moral, political beliefs. According to Siegel, a belief like “The
Bible is the divine word of god” when instilled, is necessarily indoctrinative

1
“for a person to who believes it will not challenge, seek evidence relevant to, or
critically evaluate the case to be made for or against matters on which bible has
opined.” (Siegel 1988:38). Then he says that if a belief that “The Bible is divine
revelation” is held in an ambiguous manner, then its teaching becomes
indoctrination. Teaching turns into indoctrination when it bypasses the
metaphysical, moral and political presuppositions.

Control as a criterion

This criteria explains about how the control of the teacher influences
indoctrination in the learner. In the case of indoctrination, the teacher has a
high degree of power over the learner which causes inability in the critical
evaluation of one’s act. Educative teaching involves preaching in a way that a
teacher authority usually does, but when it comes to indoctrination, it becomes
misuse.

McClellan suggests that indoctrination involves communication

between the teacher and the student in a way that the student
inadvertently evades the ability to reason critically in response to
whatever is being said. (McClellan 1976:150-15). Pedagogic
competence plays a major role in the authority of the educator.
The educational power of a parent is really different from that of a
professionally trained teacher.

Consequences as a criterion

This approach differentiates educational indoctrination from their

consequences: the bi product of indoctrination is actually a person
with less ability to think rationally at least in that particular situation
where he/she is being indoctrinated.
In some cases, the person might not be able to rationally reason even
if there is no indoctrination. This might result from some kind of
emotional trauma. However, there is a close relation between
pedagogical cause and the consequence. Consequences differentiate

2
 education from indoctrination provided that the normative character
of these processes is noted.

Intentions as a criterion

If the educator intentionally intends to deceive, he/she has to hide

his/her true intentions. As a result, it averts the possibility of an
authentic relationship between the educator and the student and
therefore provides a deceptive pattern of normative functions.

Method as a criterion

This criterion has four different features which may be considered

as corresponding to the indoctrinative approach (cf. Toukonen
1991:118-119):
 The beliefs of the recipient are influenced in such a way that
he/she cannot use his/her rational discretion.
 The beliefs the recipient are influenced in a manner that
violates his/her legitimacy
 The beliefs of the recipient are influenced through tyrannic
means, this point towards the misuse of the power of the
educator
 The beliefs of the recipient are influenced in such a way that
it exasperates the development of the person’s ability for
rational argumentation.

3. Types of indoctrination
O. Reboul has suggested 13 types of indoctrination in teaching:
i) To teach harmful doctrines: For example, parents indoctrinate their children
in order to teach them that people belonging to particular race are leaden,

3
 thieves or evil. These being the specific features of their race; by doing so,
they are instilling them with fallacious concept.
ii) To use the education to support a partisan doctrine: This kind of
indoctrination advocates for a biased doctrine in a place not intended for
such purposes-the school.
iii) To learn without comprehending the contents: In this case, it is not the
contents but how the information is instilled. Here, indoctrination implies to
learning without any rational argumentations.
iv) Misusing “authority” in teaching: This form of indoctrination is related to
the fact that the subjects cannot determine the truth by themselves, and this
becomes agrguable. This type of indoctrination occurs when the authority is
no longer proposed but imposed, it uses both seduction and constraints.
v) Teaching by predeterminations: A teaching methodology by applying racial,
religious predeterminations or of any other nature is absolutely provocative.
vi) Teaching initiating from a doctrine considered to be exceptional: This is no
longer about predeterminations because the educator might be completely
aware of the doctrine and the “explanatory model” inspiring it. The educator
uses the indoctrination when, by adopting an explanatory model, he/she
rejects all others a priori.
vii) Teaching something as scientific when it is not: This is the case when an
educator is misusing the title of science. This could be seen in scientific
socialism or even scientific racism.
viii) Teaching only the positive: In this case, it is not about teaching about the
evidences but rather about the effects. The teaching is not only provocative
but also false. The one who indoctrinates comes with facts, counterfeits the
statistics, provides false evidences, etc.
ix) To haphazardly select parts of the curriculum: A curriculum is always
arbitrary because it involves selections, and, implicitly, rejections.
x) To accentuate a specific belief while disapproving other: This indoctrination
is significantly driven by emotions.
xi) To instil hatred through education: This is the serious form of the
aforementioned situation, being characteristic to fanatics
xii) To impose a belief using violence: This is an extreme situation because the
violence is clearly seen while the indoctrination involves concealment.

4
4) Ways to prevent indoctrination
 Asking for evidence
 Reject Faith-based beliefs
 Research about the opposing view
 Beware of the appeal majority

REFERENCES
 Smart, P. 1973. The concept of indoctrination. In New 
essays in the philosophy of education, edited by G. Langford and 
D. J. O’Connor, 33–46. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan 
Paul.
 Augustine.P. 1972. Indoctrination and education. 
London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
 Withe, J P. 1972. Indoctrination without doctrines. In 
Concepts of indoctrination: Philosophical essays, edited by I.A. 
Snook, 190–201. London, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

 Puolimatka, T,(1996). THE CONCEPT OF INDOCTRINATION. Philosophia

Reformata, 61(2), 109-134.