If this is indoctrination, we are all indoctrinated

IF 1.3 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Theory and Research in Education Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1177/14778785221143770
L. Armstrong
{"title":"If this is indoctrination, we are all indoctrinated","authors":"L. Armstrong","doi":"10.1177/14778785221143770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When thinking about moral education, a concern of liberals is that such education ought not to be indoctrinatory. There are various definitions of indoctrination, but a common theme is that indoctrination prevents us from critically assessing our own beliefs. Indoctrinatory education, then, teaches a doctrine in such a way that students will not countenance any alternative doctrines. A state which forced its citizens to endorse a doctrine in this way would not be a liberal state. However, if indoctrination consists in an inability to critically assess our own beliefs, I argue that we are all partly indoctrinated. Evidence drawn from neuroscience and psychology suggests that the basis of our beliefs lies in emotion rather than reason, and there is no independent space from which we can critically assess our own belief systems. This is not to justify an explicit form of state indoctrination, in which the state forces beliefs upon us. Instead, it is to assess problems with how we understand indoctrination within education. There is no entirely adequate solution to these problems, though education aimed at open-mindedness offers the most promise.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"20 1","pages":"272 - 288"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785221143770","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

When thinking about moral education, a concern of liberals is that such education ought not to be indoctrinatory. There are various definitions of indoctrination, but a common theme is that indoctrination prevents us from critically assessing our own beliefs. Indoctrinatory education, then, teaches a doctrine in such a way that students will not countenance any alternative doctrines. A state which forced its citizens to endorse a doctrine in this way would not be a liberal state. However, if indoctrination consists in an inability to critically assess our own beliefs, I argue that we are all partly indoctrinated. Evidence drawn from neuroscience and psychology suggests that the basis of our beliefs lies in emotion rather than reason, and there is no independent space from which we can critically assess our own belief systems. This is not to justify an explicit form of state indoctrination, in which the state forces beliefs upon us. Instead, it is to assess problems with how we understand indoctrination within education. There is no entirely adequate solution to these problems, though education aimed at open-mindedness offers the most promise.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如果这是教化,我们都被教化了
在思考道德教育时,自由主义者担心这种教育不应该是灌输性的。灌输有各种各样的定义,但一个共同的主题是,灌输阻止我们批判性地评估自己的信仰。因此,灌输式教育以这样一种方式教授一种学说,即学生不会支持任何其他学说。一个以这种方式强迫其公民支持某一学说的国家不会是一个自由主义国家。然而,如果灌输包括无法批判性地评估我们自己的信仰,我认为我们都被部分灌输了。来自神经科学和心理学的证据表明,我们信仰的基础在于情感而非理性,我们没有独立的空间来批判性地评估自己的信仰系统。这并不是为了证明国家灌输的明确形式是正当的,在这种形式中,国家将信仰强加给我们。相反,这是为了评估我们在教育中如何理解灌输的问题。尽管以开放思想为目标的教育提供了最大的希望,但这些问题并没有完全充分的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Theory and Research in Education
Theory and Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Theory and Research in Education, formerly known as The School Field, is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes theoretical, empirical and conjectural papers contributing to the development of educational theory, policy and practice.
期刊最新文献
Book Review: Julian Culp, Johannes Drerup and Douglas Yacek (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Democratic Education Education for deliberative democracy through the long-term view Education for flourishing: A social contract for foundational competencies Book review: Barbara S Stengel, Responsibility: Philosophy of Education in Practice How much is too much? Refining normative evaluations of prescriptive curriculum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1