Indoctrination

[Resha Caner]

I mean... aside from simply disappearing in a cloud of smoke without saying anything at all, what could be farther from indoctrination than agnosticism?

It depends. If the agnostic doesn't even tell the child to look for evidence, does not tell them to use reason, that would be a lesser indoctrination ([edit] given that the agnostic's position is: I've seen no evidence for God, therefore I have no opinion).

Two questions, then:

1) What is the minimal amount of interaction a parent & child could have that would allow the child to survive? Wouldn't that be the minimum indoctrination?

2) If one goes above that minimum, is that a bad thing?

 

[Resha Caner]

I think it isn't the belief or worldview or value being transmitted ("indoctrinated") in itself that is good or bad, but the closemindedness with which a person views alternatives that's bad. Fostering your own values, beliefs, or worldviews is good so long as it's attended by openness to alternatives. That is, so long as you value free thinking or at the very least tolerance for opposing views along with your own.

The same challenge I gave to Exile, then. Do you really mean completely free thinking, or are there some appropriate limits?

 

[quatona]

I don't mean to pick on BB specifically. I've seen statements like this several times, so this was just a convenient one to start the conversation.

I find statements like this very interesting. If agnosticism (or atheism) is so obvious, a conviction rooted in firm evidence, why would one need to raise a child in any specific way? Isn't the evidence going to convince the child to go that route?

If a child is indoctrinated in such a way as to bias them toward agnosticism, is it a pure agnosticism or merely a deference to the parents?

I have no idea how one can possibly indoctrinate a view like agnosticism, to begin with.
I guess that´s why you took the statement which originally spoke of "raising" and "agnosticism" and then asked about "indoctrinating" and "atheism".

Personally, I think it´s very important to offer your children your positions, values, ethics etc.
It´s also very important to allow and invite them to find out about others´ positions, values and ethics and finally decide for themselves what to adopt and what to reject.

 

[Resha Caner]

IPersonally, I think it´s very important to offer your children your positions, values, ethics etc.
It´s also very important to allow and invite them to find out about others´ positions, values and ethics and finally decide for themselves what to adopt and what to reject.

Would you ever challenge their conclusions?

 

[The Paul]

1) What is the minimal amount of interaction a parent & child could have that would allow the child to survive? Wouldn't that be the minimum indoctrination?

It gets weird. Certain skills have to be conveyed, and in a certain light its going to look like indoctrination.

But regarding religious questions I can't see how you could possibly do anything less like indoctrination than saying "I don't know."

2) If one goes above that minimum, is that a bad thing?

Well, if you do nothing at all there's the problem of someone else will always be eager to indoctrinate the kid into their religion... which is why I imagine most agnostics will in practice add, "I don't think anyone really knows." To offer some protection against the indoctrination attempts at others.

And technically that's trying to indoctrinate the child to resist indoctrination, but I wouldn't consider it a bad thing.

 

[Resha Caner]

It gets weird. Certain skills have to be conveyed, and in a certain light its going to look like indoctrination.

Because, I think, it is. Though I suppose we could find a euphimism that sits better. I agree with what you said later. Call it what you like, it's not necessarily a bad thing to indoctrinate your children.

But regarding religious questions I can't see how you could possibly do anything less like indoctrination than saying "I don't know."

Even that carries a message. Why don't you know? Because you're no longer searching or because it's impossible to know? Whatever the reason, one of those messages will come through.

Well, if you do nothing at all there's the problem of someone else will always be eager to indoctrinate the kid into their religion...

And apparently that is bad ... from your perspective. So you will try to indoctrinate your kids to think like you do. What if, in spite of your efforts, they adopt some religion?

 

[Received]

The same challenge I gave to Exile, then. Do you really mean completely free thinking, or are there some appropriate limits?

If by completely free thinking you mean the ability to think without being bound by any beliefs, worldviews, ideas, etc., and have your thoughts unfiltered to some degree by these things, then no. By "free thinking" I mean the ability to look beyond to some degree one's current beliefs and values.

 

[Resha Caner]

If by completely free thinking you mean the ability to think without being bound by any beliefs, worldviews, ideas, etc., and have your thoughts unfiltered to some degree by these things, then no. By "free thinking" I mean the ability to look beyond to some degree one's current beliefs and values.

OK. That's not too far from what I think, but I'm a bit more conservative. I don't try to hide that I want my kids to believe the same things I do. I'm OK with them knowing about other religions, but really only for 2 reasons. First, so I have a chance to explain why I disagree with others. Second, to be sure they understand others. I don't want to raise someone who will issue a fatwa against someone else.

 

[Received]

I agree with that. It's why I think it's not a matter of the value itself as to why people are all the rage about sensitivity to indoctrination and being open minded with alternatives. It's the value or belief that is being indoctrinated and how it's being indoctrinated in relation to openness to other views. That's the theory, anyways. I think a lot of times this cry against indoctrination in terms of religious upbringing (see Dawkins, etc.) assumes that religion is by definition damaging, and so you shouldn't be allowed to stamp your religious beliefs on another person and should instead give your children alternatives. The problem with this is that giving them alternatives is itself a type of indoctrination -- toward rationality and/or free thinking. So it's not a matter of whether or not indoctrination is taking place, but what is being indoctrinated, as well as the style of this indoctrination in terms of how open it allows children to be toward other possibilities.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I just noticed something in this thread.
When did indoctrinate become a synonym of raised?
Would telling your kids that brown bread is better then white bread be indoctrinating?
I think somewhere along the way the meaning got lost.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think somewhere along the way the meaning got lost.

That's not unusual. It's easy to define the extremes, but as we move toward the middle meaning becomes fuzzy.

I wouldn't normally think recommending a choice of bread is indoctrination (though I prefer white & sourdough over brown & rye ). I suppose it is (as Received said) a somewhat subjective mix of what is being taught and how it is taught.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

That's not unusual. It's easy to define the extremes, but as we move toward the middle meaning becomes fuzzy.

I wouldn't normally think recommending a choice of bread is indoctrination (though I prefer white & sourdough over brown & rye ). I suppose it is (as Received said) a somewhat subjective mix of what is being taught and how it is taught.

Heh I guess its the 'pile' problem (Or something along those lines.)

 

[Resha Caner]

Heh I guess its the 'pile' problem (Or something along those lines.)

The pile problem?

 

[Received]

Maybe the blur started when we (or I) talked about indoctrination as necessarily being a part of upbringing. Indoctrination here meaning the process, intentional but usually not, of implanting a doctrine (values, ideology, worldview) into a child's mind; not as the intentional propagation of ideas into a child's mind. If the latter was the case, I don't think any type of indoctrination, religious or not, rational or not, would be justified.

 

[quatona]

Would you ever challenge their conclusions?

Sure, why not?
Challenging a conclusion (or more precisely: the reasoning leading to this conclusion) has nothing to do with "indoctrination", has it?
I would even challenge their conclusions if they´d lead to the same results that I have come to but are based on - imo - poor reasoning.

 

[quatona]

I just noticed something in this thread.
When did indoctrinate become a synonym of raised?

At the point when Resha quoted BB saying "raised" and then asked his question about "indoctrination" as though the two were the same.
I.e. during the wording of the OP.

 

[quatona]

Maybe the blur started when we (or I) talked about indoctrination as necessarily being a part of upbringing. Indoctrination here meaning the process, intentional but usually not, of implanting a doctrine (values, ideology, worldview) into a child's mind; not as the intentional propagation of ideas into a child's mind. If the latter was the case, I don't think any type of indoctrination, religious or not, rational or not, would be justified.

Add to that that the effect of talk is overrated. Simply being who and what we are, how we act and what we do is so much more effective in influencing (or "indoctrinating" - since that seems to have become the operational term, for whatever reason) our children than what we preach to them.

 

[Received]

Add to that that the effect of talk is overrated. Simply being who and what we are, how we act and what we do is so much more effective in influencing (or "indoctrinating" - since that seems to have become the operational term, for whatever reason) our children than what we preach to them.

Truth.

 

[Resha Caner]

Challenging a conclusion (or more precisely: the reasoning leading to this conclusion) has nothing to do with "indoctrination", has it?

It could. I have 2 sons. One rarely challenges anyone. For the other the challenge begins the moment he opens his eyes in the morning. We try to impress on the one that he can't take at face value everything people say. With the other we hope that someday he'll learn what trust is.

Likewise, my experience with various cultures is that people from Japan rarely challenge you - at least not to your face. At the opposite end, when I was in Germany I sometimes felt store clerks thought I was an idiot just because I asked for help. It is a much more confrontational culture. You ought to see how my Americanized kids react to their German grandfather.

Again, choosing whether or not to challenge your children sends a message. If it didn't, why would you do it?

 

[quatona]

It could. I have 2 sons. One rarely challenges anyone. For the other the challenge begins the moment he opens his eyes in the morning. We try to impress on the one that he can't take at face value everything people say. With the other we hope that someday he'll learn what trust is.

Yes, children are different and need to be treated individually.
To help them become complete should be our goal.
Yet, personally, I am more of the challenging sort. I am not going to try to hide that just because children are around. I´m sure there are plenty of unchallenging or less challenging persons around them, for balance.

I´m not sure, though, I understand what point you are trying to make here in respect to your "indoctrination" idea.

Likewise, my experience with various cultures is that people from Japan rarely challenge you - at least not to your face. At the opposite end, when I was in Germany I sometimes felt store clerks thought I was an idiot just because I asked for help. It is a much more confrontational culture. You ought to see how my Americanized kids react to their German grandfather.

Yes, cultures can be very different - and that can be a huge cause of inter-cultural misunderstandings.
Being born and living in Germany, let me tell you that even from north to south in this country there are extremely differing sentiments and attitudes prevailing.
Again, I seem to fail to see the relevance of these findings concerning the "indoctrination" of my children. Please clarify.

Again, choosing whether or not to challenge your children sends a message. If it didn't, why would you do it?

I have no idea how to respond to this. I have never advocated abstaining from sending messages to your children.
If you insist that "sending a message" equals "indoctrination" I suspect we are just working from different definitions.
But since - as you yourself have submitted - challenging your children sends a message and not challenging your children sends a message, as well, I think it´s obvious that sending messages to your children is inevitable: It´s the very nature of human communication and interaction.
Personally, I am working from definitions that differenciate between having an inevitable influence on someone (no matter what you do or don´t do) and "indoctrinating" them.

But I do understand how, why, to whom and for which purposes such an equivocation can be convenient. As I like to say: If you ignore the differences, any two things are the same.