Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Indoctrination and the Un-growth of Morality

  • Rauno Huttunen
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_419-1

Synonyms

Introduction

The concept of indoctrination means unethical influencing in a teaching or learning situation imposed by teacher, teaching content, or educational institution (see Snook 1972; Hare 1964; Cuypers and Haji 2006; Kilpatric 1972; Puolimatka 2001). When successful indoctrination causes infiltrating (drilling, inculcating, etc.) concepts, attitudes, beliefs, and theories into an individual’s mind by passing his or her free and critical deliberation (Huttunen 2003). When on a general level we define indoctrination in this pejorative way, it is easy to reject indoctrination. Its rejection means that we condemn the indoctrinative as teaching morally wrong and demand that teachers, parents, textbooks, or educational institutions should not endorse it. One major reason for indoctrination being reprehensible is that indoctrination prevents moral growth or it represents moral un-growth. According to Richard Mervyn Hare, the...

Keywords

Critical Thinking Communicative Action Teaching Content Communicative Teaching Mature Person 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cornwall: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  2. Biesta, G. J. J. (1994). Education as practical intersubjectivity: Towards a critical-pragmatic understanding of education. Educational Theory, 44(3), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cuypers, S., & Haji, I. (2006). Education for critical thinking: Can it be non-indoctrinative? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(6), 723–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Durkheim, E. (1956). Education and sociology. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. Durkheim, E. (1984). The division of labour in society. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gadamer, H.-G. (1998). Truth and method. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  7. Giddens, A. (1977). Studies in social and political theory. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  8. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action I. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  9. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Habermas, J. (1991). On the logic of social science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, J. (1992). Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt Am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  12. Hare, R. M. (1964).Adolescent into adults. In Teoksessa T. H. B. Hollins (toim.), Aims in education – The philosophical approach. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Holub, R. (1991). Jürgen Habermas – Critic in the public sphere. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoy, D. (1978). The critical circle – Literature, history and philosophical hermeneutics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Huttunen, R. (2003). Habermas and the problem of indoctrination. Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education. Internet: http://eepat.net/doku.php?id=habermas_and_the_problem_of_indoctrination
  16. Huttunen, R. (2009). Habermas, Honneth and education: The significance of Jürgen Habermas’s and Axel Honneth’s critical theories to education. Köln: Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Jay, M. (1982). Should intellectual history take a linguistic turn? – Reflection of the Habermas-Gadamer debate. In D. LaCapra & L. Kaplan (Eds.), Modern European intellectual history: Reappraisal and new perspectives (pp. 86–110). New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kant, I. (2015a). An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? Internet: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/enlightenment.htm
  19. Kilpatric, W. H. (1972). Indoctrination and respect for persons. In I. A. Snook (Ed.), Concepts of indoctrination. Lancashire: RKP.Google Scholar
  20. Light, P., & Littleton, K. (1999). Social process in children’s learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Littleton, K. (2000). Re-thinking collaborative learning: An overview. In R. Joiner et al. (Eds.), Rethinking collaborative learning (pp. 248–258). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  22. Masschelein, J. (1991). Kommunikatives Handeln und Pädagogisches Handeln. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  23. McCarthy, T. (1978). The critical theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MITT.Google Scholar
  24. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Misgeld, D. (1991). Modernity and hermeneutics: A critical-theoretical rejoinder. In H. J. Silverman (Ed.), Gadamer and hermeneutics (pp. 163–177). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Mollenhauer, K. (1972). Theorien zum Erziehungsprozess. München: Juventa.Google Scholar
  27. Puolimatka, T. (2001). Spinoza’s theory of teaching and indoctrination. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 33(3–4), 397–410. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2001.tb00278.x/abstract
  28. Ricoeur, P. (1990). Hermeneutics and the critique of ideology. In G. Ormiston & A. Schrift (Eds.), The Hermeneutic tradition: From Ast to Ricoeur (pp. 298–334). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  29. Snook, I. A. (1972). Indoctrination and education. London: RKP.Google Scholar
  30. Løvlie, K. (2007). Does paradox count in education? Utbildning & Demokrati, 16(3), 9–24.Google Scholar
  31. Vattimo, G. (1989). Etica della communicazione o etica dell’interpretazione? In Etica dell’interpretazione. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
  32. Young, R. (1989). A critical theory of education: Habermas and our children’s future. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TurkuTurkuFinland