The Indoctrination Doctrine

I am especially proud of the fact that my teacher's comment on my thesis was "Beware of arguments that concern intent". Also, that I, again, totally used this essay to articulate my own beliefs, and that I cited the US Constitution, Court cases, blog posts (including my teacher's), a magazine article, and a dictionary, in addition to the normal sources. I've never had such a diverse Works Cited page before.

The Indoctrination Doctrine

When asked what government America had, Benjamin Franklin famously said, “A republic, if you can keep it”. Incredibly, two hundred years later, while many things have changed, America can still call itself a republic. This is not an accident. By passing on certain values (such as freedom, tolerance, individualism, the American Dream, etc.), American democracy has successfully perpetuated itself[1]. And yet, in George Orwell’s 1984, the Party does a very similar thing—it indoctrinates its children to perpetuate itself. Though America and the Party use similar methods to achieve seemingly similar goals, their intent separates most (but not all) of their usages of indoctrination.

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, indoctrination is defined as “to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments”, a synonym of ‘to teach’. Encyclopedia Britannica discusses the more pejorative definition, as “any form of teaching that causes students to embrace a specific set of beliefs without regard for its evidential status” (Siegel, 5). The term undeniably carries the connotation of the latter use; one rarely hears sentences such as, “The students were indoctrinated in the proper lab safety practices”. To display the harms of indoctrination, it is commonly juxtaposed against critical thinking. One of the prime examples of indoctrination in the latter sense is depicted in 1984, if mostly peripherally. Children, for instance, are taught from a young age that the act of sex should be avoided (Orwell, 68), and that to have sex is for the purpose of fulfilling their “duty to the Party” (132). Therefore, for the purposes of this paper, indoctrination will be used to mean ‘to instruct students to believe something without question’.

In 1984, The Party uses indoctrination to secure its future members’ loyalty and promote orthodoxy. Winston, the anti-Party protagonist, laments that the Party’s instruction, though it (so he believed) made children more difficult to control, “produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party” (Orwell, 24). Children are depicted turning their parents into the Thought Police (25), climbing onto roofs to remove streamers supposedly falsified by the Party’s enemies (181), and making a paper-mache model of the Party leader and symbol, Big Brother’s head (108). Loyalty and orthodoxy are attached; “the most bigoted adherents of the Party” were also the “nosers-out of unorthodoxy” (10). The Party members’ loyalty is crucial for the Party’s survival; in fact, much of the things necessary for it to function are done by volunteers. Some, like the part-time munition work Winston is convinced to do (129) is actually voluntary and done by the most zealous. Others, like the “voluntary” subscription Winston pays (56), are expected of them. From an early age, Party members must be loyal without question and believe what is demanded of them.

Indoctrination is also used to shape the Party members’ thoughts and feelings. As mentioned earlier, the Party wages a ruthless war on the sex impulse. Winston comments that “Chastity was as deep ingrained in [Party women] as Party loyalty”, thanks to mechanisms such as “lectures, parades, songs,” etc. (68). Winston suspects, and a high-ranking Party member, O’Brien, confirms, that the point of eradicating the sex impulse is to destroy the bonds between people, so that they will be tied only to the Party (267). Indoctrination of such beliefs and impulses is not all the Party does to keep its members in line. To ensure that its members are not bothered by evidence against their beliefs, they indoctrinate a certain kind of thinking, termed “doublethink”. Doublethink is “to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both” (35). It is perhaps the opposite of critical thinking—where a critical thinker seeks to base his beliefs on “the competent assessment of relevant reasons and evidence” (Siegel, 5), a doublethinker ignores evidence where it contradicts his beliefs.

Why, then, does the Party indoctrinate its members, seek to eradicate basic impulses? The answer is simply its own survival. O’Brien tells Winston that “The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same” (Orwell, 210). This motive is undeniably similar to America’s, and any other ideological institution’s. America wishes to survive, and it wishes to survive as a republic, with about the same hierarchical structure as outlined in the Constitution. It is worth noting that ‘America’ is not merely the government, local or national, but also private organizations and, arguably, the culture itself. The Boy Scouts publicly state that “Scouting believes patriotism plays a significant role in preparing our nation's youth to become useful and participating citizens” (Boy Scouts of America, 4). Indoctrination of patriotism is not restricted to government-run institutions alone. Americans, as a whole, are faithful to their ideology; not only do they want to perpetuate it, but they also want to promulgate it. Out of the Americans polled in a Pew Global Attitudes survey, 79 percent agreed that “It’s good that American ideas and customs are spreading around the world” (Pei, 5).

A major purpose of public education is to promote fundamental democratic values, as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Bethel School Dist. No. 493, 13). To that end, many schools attempt to expose children to other worldviews and teach critical thinking (Shiffrin, 513). Is this indoctrination? Fostering a diverse environment does not seem, at first glance, to be inculcating any particular value, and is at odds with one of the Party’s motives, to promote orthodoxy. However, by examining a view against this education, it is possible to see that it does constitute indoctrination. In Mozert v. Board of Education (appealed to the state appellate court), the plaintiffs argued that this exposure violated their rights, as the parents did not want their children to learn viewpoints other than their parents’. The court ruled that, as by presenting multiple points of view without stating whether any was correct, the schools were not supporting any one point of view, the school was not in violation of the Constitution (Mozert, 33). Diverse exposure does not establish any specific belief system, but it does foster a larger democratic value, that of tolerance, which it attempts to impart on students at the expense of some traditional ways of life.

Democratic values are not all that the culture and schools encourage. Americans are highly patriotic, but it is difficult to say where this patriotism originates. Evidence of this patriotism is prevalent, however; much of it is technically voluntary but as good as mandatory. Before sporting events, fans rise for the national anthem. On the Fourth of July, citizens shoot fireworks. In schools, students say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. Politicians gain points by saying they wish to spread democracy. Even if students are not explicitly schooled in patriotism, it would be difficult to avoid learning it when it is so prevalent; children are prone to influence from what they perceive at school to be the mainstream ideology (Ehman, 112). In addition, teachers promote certain preferences or dislikes, such as a dislike of the passive tense. The justification of this dislike, if given, is that passive tense is “flat” and “awkward” or does not convey as much information as the active tense (Klein, 5). The latter reason further reflects a larger paradigm English teachers indoctrinate to increase orthodoxy of language use, that language should in general be used to convey the maximum amount of information possible when convenient.

However, it is necessary to ask if this indoctrination is negative. For example, while there are times when the passive voice is acceptable or preferable in Standard English (The Guide to Grammar and Writing, 4), by conferring this paradigm of language universally, schools lower ambiguity and therefore raise comprehensibility, which is the purpose of language. For communication’s sake, orthodoxy is necessary.  In addition, certain values essential to a functioning society are judgments that do not have evidential status, such as the immorality of murder—even if moral standards exist in the noumena, it is impossible to observe them. In 1984, the negative consequences of the Party’s indoctrination and other machinations are severe. People are savage (Orwell, 181), subhuman (16), and uniform (28), freedom has been corrupted (16) and will soon be unthinkable (53); indeed, O’Brien later confirms that humankind will be destroyed (267).  Though Party organizations such as the Spies, the Party has turned Winston’s neighbors’ children into savage fanatics eager for death (23).

And yet the Party has done all this using much the same mechanisms as America, if in more extreme forms, as discussed; the difference is the values indoctrinated. Can it be said that one use of indoctrination is good while the other is bad merely because of the difference in value? That, for example, schools teaching absolute abstention from drugs are good but from sex are bad? This is not the only question that must be posed. Orwell makes a troubling contradiction in the two specific examples of the effects of Party’s indoctrination that he uses most often. The sex impulse, which the Party seeks to eradicate, is a natural process; the Party is trying to destroy society's humanity by destroying it (Orwell, 267). Doublethink, however, which the Party promotes and Orwell condemns, is also a natural process; it is a protective coping mechanism (Herman, 87). Why should one survive and the other be repressed?

The key here is control. The Party destroys the sex impulse but encourages doublethink to control its members (Orwell, 267). Indoctrination is presented as negative in 1984 when it is a means of control. However, the previously given example, indoctrination in the immorality of murder, is also used to control people—to keep them from killing. Similarly, schools practice a certain indoctrination in a “good” lifestyle (how effective it is is debatable) that precludes activities such as the use of drugs, though there are those who believe that a good lifestyle includes the immediately sensory gratification drugs bring (Shiffrin, 509). Indoctrination in democratic values is a very overarching method of control—it encourages people to work towards maintaining democracy and, perhaps paradoxically, their own personal freedom. Even with this more constrained definition of indoctrination, a contradiction arises. It would be, after all, difficult for people valuing their freedom to so much as move to a country with an autocratic government. To resolve this, another facet of the Party’s motives must be examined. In theory, at least, America wishes to “promote the general welfare” (U.S. Const. preamble), but the Party openly desires nothing but power, which is expressed in suffering (Orwell, 266). Indoctrination, then, is negative as a means to control people without regard for their general welfare.

Much of the indoctrination discussed is not the same as the Party’s. For example, though schools may be imposing a definition of a “good lifestyle” on students, this is genuinely done out of a desire for students to not later feel regret. Similarly, the indoctrination American culture does to perpetuate democracy is not analogous, as most people, as cited earlier, believe that democracy is beneficial. In addition, there are benefits to patriotism. In “American Patriotism, National Identity, and Political Involvement”, the authors classify patriotism into uncritical and constructive patriotism (Huddy and Khatib, 64). Constructive patriotism is driven by “a desire for positive change” (64), which is meant to improve the country.

However, America has been guilty of the indoctrination Orwell warns of. For instance, after the September 11 attacks, Nebraska and over two dozen other states introduced bills requiring “instruction in…the superiority of the U.S. form of government” (Westheimer, 608), attempting to remove student’s ability to convert to other ideologies. This indoctrination correlates closely with the promotion of more symbolic forms of patriotism. The White House, though it could not pass laws mandating patriotic expression, encouraged the nation’s children to “take part in a mass recitation of the pledge of allegiance”. (Westheimer, 609). This is in contrast to the school district in the Mozert case, which imparted the contested values to “prepare students for life in a complex, pluralistic society” (Mozert, 48). This indoctrination is not limited to uncritical patriotism. Through restrictions on research and even misinformation, the American government has suppressed research on marijuana’s benefits (Barcott and Scherer, 42) despite hypothesized benefits in an attempt to stop its use (43).

In 1984, Orwell paints a terrifying picture of a world of savage, subhuman, uniform people, controlled by a Party that maintains its power and presence through means such as indoctrination. Like the Party, America uses indoctrination to perpetuate itself, sometimes at the expense of other lifestyles. However, there is a fundamental difference between America’s perpetuation and the Party’s. America, unlike the Party, perpetuates itself to serve the general welfare—for the most part. There are countless incidents during which America uses the indoctrination Orwell warns about. Over thirty years after the year 1984, 1984 is still very relevant as a standard of comparison to reveal faults in American indoctrination.

Works Cited

Barcott, Bruce and Scherer, Michael. “The Great Pot Experiment.” Time 25 May 2015. Print. This article discussed the potential benefits and harms of marijuana, current regulations burdening American researchers of marijuana’s benefits, and the lingering effects of the federal government’s adversarial stance against marijuana in the late 1900s.

Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser. No. 84-1667. Supreme Ct. of the US. Web. 17 May 2015. This case mostly involved obscenity and free speech in minors; however, it discussed the purpose of education in a republic, which was essential to this topic.

Boy Scouts of America. “The Benefits of Cub Scouting.” Boy Scouts of America. Boy Scouts of America., n.d. Web 14 May 2015. Included in the mission statement was perpetuating ideals such as patriotism, an example of patriotism encouraged by institutions other than the government.

Ehman, Lee H. “The American School in the Political Socialization Process.” Review of Educational Research 50.1 (1980): 99-119. JSTOR. Web. 11 May 2015.

Herman, Judith. Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books, 1997. Print. This book’s focus was the experience of survivors of trauma; however, it included a mention of doublethink as a defense mechanism.

Huddy, Leonie and Khatib, Nadia. “American Patriotism, National Identity, and Political Involvement.” American Journal of Political Science, 51.1: 63-77. JSTOR. Web. 10 My 2015. Patriotism can be divided into uncritical patriotism and constructive patriotism. Conservatives tend to support uncritical patriotism, but only in the sense that liberalism does not generally lend itself to uncritical patriotism. Constructive patriots are more likely to be politically involved.

"Indoctrinate." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 17 May 2015. “To indoctrinate” was defined as a synonym for “to teach”. The definition clarified word choice decisions.

Klein, Christopher. “Common 10^th Grade Writing Pitfalls.” Web blog post. Mr. Klein’s Online Classroom. Wordpress, 2015. Web. 17 May 2015. A delineation of writing pitfalls and the reasons, according to the teacher’s judgment.

Mozert v. Board of Education. 827 F.2d 1058. 24 Aug. 1987. Department of Sociology. University of Minnesota, n.d. Web. 15 May 2015. The plaintiffs considered the school’s use of textbooks that included a wide range of viewpoints a burden on their free exercise rights. The case was appealed to the court of appeals, who ruled against them.

Orwell, George. 1984. N.p. Signet Classics, 1977. Print. 1984—specifically, the government—was the basis of comparison in this paper.

Pei, Minxin. “The Paradoxes of American Nationalism.” Foreign Policy. Wordpress.com, n.d. Web 14 May 2015. This article discussed how American nationalism is defined by a belief in certain ideals rather than ethnic supremacy, and how America is sometimes hurt by this nationalism. Many expressions of American nationalism are voluntary (and therefore more organic than state-mandated ones).

Shiffrin, Steven H. “The First Amendment and the Socialization of Children.” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 11.3 (2002): 504-525. Scholarship.law.cornell.edu. Web. 14 May 2015. The paper analyzed the constitutionality of compulsory education at different ages. The discussion of democratic education was most useful.

Siegel, Harvey. “Philosophy of Education.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., n.d. Web. 17 May 2015. This article described a different, more connotative and pejorative, as a contrast to the dictionary definition.

“The Passive Voice.” The Guide to Grammar and Writing. N.p. n.d. Web. 17 May 2015. An explanation of when the passive voice is appropriate or inappropriate.

U.S. Constitution. Preamble. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution states the purpose of the American government. This contrasts with the Party’s purpose, which is its own power.

Westheimer, Joel. “Politics and Patriotism in Education.” Democratic Dialogue. N.p. April 2006. Web. 17 May 2015. Patriotism can be divided into democratic and authoritative patriotism. The former is good, the latter bad. Many examples of the government promoting authoritative patriotism were given.

Works Consulted

Kagan, Donald. “Democracy Requires a Patriotic Education.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones and Company Inc, 2014. Web. 9 May 2015. For democracy to function, people must work for the good of their society rather than their own benefit. That level of civic devotion necessary to democracy can only be taught from a patriotic education, making a patriotic education necessary to a democracy. This article was, in some ways, the starting point for the development of my thesis.

Lagon, Mark P. “Promoting Democracy.” Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, 2011. Web. 9 May 2015. Democracy is, in addition to moralism, beneficial to the United States. It promotes “greater peace, prosperity, and pluralism”, because democracy promotes economic growth and allows for all groups to participate. US policy has focused on democratization of other countries. I found it interesting to note that the author did not consider that democracy is possibly not the best form of government.

Porter, Mary C. and Venning, Corey. “Teaching About and Education for Citizenship.” PS 17.2 (1984): 216-219. JSTOR. Web. 14 May 2015. Children naturally pick up basic democratic principles and values at home, without interferences from the public school system. What schools do is help them examine the principles and premises “upon which the regime is based”; this is educating for citizenship. The purpose of a liberal education is to help children develop the skills to enrich their community as well as themselves.

Remmers, H. H. “Propaganda in the Schools.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 2.2 (1938): 197-210. JSTOR. Web 15 May 2015. The methods relied on surveys taken at intervals, and sampled only one school, so the data may not necessarily be accurate. The general conclusion of this study is that attitudes can be changed in school, and that attitudes have inertia (though the media’s propaganda generally has a significant effect on attitudes).

Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County. 827 F.2d 684. 4 March 1987. Belcher Foundation. Belcher Foundation, n.d. Web. 15 May 2015. The plaintiffs contended that the textbooks, which discussed “secular humanism” more than Christianity or Judaism, was promoting “secular humanism”, which was a faith just as much as a religion. The court held that the schools could use these textbooks because they promoted important secular values and that secular humanism was not a religion. This case clarified stances on non-religion.

Spiri, John. “Patriotism and Education”. Dissident Voice. Dissident Voice, 2009. Web. 9 May 2015. Patriotism is an artificial construct tying the youth to an abstract concept—is a government manipulation America should be aware of. Love for a country should be extended to all humanity. I agreed with the premise of this article; it helped verbalize my thoughts on the nature of patriotism.

Stolzenberg, Nomi. “The Paradox of a Liberal Education.” Harvard Law Review 106.581 (1993): 588-666. Web. 13 May 2015. In America, most educations are pluralist (expose children to a range of views and lifestyles), to prepare them for a pluralist democracies. Tolerance is also considered “safe” to teach. This is, however, objected to by certain traditional families, who contend that their way of life is being destroyed by assimilation. This paper verbalized much of what I was attempting to think, allowing me to incorporate it but also to expand from that thought.

Vavreck, Lynn. “Younger Americans Are Less Patriotic.” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 2014. Web. 14 May 2015. In contrast to older generations, millennials tend to be less devoted to symbols of America, but more devoted to American ideals. A discussion of different types of patriotism resembling the more formal discussion of uncritical versus constructive patriotism.

“What’s Gone Wrong With Democracy.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited, 2015. Web. 9 May 2015. Western democracies have fallen prey to problems such as short-sight (especially with the old/young divide) and disenfranchising voters. More recent democracies often fall prey to tyranny of the majority, without the emphasis on protecting minority rights and checking the government, and their citizens don’t always accept majority rule, perhaps because of this tyranny. A justification of the need for certain values for democracy to survive.

---

[1] Not if you ask Gilens and Page, but that doesn't really matter for the purpose of this essay. Also, the American Dream is dead.