Does Indoctrination Still Matter?
Saved in:
| Title: | Does Indoctrination Still Matter? |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Hand, Michael (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Educational Theory. Apr2025, Vol. 75 Issue 2, p276-291. 16p. |
| Subjects: | Indoctrination, Skepticism, Ethics, Critical thinking, Learning, Theorists, Educators, Brainwashing |
| Abstract: | For at least half a century, there has been a broad consensus that indoctrination is a pernicious form of miseducation and a distinctive vice of teaching. In recent years, a number of educational theorists have sought to cast doubt on this view. They suggest that the attention traditionally given to the threat of indoctrination, and the anxiety induced by it, are significantly misplaced. Here, Michael Hand distinguishes three forms of indoctrination skepticism — the impossibility objection, the unavoidability objection, and the desirability objection — and argues that all three miss their mark. A fourth challenge to the standard view — the third‐party objection — does not downplay the threat of indoctrination but does deny that it is a distinctive vice of teaching. Hand contends that this objection too is unpersuasive and concludes that the standard view is the correct one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Educational Theory is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | For at least half a century, there has been a broad consensus that indoctrination is a pernicious form of miseducation and a distinctive vice of teaching. In recent years, a number of educational theorists have sought to cast doubt on this view. They suggest that the attention traditionally given to the threat of indoctrination, and the anxiety induced by it, are significantly misplaced. Here, Michael Hand distinguishes three forms of indoctrination skepticism — the impossibility objection, the unavoidability objection, and the desirability objection — and argues that all three miss their mark. A fourth challenge to the standard view — the third‐party objection — does not downplay the threat of indoctrination but does deny that it is a distinctive vice of teaching. Hand contends that this objection too is unpersuasive and concludes that the standard view is the correct one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00132004 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/edth.70004 |
