Indoctrination

What is the point of having freedom of belief and thought when those beliefs and thoughts are planted by someone else? Indoctrination is a practice which directly conflicts with the recognized right of free thought, yet it prevails not only unopposed but often promoted by society.

Various political entities in the world claim to be free societies without indoctrination. But a number of forms of indoctrination prevail to varying extents in every part of the world.

One common type of indoctrination that every individual undergoes is the internalizing of society’s moral values. This is a process that begins right from childhood, and one that is well-intentioned. It is supported by society because it involves teaching people what is ‘good’. But what makes a moral so absolute that everyone should be forced to accept it? Where does one draw the line between moral values like integrity and ideological values like patriotism? And what makes a moral so good or right? These are questions society must find an answer to before indoctrinating people with morals.

There is one ideology, one principle that everyone in the world is forced to accept, one for which there is hardly any opposition or alternative thinking; it is even taught as a moral and wired into everyone by governments, society, and individuals. Nationalism’s universality shows what happens in the extreme case of indoctrination—an entire world population made to believe something and perpetuating that worldview onto themselves. The worst part about universal indoctrination is that no one knows it is happening; only when an alternative worldview proliferates will people know that they were being forced into a belief system.

What happens with nationalism also takes place to a lesser extent with cultural values and social norms. Cultural education and the socializing process both involve acceptance of social customs and norms. The general population largely supports indoctrinating people with their own culture—only that it becomes theirs when they internalize it after being indoctrinated. The people also subconsciously pass these on to others, which sustains the cultural group over time.

Even ordinary political indoctrination is fairly widespread, furthered by hidden censorship, a lack of opposition discourse, appeals to irrefutable principles etc. In these cases indoctrination is indirect—it happens not due to the imposition of beliefs but rather a lack of exposure to other beliefs. If people are exposed to only one viewpoint, they will eventually accept it uncritically. Even if governments do not actively indoctrinate people, simply censoring or blocking any opposition will cause indoctrination. Thus censorship and indoctrination go hand in hand.

In fact an indoctrinated society is far more dangerous than a censored one. With censorship there remains opposition which, though suppressed, prevents the government from going too far in its actions because it could be overthrown. With indoctrination, the government has willing support from the masses for its ideology and may gravitate towards more extreme actions.

It is difficult to truly free of indoctrination because one cannot precisely define what comes under it. For example, is one being indoctrinated when one is told that the earth is round (a universal truth) or that smoking is bad for health (an established fact)? Technically yes, if indoctrination is defined as getting someone to accept a belief. So does that mean that all education or provision of information should be abolished? Eventually, some indoctrination is inevitable.

The best that can be done is to provide as neutral and objective facts as possible and let people draw their own conclusions. If anyone is opposed to this, that would mean that they are themselves dependent on indoctrination as a means of support!