Taking cues from C.S. Lewis’ book The Abolition of Man, various conversations with Ben Cumming and students on metaphysics, and the content of my dissertation research, I’ve drafted this graphic to demonstrate why indoctrination is not only permissible, but essential to education. Undoubtedly, indoctrination has wildly negative connotations, but I can’t think of any better word for it.

The parental appeal to the indefensible “because I said so” is a perfect example of indoctrination in action. When used appropriately, and not in defense of a mere preference, parents are telling their child that there is a reality beyond the child’s comprehension or capacity for judgment.

Good: “Why can’t I cheat on my homework?” “Because I said so.” (There is no use in trying to explain the virtues of growth, honesty, integrity, etc.)

Bad: “Why can’t I tap incessantly on the table with my pencil?” “Because I said so.” (Beyond being annoying, there is no real reason for the child to stop.)

There are some things children simply must accept as fact before the time when they are capable of comprehending and/or judging those realities on their own. To wait and try to teach virtue by the time children are capable of comprehension and judgment is to jeopardize their ability to judge rightly once they have the capacity to cast such judgment. If children are not actively indoctrinated in what is good, true, and beautiful, they are vulnerable to be passively indoctrinated by that which is evil, false, and base. So, the issue is not whether or not indoctrination should happen, but what should be the content of that indoctrination.

In the chart, we begin with whether or not abstract realities like goodness, truth, and beauty exist. If they do, then great! If not, then indoctrination could only consist of socially-defined ideas (which are also abstract, but anyway…).

The next step is to determine whether they can be known. If they can be known, then great! If not, then there is no use in discussing them.

However, just because they can be known does not mean that everyone at all stages has access to them. Are there conditions to knowing these realities? I reduce it to capable and not yet capable. If we are not capable, then we should have gotten off one level above, where we assert that they cannot be known.

There exists a tension and obligation between the capable and not yet capable. The obligation itself is an abstract that only the capable can understand and cannot be defended by any lower standard. Simply put, if good is good, the capable are obligated to the not yet capable to help them identify and love good even before they are capable of it on their own, so they will be able to do it on their own once they are capable.

Advertisement