Indoctrination Vs. Education - Anton Marks

I’d like to begin by stating that if you are a member of a Jewish youth group that considers itself to be apolitical and/or non-ideological, then please don’t automatically assume that this discussion is irrelevant to your setting - the method, content and intent in transmitting religious tradition can also be considered indoctrination if not dealt with ethically.

Furthermore, if we were to group the various youth movements into those that define themselves as ideological and those which don’t, the latter are often quick to criticize the former for practicing indoctrination. However, doesn’t imbuing chanichim with a strong sense of Jewish identity and the placing of a negative value-judgment on assimilation open up both groupings to a vulnerability of immoral practices?

However, I would like to concentrate primarily on those movements that profess to hold a specific ideology over and above their basic Jewish nature. Those movements endeavor to build an educational process within the movement: weekly meetings, summer and winter camps, weekend seminars, a year program in Israel etc, etc. Indeed, many movements employ full-time chinuch (education) workers to facilitate a coherent educational message throughout a members’ movement career.

I have heard education described as objective and indoctrination subjective. However, no educator can be entirely objective, nor would it be desirable for them to be so. Movement madrichim do not act in a value free way. Education, whether it takes place in the moadon or on the campsite, must be informed by certain values. These values should inform both the content of conversations and encounters, as well as our behaviour and relationships as educators.

Dr. Lawrence Cremin, who wrote the definitive history of education in America, defines all education as "the deliberate, systematic and sustained effort to transmit, evoke or acquire knowledge, attitudes, values or sensibilities as well as the outcome of that effort." Therefore, education in any form is about transmission and thus could wrongly be construed as indoctrination.

Hence to the dilemma: what separates education from indoctrination? Education embraces a commitment to respect for people, the promotion of well-being, truth, democracy, fairness and equality. Promoting questioning from the chanich and authenticity on the part of the madrich are vital elements for an ethical educational process.

Let’s first look at the importance of encouraging questioning on the part of the chanich. According to I.A. Snook (Concepts of Indoctrination, London, 1972), “Indoctrination is the teaching of what is known to be false as true, or more widely the teaching of what is believed true in such a way as to preclude critical inquiry on the part of learners.” Hence it is vital to create an environment conducive to the chanich challenging the content being imparted.

The Jewish philosopher Martin Buber discusses the role of authenticity for an educator. "For educating characters you do not need a moral genius, but you do need a man who is wholly alive and able to communicate himself directly to his fellow beings." When that connection is made, the student "accepts the educator as a person. He feels he may trust this man, that this man is...taking part in his life, accepting him before desiring to influence him. And so he learns to ask." Buber's attitude is that before there can be teaching, there must be a relationship. When the teaching takes place, it is not about absolutes. What the teacher should do is "to answer a concrete question, to answer what is right and wrong in a given situation."

On the other hand, the position of power and influence that movement leaders find themselves in can often be abused, with kids sometimes hanging-on to their every word. Ego-inspired hadracha leads to an unhealthy relationship whereby madrichim become idolized and that is when indoctrination is prone to occur.

I.A. Snook relates to these power relations when he states, “Teachers are in a strong position to indoctrinate, as their pupils are usually in no position to judge the truth or reasonableness of what they are being taught.”

A movement with an educational message is not problematic in and of itself. However this agenda needs to be both explicit and presented as an alternative approach, not the only approach. If critical thinking and the ability to disagree is repressed, the movement would certainly be standing on questionable moral ground.

As a response, these movements can attempt to interpret the nature of education in another way entirely, especially those movements that advance humanist values and endeavour to challenge the character of western capitalist society. They would argue that for 99% of a child’s life, they are ‘educated’ continuously by teachers, politicians, marketing and the media, popular culture etc, etc. This education is categorically value-based, and by nature does not lend itself to questioning. However, the relatively minimal exposure of chanichim to an alternative vision of society is swiftly condemned as indoctrination.

I’d like to sign-off with some practical advice from I.A. Snook: “To avoid indoctrinating, teachers must ensure that at some stage in a course of study pupils will hear competing points of view on disputed questions. Judgment, though, will still be required as to just which questions are really disputed, which points of view are worth considering, and when young pupils are ready to consider alternatives without becoming utterly confused.”