Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba
Nick--
Thank you for starting this thread. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic with members of this forum.
I believe we have similar definitions of indoctrination and prescriptive training.
I do not think there is anything inherently malignant about indoctrination. There are circumstances where it is beneficial to have something drilled into you so deeply that you react automatically. In our every day lives, we looks both ways before crossing a street, check one's blind spot before changing lanes, and wash all surfaces in a kitchen that have been touched by raw food because we've been indoctrinated.
In an academic setting, I believe that a certain level of indoctrination is also necessary to establish a learning environment. In history classes, students are indoctrinated to read a certain way, to make an argument when they write, to make use of various 'best practices' when writing (the passive voice should be avoided) and speaking (um, don't say, like, you know), and to document their sources. Students in history classes are also taught to analyze historical evidence and existing interpretations a certain way.
But much beyond that, I start to get a bit nervous.* The past makes a practice of proving historians wrong--especially America's role in the Vietnam War. We are at our best when we say to students "this is our collective understanding of this topic...here are the competing points of view...here is the evidence...here's where the debate needs to go. Now, what do you think?"
We are at our worst when we wed our opinions on how things should be today to the teaching of history. This frame of mind too quickly turns into a malignant form of indoctrination in which our appreciation of the complexities of causes becomes focused into polemics.
A polemical approach to history may not result automatically in a misleading presentation of facts, it may result in the selective presentation of facts and differing interpretations by established experts. (A way to test a historian is to ask "what is the best work that disagrees with this interpretation that you're presenting? The answer should be an immediate response or, if the interpretation is well established [such as the root cause of the American Civil War], the historian may need a couple of days.)
Ultimately, a polemical frame of mind is self destructive to the craft of teaching history because it sees us rewarding students who agree with our preferred interpretation and punishing those who disagree. This frame of mind results in students remembering teachers for their points of view "he really hated Reagan" rather than for enabling the students to shape and to articulate their own interpretations of the past.
[*And here I should disclose that an antiquarian who believes that history is a humanity, not a social science: you cannon forecast the future as if it were the weather. As senior historian said when CNN called and asked him what he would thought would happen after Iraq invaded Kuwait, this professor thought for half a second, said "I don't know" and hung up the phone.]
|
Great points...
I think I'm on the same sheet as you are...
When I speak of "indoctrination" or "prescriptivism" I'm referring more to logic, and to some degree moral philosophy.
For instance, I absolutely believe that students should be taught that the "Law of Non-contradiction" is accurate and the foundation of logic. This is not to say that we should conceal other forms of "logic" such as dialectic reasoning, but to teach both without suggesting a preference for one or the other is counter productive in my opinion.
When it comes to topics such as moral philosophy, I do believe that we should teach our children from position which supports objective morale values. Which, I understand, is an inherently Theistic world view.
But this all goes back to my original position...
Schools should not be administered by government. Because where as I would not want a post modernist agnostic to teach my children, I also understand that they might not want a conservative theist to teach theirs...
So we are at an impasse...
The only solution to which is a voucher system where by we still publicly subsidize education to some degree, while privatizing the administration of education, thereby giving parents the greatest amount of control concerning school and there by curriculum choice.
So really there are 2 debates taking place...
1. How should education be financed and administered?
My Answer: Vouchers to subsidize education, and privatization in order to allow for the greatest amount of choice and competition.
2. What is the best way to impart knowledge to developing minds in such a fashion as to make them productive members of society?
My Answer: There is no completely comprehensive answer to such a question. While I do subscribe to fundamental principles like the teaching of logic, math, science, reading, history, etc. The methods whereby one learns can be varied. And so school choice is incredibly important.
very broad I know...but I'm playing around with the what i see as the broader principles rather than the details (which I hear is where the devil resides
)
Either way I would enjoy hearing various thoughts on the 2 questions I have posed...
Thanks