6. How to Fight Indoctrination within Education

The Epistemic Duty of the Teacher

In previous posts I proposed that one constant within English education is that those who indoctrinate often do so with good intentions and from a position of ignorance. However, whatever the reasons, we all have a duty to challenge teachers who indoctrinate, as well as the politicians who instruct them to do so. 

I have also argued that presenting a challenge to indoctrination can be done negatively through moral denunciation, but that we might make our opposition more effective by concentrating on the positive educational case for teaching about moral and political issues critically. 

Further, I have suggested that in developing our arguments against indoctrination, we must try to show that education conceived in terms of a spirit of criticism offers intellectual goods of benefit to both the individual and society. 

In this slightly longer than normal post I will attempt to flesh out the positive foundations of our argument by mining the work of England's perhaps most notable post war liberal philosopher of education: Richard Stanley Peters. 

In doing so, I hope to prepare the ground needed for our analysis and critique of contemporary forms of educational indoctrination.  

Peters’ Reply to the Progressivists’ Dilemma 

At some point towards the end of the Swinging Sixties the cultural waters began to turn and those who held to a more traditional view of education started to develop a reply to the progressivists’ anti-authority stance on the role of teacher. 

In terms of politics with a capital P, these traditionalists hailed from a variety of camps, ranging from the conservative through to the liberal democratic and classical liberal, but what united them was a sense that it was either mistaken, or dishonest, to argue against teacher led forms of education that anticipated pupil choice. 

Teachers, these traditionalists argued, in fact have an epistemic duty to anticipate the future needs of pupils by providing them with access to the intellectual resources required to make intelligent adult decisions. 

In my estimation, Richard Stanley Peters offers us one of the most interesting English versions of this traditionalist response to progressivism. Aside from being refreshingly clear, stylish and humorous in his writing style, Peters brings some philosophical depth to the discussion of the cultural and epistemic authority of the teacher. 

Most importantly, he approaches this pivotal and longstanding educational issue with a degree of intellectual empathy, taking seriously the concerns of the other side of the argument, and this, combined with his politically liberal starting point means that he is acutely sensitive to the real issues of intellectual freedom, social control and respect for persons that animated much of the progressivists’ critique of traditionalism. 

Consequently, Peters articulates a nuanced traditionalist reply to progressivism, one that acknowledges that there are many good moral, political and educational reasons why aspects of traditionalism within education really did and does need to be questioned.

Aside from the central issue of indoctrination, which is often an overt feature of many conservative forms of traditionalist education, Peters argues that much education in the past simply failed to show a respect for students as persons, and equally failed, by intention or accident, to adequately cultivate their intellectual freedom. 

So whilst it might be fair to describe Peters as a liberal traditionalist, one who commends those who take seriously, in his phrase, the matter, or content of education, it should also be recognised that he was a flexible thinker who was alive to the legitimate concerns of progressives, many of which centered on the manner in which the young people were educated. 

Education as an End in Itself 

Peters is best known for his 1967 publication Ethics and Education. This offers a defense of a liberal conception of education and a challenge to those who see education as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. As such, his book provides us with a wealth of material that we might use today. 

At the start of Ethics and Education Peters makes the argument that if we examine the ordinary use of the term education it soon becomes clear that it is mistaken to employ it to describe activities that are a means to another end, as the term itself assumes the valuation of that which it describes. Education, Peters argues, is a word much like reform, both of which include a “criterion built into them that something worthwhile should be achieved”. 

Here Peters’s point is not merely lexical or logical, rather he aims to show that an analysis of a phrase such as education can make clear important cultural assumptions and expectations that are contained within its usage. Words such as these, for Peters, are signifiers of our existing lifeworld. 

Now, it might of course be true that the assumptions and expectations expressed in words such as education might need to change, because they are immoral, or in error, but what Peters’ analysis of this particular term makes clear is that there are number of important issues that we must consider carefully when discussing education and I for one am convinced by his argument that the term itself should be reserved for activities that we consider to be intrinsically worthwhile.  

However, there are of course many activities that we might consider to be worthwhile which we would not consider educational, so we need to go a bit further into Peters’ analysis. But before we do, we should acknowledge in advance that Peters himself is clear that our use of the term education does not “imply any particular commitment to content”. Further, it does not suggest a preference for a specific method of teaching, or any view on the necessary balance between different educational activities within schooling, such as those that build character traits, or those that focus on the acquisition of knowledge and understanding. Indeed, Peters is even open to the possibility that one might accept the common use of the term whilst also rejecting the proposition that education is an important thing for the young, although as you might expect Peters doesn’t have a great deal of time for those who argue against education. 

Education as the Initiation into the Public Traditions of Criticism

More specifically then, Peter argues that the concept of education, within our lifeworld, gives expression to the following social expectations: young people should be willingly and knowingly engaged in intrinsically valuable activities that prepare them for their future life, broadly conceived. Further, education, developed in terms of liberal traditionalist principles, he argues, is the form of education that gives best expression to the societal ideals that are expressed in this word. It does so, Peters argues, because it provides the young with a balanced and principled initiation into the various traditions of public criticism that enable them to actively understand both themselves and the natural and social worlds in which they find themselves. 

Peters’ argument, I’d suggest, provides us with one way of making the argument that education should be respected as a valuable end in itself and as such it offers a vantage point from which we can argue against those who might use education uncritically for the purposes of indoctrination. 

However, whilst his work is useful, the circumstance in which we are making the case for liberal education differs markedly from that in which Peters’ found himself, so our arguments, I’d suggest, must also differ. Indeed, we may find that the case for educational liberalism today requires the support of other forms of argument of a more sociological and political character. 

We will return to this point in subsequent posts that will consider what is new about indoctrination in England today, but before we do we must first consider the criticisms of indoctrination that have been developed by liberal philosophers of education such as Peters. This will be the focus of our next post.