The Names We Call Things - Some Thoughts on Critical Thinking

Often the Left asserts that the Right, and especially White Conservatives, has been “indoctrinated” with such things as White Supremacy, racial bias and hatred, etc.

In similar fashion the Right often asserts that the Left has been "brainwashed" – to hate Trump and his supporters, to hate America, to embrace Socialism, etc.

In most cases such name calling is the result of someone being faced with a viewpoint that is contrary to their own.  Why does a simple difference of view, stark as it might be, almost immediately devolve into name calling and the hatred that follows?

I submit that this almost knee-jerk reaction is a defensive one resulting from lack of critical thought.  Let me explain.

When one has thought through and chosen to accept a position, rather than simply adopting without thought that of another, the thinker will be certain in their position.  The thinker will know it can be defended.  The thinker will likely also be curious to hear the views of others about the viewpoint that he has formulated. He will always be ready to further assess both his view as well as that of others.

Those who are secure in their positions are not defensive about them.  But, if one, without thought, has merely put on the cloak of another and called it his own, then if attacked he is unable to defend that position and so becomes both fearful and defensive.  He cannot rationally discuss the underlying aspects of the position, so instead of engaging in such a discussion he simply throws negative names and labels at the one holding a differing view in an attempt to drive them away.  

Taken advantage of by those who sincerely promote their viewpoint (whether for the general good or for their own), many simply adopt a view that superficially sounds good to them.  But when challenged, they are left without ability to reasonably respond, discuss, and understand something different or challenging to their adopted view.  They can only react to what they see as and attack and, without understanding of their position they resort to name-calling as their only defense.  And, it is they, the name-callers, who are the ones who in some way have indeed been indoctrinated or brainwashed.

Now, the interesting question is which came first, the indoctrination/brainwashing, or the inability to think critically? 

From the moment anyone is born they face some sort of indoctrination.  Indoctrination is defined as “the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.”  Of course, there are some things that children must be taught as a basic means of survival – don’t touch a hot stove, don’t eat household cleaners, etc.  Others as a basic matter of civilization.  Relieve yourself in the bathroom, not the living room.  Parents will also teach their children the value system that they believe is good and best for their children.  Some of this early teaching will likely fall into what might be termed a mild form of brainwashing – “the process of pressuring someone into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.”

But, good parenting, and good schooling will teach the growing child the additional and crucial piece of humanity called critical thinking – “the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.”  It is this piece that allows the individual to assess the information provided to him and to reach his own judgments - judgments that will determine whom he will be as an individual. 

Note, I do not suggest that children should be left to their own devices without any rules.  Of course some "indoctrination" into the family culture and requirements is necessary just as larger groups and the greater society must be taught certain rules and cultural norms that maintain the civility and civilization of that society.  But indoctrination must be balanced with critical thinking.

Sadly, too many parents and too many educators do not want those they are raising to question; rather they look for blind acceptance of what they offer.  They want the individuals in their care to be and become the individuals whom they would have them be rather than the individuals whom they are or are capable of becoming.  This is not only unfair to each individual; it is also unfair and harmful to humanity as a whole.

Too many individuals hold beliefs and values that are not truly their own; they do not have the strength of a person that has been taught to critically evaluate information and has indeed done so in regard to their own beliefs.  It is only then that they have both the strength and courage to fully engage peacefully and productively with others, some with the same and some with differing or even opposing beliefs and values.

And, without the strength of their own convictions, the uncritical thinkers become open fodder for those who would make one or another particular viewpoint the dominant if not only viewpoint in society.  Such a goal is not for the benefit of the un-thinkers; they are simply used by those who promote a goal for their own end – usually their own power to demand that all think as they do.

It is difficult to raise or teach critical thinkers.  It means teaching them to question everything and that includes the one raising or teaching them.  Most people don’t like being challenged and yet that is an essential part of teaching another to be a critical thinker.  Not easy, but essential.  If someone is not taught the importance of asking “why?” then one is being left to the control of others, a control that usually does not end well for the controlled. 

When critical thinking is not a working skill, others will easily take advantage of that fact.  It is only then that indoctrination and brainwashing on a grander scale becomes possible.  And, when that brainwashing or indoctrination is political, we no longer are able to have reasonable policy discussions, we are no longer able to reach across the aisle and compromise for a greater good.  And we devolve to name-calling and hatred.

Critical thinking – both teaching it and doing it – takes courage.  But it also imbues each and everyone of us the strength to be the individual that we are meant to be, not the useful tool of someone else who would think for us.  And if we would use our critical thinking, rather than simply calling names at those with different views we could perhaps have discussions instead.    With a sharing and a critical, curious, and open-minded examination of both our views, perhaps we can understand both.  We can understand if, where, how we may have similar goals as well as accepting where we cannot.

We are all capable of thinking critically, we are just not often encouraged to do so.  Hence, I challenge everyone rather than accepting political policies, to ask “why?” And again, and again, keep asking why to every answer you get until you just can go not further.  Ask what supports a point, who conducted a study, are there different studies, are there additional facts, etc.  Assess the answers.  How well do they support the policy asserted?  What questions do you still have about that policy?  Is it truly a policy that you wish to adopt and defend?

I realize that most people will not do this.  They will simply accept what sounds good and move on.  But we really must address many of the currently proposed policies more critically, assessing not only the policy itself but its ramifications and consequences, for if we do not question now, we may be giving up our opportunity to ever do so.   With critical thinking perhaps we could replace the names “indoctrinated” and “brainwashed” with “open-minded,” “tolerant,” and “understanding.”  It is those words that are necessary for a truly strong and free society.

Indoctrination (and the survival of a society)

The word indoctrination has a negative connotation, and while that connotation is often appropriate to the use of the word, it is not always so. 

We tend to see indoctrination as akin to brainwashing, and sometimes it is, but actually, the word indoctrinate simply means to teach. (It comes from the Latin root docere, to teach, which provides the “doc” in the word.  This root is shared by words such as docent, doctrine, and document).

Indoctrinate means to teach someone a set of basic fundamentals, ideas, or attitudes.  The teaching usually occurs via some sort of persistent and repetitive teaching.  While it can include doing so with a partisan view that does not allow for questioning of those basics, one can also indoctrinate without a demand for unquestioning acceptance and with an encouragement of critical thinking about them. 

In essence, when your elementary school teacher made you learn your multiplication tables by repeating them over and over, and telling you there was but one answer to 2 x 2 or 2 x 6, she was indoctrinating you with the basic fundamentals of multiplication.  These basic fundamentals are essential to a deeper understanding of and a progression in math.

I would argue that every parent by necessity indoctrinates their children with certain necessities of that family’s way of life.  Certain basic hygiene, eating, safety, and other behaviors are instilled in children from the time of their birth. Children learn that certain behaviors are expected of them in the home and later as they venture out of the home.  Some are necessary for survival; others to be a functioning part of the family unit.  If certain rules of interaction within the family were not shared (indoctrinated) via the parent-child relationship, then the family would likely be less peaceful and lose some of its stability and cohesion. 

I would argue that the same is true within societal groups and communities.  Without a certain amount of shared ideas and attitudes, a stable group will become unstable and eventually lose that which has tied the members of the group together.  The indoctrination of these basic ideas and attitudes are implicit in parent-child relationships but are more overt within larger groups.

Humans are social animals and are shaped not only by their parents but also by a larger cultural context of the society in which they live.  It is certain shared basic concepts, instilled within the children of a particular society at an early age, that allows the society to hold together and effectively work as a unit for the good of its people.

Different societies have always held different doctrines, fundamentals, and traditions.  It is these things which both set them apart from other societies and hold them together as one.  In the first century BCE, the Roman poet and philosopher Titus Lucretius Carus is alleged to have said “what is food to one, to others is bitter poison.” 

Those doctrines, fundamentals, basics of any society must be conveyed to new generations in order for the society to work.  We often think of this as some sort of necessary “socialization,” a word that generally has a better connotation than indoctrination.  Yet, the repeated teaching and practice of a society’s fundamentals is, indeed, indoctrination.  Regardless of label, the point is, that to maintain social order within any given society there must be some teaching and instilling of the basic doctrines of that society.

These basics are often conveyed via such things as:  shared holidays and manner of celebrating them; shared foods; shared folk songs, traditions, dances; shared games; etc.  Some are more substantive:  shared knowledge of the society’s history; shared basic values of how one will treat other citizens of the society and how the society will be governed.  The key is that the teaching of the basics of things such as these, the indoctrination of them into the society’s children, are necessary to make the group within that society feel that they share a history and a future with their group and hence will unite, working together to maintain and improve that society.

Elementary schools in this country used to teach American folk songs and folk stories from our history.  Children grew up knowing and having these stories and rhythms in common.   For many these national fundamentals were accompanied by fundamentals of their own smaller groups – a region of the country, their cultural heritage, their individual family practices.  While some of the traditions of smaller, included groups might vary, all Americans also had certain American traditions and values in common. 

Because we used to truly be a melting pot, we celebrated holidays in common, though with ethnic variations based on our ancestry.  We had civics classes that taught us about our form of government.  We learned American history, our accomplishments and our failures.   

This was all a form of indoctrination, but, because it was also accompanied by instruction that America protects diverse viewpoints and the ability to speak them, we were not being brainwashed that there was only one acceptable view.  Instead, just as the math teacher who teaches the multiplication tables as facts also teaches that these can be used in creative and diverse ways, children used to learn certain foundations and history of our country while also being taught that these foundations allowed them to have their own views and use their mind and their creativity to better themselves and the country which they share with those both like and different from them.

We no longer have that in America.  America has always been a multicultural society, but it is no longer a melting pot.   That is, immigrants have always come to America with their cultural heritage, but upon arriving have also desired and been able to assimilate into American culture while still maintaining that heritage.  Americans, in addition to other fundamentals of American culture, were indoctrinated with the fundamental concept of respecting others with differing viewpoints and different heritages than one’s own. 

In entering the American melting pot, all joined in those basic fundamentals that are shared by all Americans and which make up the fundamentals of American society;  by so doing, America while rich and diverse culturally, has maintained its identity as one united country.

But, now, no one is taught (yes, indoctrinated) in those basic fundamentals.  In today’s multicultural America, the cultures no longer mix; they have little other than their basic humanity to share and hold them together as one society.  Those American fundamentals that children used to learn in school are no longer taught for fear of offending someone or some ethnic or cultural group, or simply because one group objects to celebrations that do not belong to their own group.   There is no willingness to assimilate. There is no tolerance for diversity within a greater and cohesive whole.

We no longer have a melting pot that unites us all; instead we have a completely unmixed salad where each culture or identity group maintains its own complete and unique identity within the land of America but without any joining together in the fundamentals that have always made America a unique and united society.

It is easier to hate a country that you have never learned to love.  Note, I am talking about the country itself and not whichever politician or political party happens to be in power at any given moment.  Throughout their history, Americans have always exercised their First Amendment rights to protest various activities and policies of those in power.  But, the difference today is that along with such protests there seems, on the part of many, to be a genuine hate against the country itself.

Without basic fundamental commonalities, a society loses its cohesiveness.  It falls apart into separate societies; those societies can sometimes live peacefully side by side but can also just as easily slip into warring factions. 

America has been and will always be multiracial and multicultural.  The question is, are we willing to include some teaching – some indoctrination - of all our citizens in basic fundamentals that will hold us together as one, or are we going to allow every different group to maintain its own and separate fundamental doctrines while objecting to those of others so that we lose our cohesiveness as one nation and instead devolve into separate and  competing tribes?

We must not be afraid to indoctrinate our children with those American fundamentals that allow them to hold a pride and an identity in America as their country.   Those fundamentals may evolve, even change as they have done over our history, but they are necessary to creating the melting pot, the glue that holds us together as one people.  Indoctrination is not always a bad word and it is a necessary piece of any successful nation.