I've heard it said that a "philosopher" is a "word meaning junkie". So, I thought exploring the meaning of the word "indoctrination" and how it is applied in our society(s) may be fun. Here is how my dictionary defines this word:

Indoctrination \In*doc`tri*na"tion\, n.
The act of indoctrinating, or the condition of being
indoctrinated; instruction in the rudiments and principles of
any science or system of belief; information. --Sir T.
Browne.
[1913 Webster]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

indoctrination
n : teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically

-- From WordNet (r) 2.0

25 Moby Thesaurus words for "indoctrination":
absorption and regurgitation, agitprop, alienation, brainwashing,
catechization, conditioning, corruption, counterindoctrination,
dictation, imbuement, implantation, impregnation, impression,
inculcation, infixation, infixion, infusion, inoculation,
instillation, instillment, propaganda, propagandism, propagandist,
reindoctrination, subversion

In the "reinventing the education system" thread, this word has been used often and, rightly so.
However, I wonder whether or not it's thought of too narrowly in it's application.

I submit we are all indoctrinated! When you find yourself assuming anything, indoctrination may be present.

I love how the definition has the origional word in it.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives me these definitions for "indoctrinate":
Interesting that the communist thing is in there. Basically, the denotation of indoctrination is innocuous, but it seems as though the OED recognizes that it has negative connotations. To go by a strict dictionary definition, however, I don't think we can have education without indoctrination. Also, I don't think it implies assumptions.

Indoctrinate \In*doc"tri*nate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p.
{Indoctrinated}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Indoctrinating}.] [Pref.
in- in + L. doctrina doctrine: cf. F. endoctriner.]
1. To instruct in the rudiments or principles of learning, or
of a branch of learning; to imbue with learning; to teach;
-- often followed by in.
[1913 Webster]

A master that . . . took much delight in
indoctrinating his young, unexperienced favorite.
--Clarendon.
[1913 Webster]

2. To instruct in, or imbue with, doctrines, principles or
ideologies, especially from a specific point of view which
may be partisan or biased; to strongly press one's own
point of view upon.
[PJC]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

indoctrinate
v : teach doctrines to; teach uncritically; "The Moonies
indoctrinate their disciples"

-- From WordNet (r) 2.0

27 Moby Thesaurus words for "indoctrinate":
alienate, beat into, brainwash, catechize, condition, corrupt,
counterindoctrinate, discipline, drill, imbue, implant, impregnate,
impress, inculcate, infix, infuse, inoculate, instill, instruct,
program, propagandize, reindoctrinate, school, subvert, teach,
train, win away

I think this is the closest to the way we've been using it in the education thread. To teach ideas to people isn't bad. To teach children to accept a particular set of ideas and reject all others without thinking is a very bad thing. That second one is mostly what we mean when we say "indoctrination", IMO.

Is it indoctrination when one is not aware there are differing ideas out there?

I assume you mean the one doing the teaching is unaware of differing viewpoints?

Yes, I would still call it indoctrination, and I still think it's bad. But I would be a lot easier on the person doing the teaching. Call it second degree indoctrination. Whereas first degree indoctrination is people who know exactly what they're doing, and they're intentionally trying to teach kids to accept whatever they say without thought.

Any teaching is indoctrination, by definition. I think the negative connotation is relatively new, as language goes.

By whose definition?

Language is defined by usage, not history, and certainly not the dictionary. We don't use it to mean teaching, so it doesn't mean that. It's just a label. Words don't have intrinsic meaning, and they mean whatever the hell we (as a community) decide they mean.

Clearly, the people who are posting on this board find some negative meaning in the word "indoctrination" that distinguishes it from "teaching." A quick perusal of the education thread will make that pretty apparent. And that's why rj started this thread.

Yeah, I think the word has a very negative connotation.

Ideally, teaching should not so much focused on particular beliefs, but should be focused on giving a person a set of tools to find out their own answers, or to create better ways of thinking. Disagreement should be encouraged ... and even "correct" answer should be counted as partly wrong if there's no reasoning to support that conclusion.

But if a student is presented information and taught not to question what they are taught, it is indoctrination. In this case the teacher's goal isn't really to teach, but to clone their own mind.

bns: I believe that the root word(s) and history/entymology of a word still have meaning. Indoctrination is one of those words that still carries both its positive and negative meanings today.

I believe that the negative connotation of "indoctrinate" and "indoctrination" became popular sometime early on during the Cold War and referred mainly to Socialism, as the OED cited. I can't find the exact point when it started being used that way, but it seems to be the very late 1940's or early 1950's.

I think the better terms to use are "propaganda" or "coercive persuasion". They're more accurate to the points trying to be conveyed and don't have conflicting usages, like "indoctrination" does....

We all have been indoctrinated but have we been propagandized? That's where our other thread comes into play

Etymology is certainly interesting, but is not relevant to current definitions of words. Words change their meanings. "Indoctrination" may well carry either positive or negative meanings depending on which people you talk to, which is why it's important to have discussions like this one. Many and many arguments have resulted because the two sides didn't agree on what their terms meant. The point is, we can decide that "indoctrination" refers to the act of picking lemons, so long as we're consistent about it.

Exactly

Words change their most common usage meaning but you can't shrug off all of the meanings that have been picked up along the way, especially when the previous meaning is significantly different and where the other meaning is still used or has only recently fallen out of general use (eg. "indoctrination") or when there are dual meanings both in use (eg. "conflict") or when you're talking to someone using a minority definition (eg. "tap", in reference to a sexual event).

As you say:

I agree. I would put those things in the "usage" box, because they still involve current usage. But that's just splitting hairs.

See, even in a discussion about being careful of terms, we got terms crossed up. Ironic, isn't it?

Hi bns, Iam new to the board. I was just scanning down this, my first real thread, and your post stopped me. Yours was in response to this one.
Originally Posted by LordFu View Post
Any teaching is indoctrination, by definition. I think the negative connotation is relatively new, as language goes.

I think I agree with this in part. I think it is relatively new to the mainstream usage even though the negative connotations probably go way back too. I would assume from what I know of history, which is all you seem to be doing too, that the negative connotation comes to mainstream usage in times of breaking down establishments of authority in our histories like in religious and large social revolutions. Other than those that I described I doubt that there are too many more historical instances where there were more uses of the negative than the neutral or positives and that this mass usage of the negative is a relatively new phenomenon. And for adding perspective to that, social revolutions are blips on the screen compared to times of complacency and peace.

I think to say that what defines language is as either or is just a contrived division to further your thoughts and attempt to color them as, well, intrinsic to your political points. Which I should say I have not read enough to understand yet, this is my beginning thread.

Words are "defined" by all that you mentioned not just by usage. It may be more accurate to say that definitions change by our usage of them, but we authorize those changes as a holistic society with due process and it is often slow, although everything IS moving faster and faster. That process includes the uses of doctrine (dictionaries) and the passage of time relative to the present. (history).

I assure you that our language authoring from day to day is not intrinsic to our present time usage only. Our usages are rooted in history as depicted in all media including the dictionary. All media is historical and people believe in the languages they hear, see, read and sense in the media.
Our dictionaries are references for our historical usage definitions that very real people define language through as they author it in the present. Just because you or a number of people say that you don’t do it that way doesn’t change the reality for the rest of us that do. If what you said was absolute as depicted where I saw it, We would make a new language every time we began to speak which is only slightly true in my opinion. Allot of rappers and poets do that, I guess. Oh and I did think of an instance where what you describe kind of happened. It did take some months of media programming and arm-twisting but the Cheney Administration did change the definition of the word torture very quickly and through usage and a few other tricks of the trade.

Forgive my verbose style of saying little. It’s just my way right now.
I guess I was struck by your adamant thrust to have your points of meaning indoctrinated by the readers of the thread as an intrinsic and had my two cents to give.
anyway, Nice to meet you.

@lammy: First, welcome! Second, I have been a student of language longer than I've been a student of politics. So, no, I didn't say that as an attempt to push any kind of agenda whatsoever. In fact, I don't have one where this thread is concerned. Words are just labels, and they mean what we decide they mean. But that occurs at many levels. We have personal meanings, group meanings, regional, national, international meanings. If you want to communicate effectively, then everybody needs to have approximately the same definition of a given word. I think the idea that all words mean the same thing in every place is wrong. I also think the idea that words mean the same thing they did 30 years ago is wrong. They might, and then again they might not. I based my conclusion about the definition of "indoctrination" on the posts of several people in this thread. But it doesn't matter. It can mean whatever you like, so long as we all understand. I think most people today see "indoctrination" with a negative connotation. That being the case, I don't think it matters whether the general public thought that or not 100 years ago or 30 years ago or even yesterday. We can even specifically designate words to mean particular things for one instance only --- so long as we're clear about it, it works. The problem comes in when people are unclear about their words, or when someone other than the speaker tries to define his/her words for him/her.

Now, to say history is completely irrelevant is probably not quite right. But it is only relevant insofar as it affects present usage, IMO. I am not of the opinion that older is better, or that we have corrupted the English language, or that we must submit to Webster as the ultimate authority on language. Every native speaker of a language is as much an authority on that language as any other. So if my opinion of what "indoctrination" means differs from yours, both opinions are equally valid. What we have to do in that case, is compromise somehow and come to an agreement so that we understand each other correctly.

Wow, that post was long. I get excited about language.

bns, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I do disagree with that statement. I recognize that words slowly evolve as society changes and colloquialisms are adopted into the language, but I think it's important that words mean the same thing at the same time. That is, I think that "indoctrination" to me, now, should mean the same as it does to you right now. Many arguments are based on definitions of words, and I appreciate having a third party authority to describe that definition so that everyone is on the same page.

There are a lot of good words out there - why redefine words at whim? Imagine if the same principle were applied to grammar. Based off of colloquial usage, the sentence "wut r u doing 4 lunch" should be perfectly acceptable.

Completely off topic, but if you haven't read The Professor and the Madman, it's a good book to check out if you're interested in language.

Essentially, I agree with you. At a time and place, words should and generally do mean the same thing. But then, I would consider this forum to be a "place." But things that are said in a London tavern may carry different meanings than what they would mean at a Lakers game. That's okay, in fact it's inevitable. We also have to use some intelligence with this. I have a whole lot of pithy sayings that I just don't use here, because I doubt people from, say, the Netherlands would have a clue what I was talking about. When I talk to people that I know come from a different background than I do, I try to use plain understandable English to avoid goof-ups like that.

What's gotten into me today? I'm being unnecessarily verbose, and I don't know why.

Your doing great, bns. I am fully enjoying your explanations and style of communicating.

Thanks, rj!

BTW, I like your new sig. lol