UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles the Nature Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles The Nature of Indoctrination and its Role in a Proper Education A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy by Michael Edward Lopez 2013 ii ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Nature of Indoctrination and its Role in a Proper Education by Michael Edward Lopez Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy University of California, Los Angeles, 2013 Professor Calvin Normore, Chair This dissertation offers three accounts as a way of answering three questions. The questions are: (1) What is indoctrination? (2) Why is it harmful? (3) Is there a role for indoctrination in a proper education? The three accounts that are offered are an account of indoctrination and its harms, an account of meaningfulness that grounds a life worth living in intersubjective value, and an account of education in which at least one of the more important purposes of education is coming to possess the tools for living a meaningful life. Indoctrination has classically been characterized as something that necessarily is concerned with the instilling of beliefs. I argue that indoctrination, taken as such, is at least as much about values and deliberation as it is about the holding of beliefs, and that a successful indoctrination shapes the way in which a subject approaches evidence ex ante. I argue that indoctrination is harmful to the extent that it prevents a person from authentically expressing themselves, and in inhibiting that expression, prevents a person from living a truly meaningful life, but that any such harm is also iii contingent on the particular pre-existing values of the subject and how those particular values relate to the facts of and content of the indoctrination in question. Finally, I argue that the living of a meaningful life is most certainly one of the proper ends of education, and that while indoctrination can certainly thwart that goal when it is employed in such a way as to cause its characteristic harms, indoctrination also remains the only way to accomplish that goal in the first place. Indeed, the very enterprise of institutional education is indoctrinative in its very conception. iv The dissertation of Michael Edward Lopez is approved. John Carriero A.J. Julius Joseph Almog Douglas Kellner Calvin Normore, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2012 v To my wife, with love and gratitude. Without you, this would not have been possible. vi Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 1. CHAPTER 1: The Nature and Permissibility of “Bad” Indoctrination………...……………….7 1.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….7 1.2. What Indoctrination Is…………………………………………………………………….9 1.2.1. Traditional Accounts………………………………………………………………...12 1.2.1.1. Aim and Results Theories……….………………………………………...12 1.2.1.2. Content Theories…..……………………………………………………...16 1.2.1.3. Method Theories……………………………………………………..........19 1.2.2. Beliefs vs. Values……………………………………………………......…………22 1.2.2.1. Indoctrination is aimed at controlling a subject’s reasoning and deliberation………………………….......………22 1.2.2.2. Indoctrination is aimed at the subject’s values……………………..………28 1.2.3. Counterarguments: White’s Teacher and Socrates……………………….………...33 1.2.3.1. White’s Teacher……………………………………………………............33 1.2.3.2. Socrates……………………………………………………..........................36 1.3. Why Indoctrination is Bad……………………………………………………....................38 1.3.1. Content……….…………………………………………............................................40 1.3.2. Impairment of Reason…………………………………………………...................42 1.3.3. Autonomy…………………………………………………........................................44 1.4. The Moderate Cases…………………………………………………...................................48 1.4.1. Becoming a Soldier: Military Training…………..……………...…..............................48 1.4.2. Becoming a Zealous Advocate: Law School…………….………………..................53 1.5. Permissibility of the Moderate Cases…………………….……………………………......56 1.5.1. The Harm of Bad Values…………………………..……………………..................57 vii 1.5.2. The Harm of Impairing Reason…………………………………………………..59 1.5.3. Indoctrination as reason-serving………………………………………………….62 1.5.4. The Harm of Violating Autonomy………………………………………………..67 1.6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………70 2. CHAPTER 2: Indoctrination, Authenticity, and the Destruction of Meaning………………...72 2.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..72 2.2. Meaningfulness………………………………………………………………………….77 2.2.1. Wolf’s Account of Meaning……………………………………………………...77 2.2.2. The Case for Intersubjectivity……………………………………………………82 2.2.2.1. Errors in Magnitude, Errors in Kind……………………………………..84 2.2.2.2. The External Perspective and a Plausible Source of Value………………..87 2.2.2.3. The Right Kind of Interaction……………………………………………93 2.2.2.4. The Problem of Futility……………………………………………..……99 2.3. The Importance of Authenticity………………………………………….…………….101 2.3.1. Authenticity and Meaningfulness……………………………….………………..102 2.3.2. Horizons of Significance…………………………………….………….………..106 2.4. The Impermissibility of Indoctrination……………………………………….….……...110 2.4.1. The Importance of Expression………………………………….…….…………112 2.4.2. Degree of Variance as the Measure for Harm………………………..…………..121 2.4.3. Consistency and Indifference……………………………………………………125 2.5. Neutral Causal Forces…………………………………………………………………..131 2.6. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...137 3. CHAPTER 3: The Role of Indoctrination in Education…………………………………….138 3.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………138 viii 3.2. A Proper End of Education……………………………………………………....……..141 3.2.1. Dewey’s Significance……………………………………………………….…….149 3.2.2. Peters’ Initiation………………………………………………………….……....154 3.3. The Necessity of Indoctrination to a Meaningful Education……………………….……160 3.3.1. Radical Critiques………………………………………………………………....167 3.3.1.1. Illich……………………………………………………………….…….167 3.3.1.2. Goodman…………………………………………………………….….172 3.3.2. The Democratic Conception of Education………………………………..…...…176 3.3.2.1. The First Response: Denial……………………………………….……...179 3.3.2.2. The Second Response: Remediation……………………………….…….182 3.4. Why Open Futures Aren’t Important…………………………………………….……...191 3.4.1. Feinberg’s Open Future Argument…………………………………………..…...193 3.4.2. The Value of “Closed” Futures…………………………………………….…….198 3.4.2.1. Mills’ Critique……………………………………………………………199 3.4.2.2. The Value of Closure…………………………………………….……....200 3.4.2.3. The Value of Openness’ Being Closed…………………………….……..203 3.4.3. Cultural Relativism and the Vagueness of the Initial Self………………….……...204 3.4.3.1. Expression within a cultural context…………………………….……….204 3.4.3.2. Determining the cultural context………………………………………....207 3.5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………....212 Appendix I: An Epilogue for Educators………………………………………………….….215 Appendix II: A Coda on Consumerism……………………………………………………...225 Poem………………………………………………………………………………………...230 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………....231 ix Acknowledgements: I am deeply indebted to so many people that no single page of acknowledgements could ever possible thank them all sufficiently. Yet more than a single page would be a violation of good taste. Therefore: I wish to first thank Anne Greene, of Wesleyan University, without whose encouragement I never would have taken up the study of Philosophy. A deepest thanks to my two undergraduate mentors in Philosophy, Professor Brian Fay, and Professor Stephen Crites, requiescat in pace. Thank you to all of my colleagues in UCLA’s graduate program, but particular thanks to Adam Masters, Kristina Gehrman, and Greg Antill, who listened patiently to hours of babbling and offered insightful and useful commentary. A very special thanks to all of my committee members, for their input and support, and also to Professors Brian Copenhaver and Pamela Hieronymi, for their support and input over the years. Thank you to Anna Laven, Kristen Olson, and especially Rachel Lee – the administrative support without whom the UCLA Philosophy Department would not have functioned, and without whom graduate students such as I would not be in a position to write our dissertations. I am grateful that I had a father who was the sort of person who kept a cardboard box filled with ratty, faded copies of Plato and Nietzsche in our apartment’s storage unit; we may not have had much, but it turned out that we had Philosophy. Finally, thank you to all my friends and family who have accommodated me and put up with me as I’ve given birth to this piece of rather pleasing mediocrity. x About the Author: Michael Edward Lopez, first son of Edward Leo Lopez, first son of Edward Andrade Lopez, attended 10 elementary schools by the end of 5th grade. He was an exceptional but tragically inconstant student, and he miraculously graduated 86th in his class from Fullerton Union High School in 1992, and that only with the assistance of Karen Ede, Ted Kopacki, Jeff Sherwood, and many others. He attended Wesleyan University – the only college that accepted him – where he majored in Medieval Studies (History concentration) and Philosophy, graduating in 1996 in the bottom 22% of his class. Following a brief, tumultuous but ultimately fruitless engagement with the United States Air Force (and several other misadventures) Michael eventually made his way to UCLA for the first time, attending the School of Law and graduating 10th in his class in 2001. He attributes this academic success to the fact that there was no homework in Law School. He practiced law for six years at two prestigious Southern California