Critique and Analysis of the Paradox of Indoctrination

Indoctrination is the act of inducing and transmitting ideas to another, which causes the person indoctrinated with the opinions and ideas expressed to be immune from error and revision. Ignoring the evidence and arguments to the contrary will weaken the power of reason and rationality and cause dogmatism. But anti-indoctrination approaches also use inductive methods in promoting and expanding their fundamental views. This situation leads to a phenomenon called “the paradox of indoctrination”. The question is whether indoctrination can be avoided and if not, what kind of indoctrination is not only necessary but also useful? Those who do not consider indoctrination as a completely negative concept and point to its positive and involuntary dimensions have resorted to solutions such as world-picture, strengthening rationality, and initiation to respond to the above paradox. This qualitative research by using conceptual analysis and comparative methods after critiquing the proposed solutions introduces an alternative approach to better understand the necessity of indoctrination and its place in human thought and life. The research claims that by resorting to epistemology and distinguishing between two types of explicit and implicit knowledge, we can speak of implicit indoctrination. The negative and removable part of indoctrination is related to the explicit and expressive aspect of indoctrination in the form of explicit propositions and teachings. Implicit indoctrination, on the other hand, is a vital component in sharing and transmitting lived experiences and individuals’ intuitive perceptions of their community and culture due to their contextual, procedural, narrative, and rule-following.