Education as Social Programming
What is the difference between education and brainwashing?
Brainwashing – n. a broad class of intense and often coercive tactics intended to produce profound changes in attitudes, beliefs and emotions.
Social programming – n. the process by which the ideas, concepts and beliefs of the society in which we live are ingrained into our psyche. The process is usually by authoritative decree or by assimilation.
Our culture wars are being fought over ideas which are not very clearly understood because each side claims that their definition MUST be the correct one. A ready example is the term ‘woke’. The definition is ‘alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination’. The right has appropriated the term and adjusted the definition to replace ‘alert to and concerned’ with ‘brainwashing’; whereas the left has claimed teaching about social injustice and discrimination is social programming in a democracy that truly holds ‘all men are created equal’ which has been the foundation of the United States since its founding. As one of those damned Independents I can see at least a little truth in each, but let’s at least agree we are not going to redefine the term.
Now that we have successfully brought the culture wars into the educational debate, we must agree on the definitions of ‘brainwashing’; and ‘social programming’. The definitions found above show that the terms are not dissimilar in that both involve instilling beliefs into the psyches of our most precious resource. The primary difference is that one is considered coercive and the other could easily be called education. We will ignore those who claim education as brainwashing as first ignorant of what happens in the classroom and second more concerned with touting their own beliefs than solving any problems – of which there are many.
Often I have said the ‘purpose of education’ is an example of argument based on NO agreement or understanding of what exactly the argument is about. When one Googles ‘purpose of education’ there is no dictionary definition but a lot of opinions, many of which could easily be interpreted as promoting ‘wokeness’. In my mathematics classes I would often say the primary difference between math and English classes is a word in English could have many – some quite different – definitions; but in math we insisted each term have a quite specific and agreed upon definition (why I chose math over English!). Bringing a little ‘math’ into the discussion, we will attempt to define at least some topics the purpose of education should include.
For starters, what is it NOT. Let’s take a meme that has been seen on social media:
“When it comes down to it, the only knowledge that really matters is, how to purify water, how to grow your own food, how to cook, how to build, and how to love. And funnily enough, we’re not taught any of it in school.”
IU (my invention – Internet Un-ascribed)
This has that pithy, no-nonsense directness favored by those who really have no interest in addressing a problem – they have it all figured out and the only thing left is for you to acknowledge this fact and we can move on. The reality is this same definition works extremely well to answer what’s needed for slaves to be self-sufficient and ease the burden on their masters. This is sufficient to survive, but falls short of living, let alone thriving. If education is merely training for a job or career, this is sufficient: Any additional would be career specific and there is no curriculum for such. We have merely substituted ‘boss’ for ‘master’. That the ‘bosses’ see education this way led Noam Chomsky to observe:
As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome.
In point of fact, no one believes education to be so simplistic. In our technologically advanced society, if all we teach is how to feed and care for yourself the majority of the country starves because there is no way half a billion people are going to feed themselves – let alone hold a place of influence in the world.
In today’s world, knowledge of ‘facts’ is far less useful than it was in my youth: Now, all of the ‘facts’ known to humankind are available in the palm of your hand. As always, the ability to organize and synthesize those facts – to make sense of the world – is critical: In Mathematics we use the term ‘critical thinking’. Google defines the purpose of education (per AI) as ‘to help people learn and grow, and to develop the skills and knowledge needed to live a fulfilling life. Education can also help create a better society by promoting social equality and justice, and by developing critical thinking skills’. As AI is so adept at doing, this is a nice summary of noble goals that no thinking person would oppose. Unfortunately a summary is not a road map, and fancy language does not constitute a plan of action – yet that is precisely what is needed.
In my opinion the purpose of education is social programming of the next generation in ‘the ideas, concepts and beliefs of the society in which we live’. Few would disagree with this statement, but the disagreement is what those beliefs are, and what the process for ingraining these in our youth is. This is similar to my problem as a math teacher trying to teach ‘critical thinking’: While the topic is vitally important, I have never been able to find a ‘critical thinking lesson plan’.
Thus we can clarify our objective to what are the ideas, concepts and beliefs of our society. As difficult as this may sound it is a step up from arguing about ‘the only knowledge that really matters’. Suggestions come easily: The rights our society guarantees to all; the ability to solve problems in a logical, organized fashion; reading and understanding written words; being able to express oneself coherently both orally and in writing; an understanding of government – both of the society in which you live and the societies throughout the world; an understanding of history that distinguishes between facts and interpretation; the role of science in how we view our world. While a consensus on our beliefs will be hard, such consensus is the definition of social programming; whereas no such consensus is brainwashing.
After 36 years as a teacher – 15 in public schools – I can ensure you that social programming has ALWAYS been a part of school. What else would you call reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of every day? It is by no means restricted to public schools, in fact one of the attractions of private schools is they allow you to choose the social programming: Teaching 16 years in a Catholic, military, all-boys high school is to become very accustomed to starting every day with a school-wide prayer – not to mention morning military formation. This is not a bad thing – unless you happen to be an anti-military atheist, which would beg the question of why you are paying to send your kid to a Catholic military school.
Now we understand what culture wars are based on – an attempt to control the social programming in our public schools. This is an ongoing battle: During the late 50’s and 60’s – my school years – the culture war was about whether the social programming of our schools would include racism. While specifics may change, fundamental issues have a way of sticking around. Immigrants are the new negroes but the fundamental desire of some to make a decent education the privilege of the ‘right’ people remains.
Social programming in schools is not only a fact; it is the single most important goal of education – both public and private. In view of that we turn our attention to the second part of its definition: “The process is usually by authoritative decree or by assimilation.” In private schools authoritative decree is the method: Teaching in a Catholic school allowed me to express freely my belief in Christ during class, however anything I said that opposed Catholic dogma would have earned a sit-down with the headmaster to explain realities to me. Use of marijuana was banned for both students and teachers and random drug tests were a part of the contracts signed by both. At one time in my life I had smoked pot daily, while teaching there I abstained. The good or bad of this is irrelevant because it was a choice I made – just as a young teacher who was tested and whose contract was not renewed made a choice. I have no regrets about my choice, the young teacher may feel different – or not!
In public schools there is a similar decree, but the desired conditioning MUST be assimilated by the school environments. Although this is a choice on the part of the teacher (PLEASE note how many are choosing to leave the profession!), it is decidedly not for the student; and for the parents the choice must be made through that extraordinarily messy process called ‘democracy’. The single most important lesson a starting teacher learns is the critical importance of this assimilation to your success as a school. You should remember high school and how important it was to BE a tiger, or whatever your mascot was. While the authority was there, I think assimilation was stronger.
What has become an integral part of public schools, but not private, is standardized testing. Standardized testing also has nothing to do with social conditioning – other than a damn good indicator to the students how pointless their schooling is. The main thing these test scores indicate is the socio-economic level of the school, NOT the amount of learning that has occurred. The problem is that while these tests ‘justify’ that the schools in higher socio-economic level communities ‘deserve’ more money, the lack of learning they promote is affecting EVERYONE, rich and poor alike. Instead of correcting the problem – the tests – the ‘cure’ has become give me public funds to get my kid out of public school; which DOES get rid of the tests!
Social conditioning has virtually nothing to do with the subject being studied, perhaps excepting history (why I chose math over history!). The social conditioning that has been a part of every school I have attended or taught at for my seventy three years has been: Respect for authority; be kind; don’t bully others; we must respect the differences between us; your actions have consequences; and perhaps the most important – I am someone who cares about YOU. These and all the other requirements to allow the wide diversity of human life we each must deal with and live with every day must be taught AND assimilated if our society is to survive, and history is strewn with examples of the dangers of failure. From my perspective inside schools let me assure you this social conditioning is necessary for the school environment to be not just a place you want to work, but a place where it is possible to work – and therefore for our children to learn.
Make no mistake, the culture wars are nothing less than an attempt to impose a minority’s view of what social conditioning should be in our school environment by people who do NOT live and work in that environment. Although this attempt is doomed to failure, that will not mitigate the damage it will continue to do. It is doomed to failure because those who work in schools – the teachers – CANNOT assimilate what they view as highly detrimental to what they believe and are trying to teach.
I am firmly with a rebel who fought for children in his time:
“The children are always ours, every single one of them, all over the globe; and I am beginning to suspect that whoever is incapable of recognizing this may be incapable of morality.”
James Baldwin
https://dictionary.apa.org/brainwashing
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/social_programming
https://cheneys.substack.com/p/what-is-the-purpose-of-education