Indoctrination and the Learning Society

This is a summary of the 6th chapter of Peter Jarvis' book. 

In the previous chapter, Jarvis presented the information society and LLL as reflecting the bombardment of information upon the masses with uni-directional input which acculturates individuals into and supports a Global Capitalist (GC) culture.   He points out here that this is a different presentation than is usually presented in general discussion or in academic discourse.  LLL usually suggests the continuous up-grading of one's knowledge and skills in order to enhance one's employability.  Here Jarvis suggests that this is really 2 sides of the same coin. 

Side 1:  LLL = learning to be consumers
Side 2:  LLL = learning to be employable

Side 2 enables Side 1.  When employed, you make money that can allow you to be a consumer.  Furthermore, You are involved in the production of more goods to consume.

Side 1 enables Side 2.  As a consumer whose desires are being (re)created over and over to desire more things, one must remain employable in order to get these things.

The forms of knowledge that are promoted by the core of the GC Culture are those that support the GC Culture and its interests.  Indeed, there are other knowledges, but as GC Culture communication increasingly dominates our learning, other knowledges that promote other values and interests are increasingly set off to the side. 

...the concepts of lifelong learning and the learning society are social constructions, biased to reflect those aspects of global capitalism that are seen to be essential to its perpetuation....the forms of learning to which we are exposed in everyday life...are indoctrinating and the type of society that we call a learning society is actually quite totalitarian.  (p. 109)

Jarvis provides a distinction between indoctrination, brainwashing and thought reform. 

Indoctrination: 

• a form of socialization
• individuals have little consent to exposure to the information
• teaches to accept doctrines uncritically
• "implanting" of ideas

 Brainwashing:

• involves more radical changes in ideas or beliefs
• based on "conditioning" techniques
• "implanting" ideas
• more than just cognitive:  may incorporate bodily senses and emotions

Thought reform:

• more of a re-education

In all 3, little critical power is afforded to the learners.  They are passive recipients and in a sense, not free in that regard.  In fact, he refers to learning as "non-consensual" instead of suggesting that the degree to which learning is consensual is not absolute.  I would like to have seen a little more inclusion of agency in this discussion, but I believe based on earlier chapters, that this meta-freedom is somewhat implied.   What Jarvis is trying to point out is that in spite of our feeling of freedom/agency, we are being influenced in ways that we are not explicitly aware of or identifying.   When bombarded by advertising aimed at creating desire and value, "...we appear to act freely according to our desires, we are actually demonstrating the power of the brain-washing process" (p. 110).

Jarvis calls on Wilson (1964) in describing communication as NOT indoctrination when it is rational where "rational communication consists in not putting pressure on an individual in a way which his conscious mind cannot fully resist" (Wilson, p. 33).    Jarvis claims that advertising lowers the resistance of many, and therefore, is instrumental in indoctrination.    In education, truth, evidence and reality are "primary means of communication" whereas they are secondary in indoctrination. He reminds us that advertising in a GC Culture is aimed at conformity, and those that don't conform often suffer consequences.

He goes on to differentiate and compare definitions of propaganda with each other and with notions of indoctrination.  Whatever the definition, he tries to make the point that much advertising in a GC culture presents information is such was as to make it difficult for an individual to make a truly free (problematic term, but grant me a little latitude) valuation and decision about products.  A learning society which promoted more critically reflective review of information is more in line with education and not indoctrination.

He goes on to make the point under 5 headings:

• Intentions of those transmitting the information

Jarvis provides examples to illustrate that intent of advertisers is more than simply providing information or encouraging sales. He shows that at least in one specific example of a large cereal manufacturer in the UK which opposes a new labelling program for its foods, we can see an exercise of economic and persuasive power aimed at affecting how people receive information about products.

• Techniques employed in information transmission

Jarvis claims that "very sophisticated psychological techniques" are used in advertising. These include the elicitation of emotion, repetition, and techniques which affect the pre-conscious mind.

• Contents of the information

"If commodities were to be purchased for their use-value only, then we could expect that information about hem would be presented in a rational manner" (p. 115).   In GC Culture, exchange-value supersedes use-value and products are coupled with a variety of illusions and socially desirable phenomena.  Advertisements for soap that call upon exotic images are hardly selling based on rational arguments.

• Relationship to the Truth

Science is seen as an authority legitimizing claims to truth. We find that advertisements often use scientific semiotics which associate the product with this authority.  They will often use mis-leading or un-proven claims.  Once a product is valuated in terms of exchange-value instead of use-value, the bases on which an item is valued is more subjective and can float far from objective truth.

• Morality

Jarvis foreshadows later chapters in which he addresses this complex notion in more detail.  oh!  that will be fun! 

Jarvis lists the 8 criteria Lifton (1961) has named as indicative of totalism.  Of those eight, five have already been highlighted in his discussion of GC culture and advertising. I won't go into explaining the criteria or how they've been demonstrated here.  Those interested can see Lifton's Thought Control and the Psychology of Totalism.  

Jarvis then discusses Levinas' approach to totalism (1991) in which the structures are seen as the totalism which have the potential to destroy individuality and human freedom.  Levinas focuses on relationships. Totalist structures make the Other into a stranger, which invokes a different ethic than when the Other is experienced as "a Face".  Totalisers seek to reduce individual responsibility to the other by grouping individuals.  We see this sort of grouping in learning society literature (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and in organizational studies (Senge, 1990). Systems are emphasized, not individuals.

Tomorrow I will summarize the 7th Chapter entitled:

Ethics and Modernity 

which has the stated goal of 

...find(ing) a basis for a learning society which embodies goodness