Good and bad indoctrination

EVERY society indoctrinates. Whether in a Filipino barrio or a Manila boardroom, communities implant beliefs, values, and habits in the young. The real question is never whether we form people, but how we do it and toward what.

The word itself has become pejorative, so we usually speak of formation, education, socialization, upbringing, catechesis, or habituation. Classical thinkers called it “paideia,” the shaping of a citizen. Aristotle noted that we become virtuous by practicing virtue.

Consider the Filipino mother teaching her child to say “po” and “opo,” to honor elders with “mano po,” to share food, and never to lie. That is good indoctrination, and nobody apologizes for it.

Its dark twin is brainwashing, propaganda, and coercive persuasion: teaching a child that another race is less human, that the leader must never be questioned, or that lying is acceptable when it serves the cause.

Formation is an act of love. Parents, teachers, and priests who form without apology are not manipulators; they hand on a patrimony of wisdom, trusting the child’s growing freedom to receive it.

How, then, do we tell them apart? Five questions help. Each examines a different dimension of any program of formation, whether in a school, a family, a “barkada,” a political machine, or a religious community.

First, truth. Good formation is grounded in what is real and verifiable, and teaches you to check reality. Bad indoctrination demands belief in demonstrably false things, or bends facts to fit the doctrine, as in troll farms.

Second, reason. Good formation gives arguments, explains the why, and welcomes questions. Bad indoctrination floods the emotions, using fear, shame, repetition, and slogans in place of argument, and punishes the one who asks. “Hiya” can be weaponized this way.

Third, freedom. Good formation makes you more rational and autonomous, able eventually to criticize even your teacher, and presents alternatives fairly. Bad indoctrination makes leaving unthinkable, hides contrary views, demonizes outsiders, and builds an information bubble.

Fourth, virtue over interest. Whose good is served? Good formation seeks the flourishing of the person and the common good. Bad indoctrination serves the power, wealth, or status of the indoctrinator, like the patron who demands “utang na loob.”

Fifth, method. Good formation is transparent and open: we are Catholics, this is what we believe, and we will form you in it, respecting age-appropriate consent. Bad indoctrination is covert, posing as neutral education while smuggling ideology.

It also coerces, through isolation, sleep deprivation, ostracism, and threats. Recall how cult recruiters in some Philippine campuses and communities isolate young people from family, exploiting loneliness and the need to belong, a classic manipulation of attachment.

A simple test from a British philosopher applies: if you must hide your method from the student to make it work, it is bad indoctrination. Truth has nothing to fear from daylight.

Good formation says: here is what we hold to be true and good, here are the reasons, practice this until it becomes part of you, and you are free to question us.

Bad indoctrination says: do not question, do not look elsewhere, repeat this or you are evil, stupid, or disloyal. Psychologists call the result learned helplessness and enmeshment, where identity dissolves into the group.

In short, the first aims at maturity: a person who thinks for himself precisely because he was well formed. The second aims at dependency: a person made to need the group, never reaching autonomy.

For the Philippines, a nation of strong families and deep faith, the task is clear: form the young with love, truth, and freedom, so they grow into mature citizens, not dependents of any patron, party, or personality. 

Email: roycimagala@gmail.com