Is all Children’s Literature a form of Indoctrination?

Getting a little philosophical + Mumpworld # 007

What is the difference between teaching and indoctrination? When children’s books introduce kids to new ideas does that alone qualify as “indoctrination”? Is there anything wrong with using children’s literature to “indoctrinate” kids with social norms?

Let’s talk.

But first, as usual please enjoy this little departure from your worries and rest assured I am not making any conscious attempt to indoctrinate you with my comic strip (yet).

Now, let’s talk about…

Indoctrination

As with many value laden topics, when groups begin to coalesce around a concept and become very tribally aligned, deep introspective thought seems to decline. Language that is used imprecisely leads to misunderstanding and often to arguments that can never be resolved because the actors involved are not actually arguing about the same issue. Indoctrination is one of those words that I feel has been used in a sloppy way and has lead to conversational impasses. The word, as it is used today appears to almost universally elicit the idea of “brainwashing”. Especially when applied to any material aimed at children.

imposing ideas, opinions or beliefs on someone while actively preventing criticism or questioning

Historically the word simply meant “to teach”. That doesn’t sound so bad. From what I can find, it took on its current meaning of imposing ideas, opinions or beliefs on someone while actively preventing criticism or questioning, around 1830. So for almost 200 years, English speaking people have used the word that way, as a synonym for “brainwashing” and currently, that appears to be the primary understanding of the word. Let’s work under the assumption for the rest of this discussion, that “indoctrination” means just that, “brainwashing”.

How do comics and children’s books fit in to this discussion of brainwashing?

In many ways, comic books, graphic novels and children’s literature in North America have been a foundational element in the culture for years. The combination of attractive and enticing imagery with written ideas offers the opportunity for learners of all types to benefit. The potential for this medium to teach children is monumental and that is, in many ways also quite frightening. The concept that “With great power comes great responsibility” as popularized by Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben would seem to be a fitting guide in this regard.

Two questions then arise for me.

• Is it ever appropriate to teach children ideas that they are not allowed to question or criticize?

• Do specific works of children’s literature fit the definition of “indoctrination” as a synonym for brainwashing?

I would hope that we can all agree that “brainwashing” is a bad thing. If you believe in freedom of speech and the free expression of ideas then forcing people to accept ideas, opinions or values without question is rather hypocritical. But “what about the children?”.

There are certainly times, when children need to be given adult direction. They need simple explanations that their immature minds can understand. We as adults should not burden children with complex adult problems, but that does not mean that we as adults can impose ideas on kids that we can’t actually justify rationally to another adult. I would recommend, anytime you find yourself telling a child something that you could not justify to another rational adult, you should re-examine your reasons for doing so.

In the world of comics, and children’s literature, this issue becomes salient when considering what many describe as the “culture war”. I am not going discuss it in detail but the reality of our current social environment today is that North Americans, and many Europeans, are experiencing a cultural and political tug of war between traditional conservative and mostly religious values and progressive, liberal, atheist and scientific values to an extreme that I have not observed previously in my lifetime. The LGBTQ+ community and other minority communities are often targets in these struggles, but it goes beyond that. In an effort to focus our discussion, let’s take a look at some material that has been criticized as tools of “indoctrination” targeting children.

Is this indoctrination?

Currently, the “Big Two” comic companies are being criticized for introducing LGBTQ+ characters and storylines into comics that have not historically included such material. In particular classic characters such as Superman and Robin have been portrayed as being bisexual. Iceman, from the Marvel X-Men series, has been revealed to be gay. Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy have been portrayed as a lesbian couple. In Superman’s and Robin’s comics they are newer versions of the characters, not the originals but the end result is the same. All of this has created a lot of backlash in the comic community. I would argue that most of those comics have not really been targeted to children for a long time, so I’m not sure any of that is relevant to the current discussion. Alternatively, graphic novels in school libraries have been challenged, banned or removed due to content related to gender race and sexuality which I do think is entirely relevant. Yes, book banning is a thing in 2022 in case you weren’t aware. I have to be cautious about what I say in regard to books being “banned” or removed from some school libraries. Often reporting can be misleading. Books containing adult content may have a legitimate reason for being removed from an elementary school library but I have found that argument used in the media when it really does not fit the facts.

As an example, let’s consider the book Melissa by Alex Gino, previously published as “George”. Melissa is a book about a 4th grade student that is transgendered. Amazon lists the book as being appropriate for children aged 8 to 12. The main character, Melissa, is born as George and eventually transitions to be Melissa both internally as her identity and outwardly in the way that she presents herself. The book has been the one of the most banned book in the United States for several years now. When asked to justify the banning of this book, proponents cite a reference to masturbation, which was really just a suggestion that the main character was looking at “porn” or “dirty mags”, which she wasn’t. the only other concern raised was that the main character engages in deceitful behavior by withholding information from her parents (clearing the web-browser history when searching information about being transgendered).

Opinion time, and a slight tangent. As with all of my book reviews, I expect and encourage parents to engage with their children, to monitor what they are being exposed to and to make their own personal decisions that are right for their family. I have known 8 year old children that are aware of the word “porn” if not the actual meaning of it. I have also known many who would have no concept of it. I have to imagine, if my child were 8 years old, would I want to explain it to them at that age? I don’t think I would go out of my way to introduce the topic, but I think we could have handled it if it came up . This topic of growing up in the information age is best addressed in a separate post, stay tuned for that one.

So what is the “idea, opinion or belief” that this book is exposing children to?

If you have read it, you would probably say that it is attempting to teach children to be compassionate and respectful toward others who may be different from them. If you are a parent who fought to have it banned in your children’s school (and likely did not read it), you probably believe that the book is exposing children to sexually explicit content, which it clearly is not. Or, you believe the book is encouraging “sexual deviance” by promoting the idea that gender is not directly linked to biology.

In truth, the book does expose children to the idea that there are people in the world who have different beliefs. That some people believe gender is not directly connected to biology in the way that traditional religious teachings might be interpreted. I describe it as a “belief” but I recognize that there is both historical and scientific precedence to support that belief. The lead character is different than her peers and simply wants to be accepted as she identifies. If you, as a parent, disagree with this and wish to teach your children that it is wrong in some way that is your right. It does not, however, excuse disrespectful, abusive, bullying or violent behavior, and that is the true message of the book. Human beings should accept, show respect and have compassion for others who hold different beliefs.

Are children allowed to question or criticize that opinion? Is that indoctrination?

Let’s look at another example from a few years ago.

In 2016 the NRA “family” website posted two reimagined versions of classic fairy tales, Little Red riding Hood (Has a Gun) and Hansel and Gretel (Have Guns). In both stories, the children have been given guns to protect themselves. Both stories express the idea that the children feel “reassured” or safe because of the weapons they hold. The NRA website has since removed the content, but you can still read the text on the Wayback Machine internet archive site here (Red Riding Hood) and here (Hansel and Gretel). My suspicion is that they removed the stories due to a strong reaction to the idea of putting guns in children’s hands which even the NRA would not be able to defend. Look at this response in the Boston Globe for some factual information about guns. I bring these stories up, because I think that they can help explain some of the cultural differences at play. The Red Riding Hood story ends with the idea that Red and her Grandmother were “happy in the security that comes with knowing they could defend themselves” because of the guns that they used in the story.

What is the message that this story is delivering to children? Is it that the world is filled with dangers and that children should be cautious and careful? That is the message of the original fairy tale. The text uses language that promotes the idea of using weapons for defence and protection. In extreme situations such as being kidnapped or being attacked by a wild animal you may even be comfortable justifying the use of violence to protect yourself. Of course, the children could just not go into the woods alone. At the level of a child’s understanding, the story is expressing that violence, or the threat of violence is the most efficient and effective way to deal with any threatening situation. It is exposing children to the idea that problems can and should be solved by imposing your will on them. Possibly even if that problem is someone expressing an opinion that you disagree with. Sounds a lot like bullying to me.

Is that indoctrination? Can the children who are read these stories question or criticize them?

If you fundamentally believe that the world is a dangerous place where human beings must compete for limited resources, then perhaps using dominance, aggression and violence seems appropriate to you . I would add that the modern equivalent of this attitude is to amass so much wealth that no one can stop you from imposing your will. It simply replaces physical power and violence with economic power and threats to destroy people’s lives.

If you believe that there are adequate resources to support all people. That concentrating wealth in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population is a bad idea that is inherently unsustainable. That measuring success in life purely by the size of your bank account is ultimately unsatisfying and detrimental to everyone. You would most likely prefer to teach your children better ways to solve problems than to simply bully others whenever things don’t go their way. I expect you would want to teach your children to seek “win-win” solutions through discussion and collaboration.

Is that a pie in the sky dream? Is it unrealistic or deluded to promote those ideals?

If you have made it this far, I am sorry to say that I don’t have answers for you. I only hope to encourage some consideration of all sides of the debate. Technically speaking any time a parent teaches a child to obey a rule, that may fit a rigid definition of indoctrination. Whether the lesson being taught, or the rule being enforced fits with the beliefs of the larger culture clearly has some influence on how the teaching is interpreted.

I don’t think it is reasonable to simply call exposure to different ideas “indoctrination”. I also don’t think that imposing rules about basic civility and respectful behavior should be defined as “indoctrination”. I think that it is the responsibility of adults to allow space for children to question any new ideas and to do their best to provide explanations at a developmentally appropriate level.

I have found this newsletter rather challenging to write, I found myself at many points going off on related tangents that I then had to edit out for clarity. I feel like there will be a few other related posts in the future and I will do my best to create a space that encourages questions and conversation, not imposed beliefs. I am always open to respectful discussion. Perhaps that should be a future post, the difference between a discussion and a debate.

Hope you found this at least thought provoking.

I’ll see you next time.

blackManic