Fear, Education, and Indoctrination

A continuation from my post on fear from yesterday; fear is definitely an effective tool for controlling the populace, and it has been used for centuries. But how is this fear validated? Most Americans would agree that the vast majority of politicians are not trustworthy. This would therefore imply that their word alone would not be enough to create the required public veracity to stimulate the fear. The fear must be validated by some other group; a group with the ability to lend both authoritative weight and legitimacy to the situation. This group is discussed at length in the Chomsky article I linked yesterday. The country's "intellectuals" have drawn Chomsky's scorn for years, and with good reason. Here is an excerpt from his Huizinga Memorial Lecture that he delivered at Leiden University back in December 1977: "...Contrary to the illusions of the postindustrial theorists, power is not shifting into [the intelligentsia’s] hands---though one should not underestimate the significance of the flow of trained manpower from university to government and management for many decades. But the more significant function of the intelligentsia is ideological control. They are, in Gramsci’s phrase, “experts in legitimation.” They must insure that beliefs are properly inculcated, beliefs that serve the interests of those with objective power, based ultimately on control of capital in the state capitalist societies. The well-bred intelligentsia operate the pump handle, conducting mass mobilization in a way that is, as [Harold] Lasswell observed, cheaper than violence or bribery and much better suited to the image of democracy." Chomsky does a much better job of explaining this in his many books than I will, but I will endeavour to show a simple example of how intellectual indoctrination works. This process begins early in life - as early as the first day of school. School ostensibly exists for one purpose - to develop the mind and abilities of the students. To "educate". It does so by using a reward/punishment system; the highest valued traits are given the greatest rewards, while the most despised traits are given the greatest punishments. We can therefore get an idea of the relative importance of various traits based on the relative reward or punishment that is applied. In this case, I will specifically examine traits that are despised. the reasons for this will become clear. The worst punishment that a school can mete out is expulsion. In the secular equivalent of Ex-communication, the undeserving student is separated from the glorious light of "education", and is forced to flounder in the darkness of ignorance. (Anecdotally, it will also almost certainly destroy their ability to become "successful", a most horrid fate.) It would therefore be logical to assume that any action that carries the punishment of expulsion is considered the most heinous of offenses. So, which actions result in expulsion? The most obvious possibility would be gross incompetence. If a student is obviously incapable of being successfully educated, it would be the fiscally responsible result to expel the student, so as to concentrate the educational effort on the competent students. We know, however, that this is not the case. Gross incompetence is not grounds for expulsion. In truth, the only offense worthy of expulsion (excepting criminal behavior), is systemic disobedience. This disobedience need not have anything to do with the education. It can be any of the following: -Poor attendence ("skipping" school) -Not queueing up properly ("cutting" in line) -Not raising a hand and waiting to be recognized -Talking out of turn All of these can be summarized in one statement: Lack of respect/adherence to authority. Disobedience is the most egregious sin a student can commit, and it carries the stiffest punishment. Obedience is more important to a student's "education" than competence. Why might this be so? It may be because obedience is essential to having a productive workforce. One can be trained to do any job, as long as they arrive on time, and follow instructions unconditionally. The essential workplace tenents mirror the essential educational tenents. It would almost seem that the purpose of education is to instill in the individual personality traits that employers might find attractive, and not to educate. To train obedience, and not knowledge. This also helps to explain why some talents are "important", and some are not. If the talent does not support productivity in the economy, it is not important. The education system attempts to place additional emphasis on job training, and almost no emphasis on true learning. Consider the following quote from Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols: 29 (From a doctoral examination) — “What is the task of all higher education?” To turn men into machines. “What are the means?” Man must learn to be bored. “How is that accomplished?” By means of the concept of duty. “Who serves as the model?” The philologist: he teaches grinding. In following the education thesis to its logical conclusion, it stands to reason that those who reach the highest levels of education, the "intellectuals", are among the most obedient. When the authority speaks, they obey... as they have been trained to do. When they see others (the "unsuccessful" types) being disobedient, it infuriates them. It is a crime, they think, for that person to tarnish the most essential tenant that has made the "intellectuals" what they are. The poor, mis-guided, disobedient soul must be brought into line. The "Intellectual" will now look for a mechanism to do this. Fortunately for him, the economic and political system function in much the same way as the education system. (Coincidence?) The punishment for disobedience in industry is the loss of employment; in politics, it is marginalization. Much as the obedient rise in acedemia to become "intellectuals", the obedient rise in industry to become senior management. The obedient in politics rise to become leadership. In this management and political leadership, there is great power. This power is the mechanism the "intellectual" needs to re-center the disobedient. They therefore support those that weild the power as fervent demagogues, hoping for a taste of the all-important power. This is not the only benefit to the "intellectual", however. The "intellectual" serves the cause of the industry leader and the politician, and in return the "intellectual" is served as well. This is done through funding. Grant money and endowments are essential to educational institutioons, and are largely provided by the government and corporations. This funding also serves as a filter by which the government and industyy can control what information is disseminated. Say what we like and we give you money. Say something we don't like, and the money is gone. In effect, soft censorship. Totalitarian control is not necesssary when such subtle means are available. The leadership need not dirty itself, and can instead preen over its free acceptance of all ideals. Freedom of speech. You have as much of it as you can afford.