Enculturation, not Indoctrination

I think the homeschooler discourse about the S-word -- Socialization -- is growing up a bit. I always used to hear people say: "look at all the activities my kids are in" as a defense against the charge that they were raising social misfits. It's good as far as it goes -- that is, if it works to convince doubting neighbors and relatives -- but it never really seemed to me to approach the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is that children learn to be sociable -- or not-- in families and communities, through responsibility to those in authority and those more helpless than they, and fellowship with some who are basically their equals. Schools CAN help with this task, or not -- but there is nothing magical about a school's logistical decisions, such as graded classrooms, recess, or six hour days, that is uniquely fitted to form young human beings.

But this seems much closer to the heart of the matter: Bonny Glen Up Close quoting PHAT Mommy, in reference to this post at Principled Discovery (the post is very good, and read the comments too).

Homeschoolers have no problem learning to be sociable (interacting with other people), but they often do not fit the "mold" of good little cogs of the state. This trait may make them seem like misfits. But the issue is not that they are socially inept, it's that they are individuals.

Excellently said. I am raising introverted children. They were born that way, and homeschooling gives them the space to grow into their own temperaments. Generally speaking, they are quieter than the American norm, though way more confident and collected than I was at their age(s) after many years of public schooling. But they are individuals, with principles suited to their developmental age. They have time to ponder and play and as they grow older, contribute to the community in their own way. I am watching them each grow up with their own set of gifts and relationships. It is fascinating to be a part of.

When I read critics of homeschoolers say they met some "weird homeschoolers" once -- I always wonder what they mean by weird? My daughter wears skirts and dresses instead of jeans -- her own decision -- is that weird? My son prefers talking about philosophy to watching sit-coms. Is that weird? They also like to do some things that are conventional for the young people of today.... they like video games and football, for example. Does that help them pass the "not-weird" test? The point: the whole S-controversy seems to beg the question -- whose standard of socialization are we talking about? So I appreciated the point that what looks like "misfit" to one set of people might look like an actual gift or even virtue to another generation or another locality or another worldview. Perhaps our society is misfit in some key ways, and it needs a few people who are different from the norm?

In her post, Dana posts a web definition of the term "socialization" and then writes:

My analysis of the definition:

"Socialization means enculturation." I read there, 'indoctrination.'

In the context of the definition, I think she has a good point. I think "socialization" as used in the anti-homeschool sense does mean something like indoctrination. However, I wanted to point out that traditionally, "enculturation" was nothing like a synonym for "indoctrination". The words have very different connotations and spring from very different views of the human person. Traditional pedagogical thought, from the ancients up till Rousseau at least, considered "enculturation" to be the aim of education; take for example the ancient Greek concept of paideia as "transmission of the cultural heritage that is continued through the generations".

It was only in recent times that "enculturation" --the process of introducing the new and inexperienced member of the human race to the richness of the society and tradition he comes from -- language, history, religion -- was thought of as an offense against human dignity. It used to be thought that this was an essential part of "the process of educating man into his true form, the real and genuine human nature" (Xenophon)

"Indoctrination" is a completely different animal. It comes from the premise that human beings are to be manipulated for a purpose not in their own best interests. It is a matter of doctrine being put into the mind -- not as first-hand conviction that the "doctrine" in question is the true one, but doctrine as convenience -- "don't think, just listen and obey."

Mary Pride put it very nicely into a nutshell in one of her books where she says (paraphrase, since I don't have the book now): When we are talking about training children, our aim oughtn't to be raising good little Nazi soldiers, but rather, Christian martyrs or aiders-of-Jewish-refugees. That seems to sum up the difference between the aims and methods of indoctrination versus enculturation. Remember, the Christian martyrs and those who aided the Jewish refugees always appealed to some higher, different standard usually passed on by family and community.

I also like the Chesterton maxim:

“A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”

What it comes down to for me is that I don't want my children to be carbon copies of some lowest-common-denominator "norm" out there. What do you achieve by reaching the "norm" except to meet some nebulous standard of mediocrity? What does normal really mean? I want them to be striving for nobility. "Normalcy" in the sense of functional competence according to their own capacities will be a by-product of that.