The term ‘brainwashing’ gets thrown around a lot, especially when it comes to dealing with terrorism, extremism and general intolerance. It even gets thrown around when someone just doesn’t agree with your point of view. But how can we define it?
My current line of thinking points towards a definition such as, “forcing a person to commit to a set of beliefs or principles which they may not choose to follow if they were given free choice.” In my mind, there is an element of it not being of the person’s freewill (one dictionary defines it as “to cause one to alter their beliefs” but I do not feel this is strong enough). Most definitions even suggest the involvement of torture.
There are some dangers here. People believe all sorts of things of their own free will, and yet it is all too easy to just throw the ‘brainwashed’ label at them. This is often said about religion. Just because someone has decided to commit themselves to a particular set of beliefs and principles, it does not mean they were forced into it.
But also, look at it from another perspective: the education system. When a parent sends their child to school, they are allowing the government to educate the child into a particular way of thinking. If a parent does not wish this for their child – opting for home-schooling – then there are various checks to make sure that the required governmental standards are being met. Education in the UK is compulsory, and it is government controlled. Every child is essentially ‘brainwashed’ into UK society.
The irony here is that if a person chooses not to conform to the standards of the society, then they are labelled with ‘brainwashing’, ‘extremism’ and even ‘terrorism.’ But what makes the standards of society correct?
UK is a place where people supposedly have various ‘freedoms.’ And yet there are restrictions. We are free to study – as long as it is not to study bomb-making. We are free to speak – but this gets restricted when it comes to various topics.
The other problem is that the laws change. Someone who upheld the law 25 years ago might be branded a criminal now, should they wish to continue upholding those laws. Just because a particular point of view might be ‘outdated’ in the eyes of society, that – by itself – does not make that point of view incorrect.
UK also aims to be a ‘tolerant’ society: a place where we allow people to follow their own religion and beliefs. And yet, if a person uses their ‘free speech’ to say that they think a particular action is wrong, they are easily branded ‘intolerant’, possibly an ‘extremist’ and the phrases ‘brainwashed’ and ‘the grass-roots of terrorism’ will probably not be too far behind.
People use examples from the past of how religion (often Christianity) held back the advances of science because it could be seen to contradict the religious traditions. However, UK society is now at a point where the pursuit of science has led to the ridicule of people who follow religions. Where religion once used to be ‘intolerant’ of science, science (and so-called ‘free-thinkers’) has now become quite intolerant of religion.
The problem is that society is ultimately brainwashed. It could be argued that a free society is one where people can be educated if they want to. Everything could be done on the basis of if you want to. However, that is also a brainwashed society: the dominant ideology being that this ‘freedom’ leads to a better community. But, due to parental responsibility, any education will be built upon the parents ideology. This can actually be seen in society today: a parent who has contempt for their education may well bring up a child to also have contempt for education.
So, I do not really think that we can avoid brainwashing, but what we can avoid is using the word as a way of demeaning (or bullying or harassing) people who thoughtfully disagree with us. And we certainly need to avoid labelling people as ‘extremists’ because they do not see our point of view.
It seems to me that the next ‘religious war’ has already been started by the atheists with their intolerance to people who believe in higher powers. The irony here is that as things escalate, the accusation is thrown at the religious people for their intolerance and reluctance to change their point of view.
So, who is the extremist?
No comments:
Post a Comment