“Indoctrination in Literature” by Alan Purves: Summary and Critique

1. George Orwell’s 1984 (1949) – Literature as Political Indoctrination

• Orwell’s 1984 exemplifies how literature can be both a tool of indoctrination and a critique of indoctrination itself.
• The Party’s manipulation of language (Newspeak) aligns with Purves’ argument that linguistic choices are not neutral but serve to control thought (Purves, p. X).
• “Narratives impose structures of meaning, conditioning responses and shaping perceptions” (Purves, p. X) applies to Orwell’s use of doublespeak and propaganda in shaping societal beliefs.
• Indoctrination is reinforced through controlled literature, exemplified by the Party’s censorship and rewriting of history.

2. Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper (1892) – Gendered Indoctrination in Literature

• Gilman’s short story critiques the way patriarchal narratives dictate women’s roles in society, resonating with Purves’ concept of hegemonic literary structures that reinforce dominant ideologies (Purves, p. X).
• The protagonist’s descent into madness is a result of imposed literary and medical narratives that deny her agency, illustrating Purves’ point that “curricula and literature are curated to sustain national and moral narratives” (Purves, p. X).
• The story can be read as an example of how literature challenges rather than enforces indoctrination, a function Purves argues is essential for ethical literary engagement.

3. Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart (1958) – Colonial Indoctrination in Literature

• Achebe’s novel serves as a counter-narrative to the colonial indoctrination found in Western literature about Africa.
• Purves’ critique of cultural conditioning in literature applies to how pre-colonial Igbo society is represented versus how colonial forces introduce new ideological structures (Purves, p. X).
• “Colonial literature has historically served to justify power structures, while postcolonial narratives attempt to challenge them” (Purves, p. X) applies to Achebe’s use of indigenous storytelling methods to resist European literary dominance.
• The novel deconstructs the Eurocentric narratives that Purves argues reinforce ideological biases through selective representation in the literary canon.

4. Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) – Indoctrination and Moral Resistance

• Twain’s novel explores the tension between societal indoctrination and individual moral awakening, aligning with Purves’ argument that literature both enforces and resists dominant ideologies (Purves, p. X).
• Huck Finn’s internal conflict over slavery exemplifies Purves’ notion of narrative control—how literature conditions moral perceptions but also allows for critical engagement (Purves, p. X).
• “To read critically is to resist passive consumption of ideologies embedded in texts” (Purves, p. X) applies to how Twain uses satire to expose racial and cultural indoctrination in American society.
• The novel critiques the educational and religious institutions that Purves identifies as mechanisms of ideological reinforcement.

1. Overemphasis on Indoctrination Over Reader Agency

• Purves’ argument that literature serves primarily as a tool of ideological conditioning downplays the active role of readers in interpreting texts.
• Reader-response theorists (e.g., Stanley Fish, Wolfgang Iser) argue that meaning is co-created by the reader, rather than dictated solely by textual indoctrination.
• Critics might contend that literature can inspire resistance as much as it enforces ideological conformity, contradicting Purves’ deterministic view.

2. Neglect of Aesthetic and Artistic Value in Literature

• By focusing predominantly on ideological functions, Purves overlooks literature’s intrinsic artistic and aesthetic dimensions.
• Literary formalists (e.g., Cleanth Brooks, Roman Jakobson) emphasize the autonomy of literary texts and argue that literature should not be reduced to ideological functions.
• Critics argue that analyzing literature solely through the lens of indoctrination risks oversimplifying its complexity and artistic intent.

3. Generalization of All Literature as an Ideological Tool

• Purves assumes that all literature inherently serves an indoctrinating function, ignoring texts that resist, subvert, or lack ideological intent.
• Some literary works—such as avant-garde, surrealist, or absurdist literature (e.g., Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot)—lack clear ideological messaging, challenging Purves’ framework.
• Not all literary works fit into the model of ideological reinforcement; some are purely experimental or personal in nature.

4. Insufficient Distinction Between Propaganda and Literature

• Purves does not clearly distinguish between literary indoctrination and outright propaganda.
• Critics argue that while propaganda is designed to persuade or manipulate, literature often presents multiple perspectives and encourages critical thinking.
• The assumption that literature always functions as a tool of ideological influence risks conflating artistic storytelling with deliberate sociopolitical manipulation.

5. Lack of Consideration for Postmodern and Decolonial Perspectives

• While Purves engages with ideological criticism, he does not fully integrate postmodern and decolonial perspectives that emphasize the fluidity of meaning and resistance to fixed interpretations.
• Postmodern theorists (e.g., Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida) argue that meaning is unstable and constructed, challenging Purves’ assumption that literature indoctrinates in a fixed way.
• Decolonial scholars (e.g., Walter Mignolo, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o) highlight literature’s role in disrupting dominant ideologies rather than merely perpetuating them.

6. Underestimation of Literature’s Role in Promoting Empathy and Ethical Reflection

• Purves’ critique of literature as a tool of indoctrination underestimates its ability to foster empathy, ethical reflection, and pluralistic thinking.
• Ethical critics (e.g., Martha Nussbaum) argue that literature can expand moral imagination rather than restrict thought.
• Works like Toni Morrison’s Beloved or Elie Wiesel’s Night serve as counterexamples, illustrating literature’s power to provoke ethical engagement rather than ideological conformity.