I - Internalization

Recognizable questions Why does something still feel wrong even though no one brings it up with me anymore? Why do I seem to hear old rules in my head, even though I now believe differently? How do I know whether something is truly my own conviction or something I absorbed deeply? Can a norm become so self-evident that I no longer notice where it came from? Why can guilt remain after my opinion has changed? And can something that once came from outside later truly become one of my own values? What is internalization? Internalization is the process by which norms, values, beliefs, or expectations that first come from outside become part of your own thinking and feeling. A child, for example, hears: ‘You must be honest.’ At first, it may follow that rule mainly because its parents say so or because it is afraid of punishment. Later, honesty can become a personal value: ‘I want to be honest, even when no one is watching.’ The rule no longer has to be repeated from the outside all the time. It has begun to work from within . Internalization is normal Internalization is not a mental disorder, and not automatically something negative either. It is a normal part of human development. We learn almost everything from others at first: language, social customs, ideas about right and wrong, work ethic, family habits, cultural norms, and religious beliefs. Later, we consciously adopt some of them. We let go of others. And still others feel so self-evident that we hardly notice we ever learned them. From ‘they say so’ to ‘I think so’ At first, a rule can sound like: ‘My parents say this is not allowed.’ Later: ‘We don’t do that.’ And eventually: ‘I personally think this is wrong.’ That is internalization. The source of the rule fades more and more into the background. The norm becomes part of one’s own conscience and identity. That can be very positive Many important values function precisely because we have internalized them. We do not need to be told every morning again that we should not steal from others or that we should care for our children. We have made such values part of who we are. An internalized norm can therefore lead to reliability, responsibility, and independence . You do something not only because someone is watching. You do it because you truly stand behind it yourself. But not every internalized norm is automatically still yours That raises an interesting question. A conviction can sit very deeply in you and still have originally been taken over from your environment. That does not make it untrue or fake. But it also does not automatically mean you would still choose it today if you examined it again. That is why internalization can have two different outcomes: ‘I learned this and, after examining it, I still believe it.’ or: ‘I learned this, but now that I look at it consciously, it no longer fits me.’ An inner voice often has a history People sometimes say: ‘My conscience just says this.’ But conscience develops too. A child learns through: parents, school, culture, religion, peers, praise, corrections, and personal experiences. As a result, an inner reaction can have a history. So the question does not have to be: ‘Is my conscience real?’ The feeling is real. The more interesting question is: ‘How was my conscience shaped, and which parts of it do I still endorse today?’ A simple example Suppose someone grew up in a family where spending money on yourself was seen as selfish. Later, that person earns enough money and can buy a nice coat without any problem. Still, they feel guilty. No one says: ‘You’re not allowed to.’ No one checks up on them. But the old norm is still at work: ‘Spending money on yourself is wrong.’ That is an example of internalization. External control can become unnecessary When a rule is strongly internalized, no one has to enforce it anymore. A parent does not need to be present. A supervisor does not need to watch. A religious leader does not need to call. The person polices themselves. That is exactly why internalization can be so powerful. The norm is no longer just: ‘What do they expect?’ but: ‘What do I expect of myself?’ Internalization and religion Religion often includes norms about behavior, morality, identity, relationships, clothing, sexuality, money, time, and faith. For believers, such norms can feel deeply meaningful. That is not strange in itself. A Christian may, for example, not only think: ‘My church says forgiveness is important’ but genuinely believe for themselves: ‘I want to be forgiving.’ That is internalization. Religious values can therefore become a completely authentic part of someone’s own identity. Within Jehovah’s Witnesses Within Jehovah’s Witnesses too, children and adults learn certain norms and concepts through repetition and everyday life. That can include: preaching , meetings , worldliness , sexual morality , political neutrality , birthdays , holidays , dealing with other people , baptism , spiritual goals , and loyalty to Jehovah . For an active Jehovah’s Witness, such beliefs can feel completely personal: ‘I’m not doing this because someone is forcing me. I believe myself that this is right.’ That can genuinely be the case. Internalization does not mean the belief is therefore fake. ‘We don’t celebrate birthdays’ A child growing up as a Jehovah’s Witness may hear from an early age: ‘We don’t celebrate birthdays.’ At first, that is mainly a family rule. Later the child may say: ‘Birthdays are wrong.’ Even later, no one needs to explain it anymore. An invitation to a birthday party may automatically feel uncomfortable. The norm is then no longer just something parents say. It has become part of the person’s own moral judgment. What happens if the belief later changes? Then a strange situation can arise. Someone rationally thinks: ‘I no longer believe a birthday is wrong.’ But when they sit at a birthday party for the first time, they feel tension. Or guilt. Or even: ‘This doesn’t feel right.’ Then belief and emotional response are no longer aligned. The old norm may have changed cognitively, but the internalized response can remain longer. ‘I know it’s not wrong, but it feels wrong’ That is one of the most recognizable effects. Someone may think: ‘I know I’m not doing anything wrong.’ and at the same time feel: ‘Still, it feels wrong.’ That does not automatically mean the feeling reveals some deeper truth. It may also mean: ‘My emotional and moral system has practiced this rule for years.’ Feeling and belief can therefore temporarily be out of sync. Guilt can be internalized Guilt is useful when we are truly acting against our values. But guilt can also be triggered by violating an old norm that we no longer consciously endorse. That is why the question can help: ‘Have I done something I personally think is wrong today, or have I done something I was once taught to think is wrong?’ That distinction can be especially important after a change in faith or culture. An example: clothing Someone has spent years learning that certain clothing is too revealing, too attention-grabbing, or too ‘worldly.’ Later they see it differently. Still, when putting it on, they may think: ‘I really shouldn’t be wearing this.’ Then it can be useful to examine: Do I truly think this is inappropriate today? Or is an old norm still sounding in my head? An example: a relationship Someone has learned that a relationship with someone outside the faith is not right. Years later, they no longer believe the same thing. They are in a loving relationship with someone outside the former religious community. Still, guilt may arise: ‘Am I doing something wrong?’ The person may rationally find the relationship healthy while emotionally still experiencing old warning or guilt reactions. That does not have to mean they still deeply endorse the former rule. It can also be an internalized norm that is still being activated. An example: preaching Positive religious norms can also become strongly internalized. Someone may have spent years learning: ‘A good Christian shares the good news.’ They may therefore be sincerely motivated to preach. But in a period of exhaustion, the same norm can turn into: ‘If I don’t go today, I’m not spiritual enough.’ Then it is interesting to examine whether the inner motivation still feels free and fitting, or whether it is increasingly experienced as an obligation. Internalization and privileges The same can happen with religious duties. Someone may be given a responsibility and think: ‘What a privilege.’ Over time, no one even needs to tell him anymore that he has a lot to do. He may start setting ever higher demands on himself: ‘I have to be available.’ ‘I must not disappoint anyone.’ ‘If I say no, I’m ungrateful.’ That can come from sincere devotion as well as from internalized expectations. Not everything that comes from outside stays external This is an important distinction. Sometimes people say: ‘But no one forced me.’ That can be completely true. A norm does not have to be constantly imposed from the outside to have influence. Precisely through internalization, someone can begin to regulate himself. The question: ‘Who forced me?’ is therefore sometimes too limited. Another question might be: ‘Which norms had I made so much my own that I started correcting myself?’ That does not mean someone has no free will Internalization does not automatically make a person unfree. We all have internalized values. Freedom does not have to mean that you have had no influence from upbringing or culture. Perhaps autonomy means rather: that you become better and better at examining which internalized values you truly want to keep. You may discover: ‘I got this value from my parents and I want to keep it.’ That is just as much a choice of your own. Different forms of motivation Within psychology, a distinction is made between different reasons why people do things. Someone may do something: to avoid punishment, to receive appreciation, because otherwise he feels guilty, because he personally values it, or because it fully fits his identity. Those forms can overlap. That is why the contrast: ‘I did it for myself’ versus: ‘I did it for others’ is often too simplistic. ‘I have to’ can become ‘I want to’ A rule may initially come from outside: ‘You have to go to the meeting.’ Later: ‘I want to go to the meeting, because this is important to me.’ That can be a genuine personal conviction. But the reverse can also be true: someone says ‘I want to’ , while a large part of the motivation consists of guilt or fear if he does not do it. That is why it can help not only to ask: ‘Am I doing this voluntarily?’ but also: ‘What happens inside me if I decide not to do it?’ Guilt as inner control Suppose: no one checks whether someone goes to the meeting. Still, he feels strong guilt when he stays home. Then the norm can be working entirely from within. The person does not have to think: ‘What will the elders say?’ He may think: ‘Jehovah will be disappointed.’ or: ‘A spiritually strong person would go.’ At that point, the social norm has become a strong part of the self-image. Identity makes internalization stronger Norms often become more powerful when they are not only about what you do , but about who you are . Compare: ‘I’m going preaching.’ with: ‘I am a publisher.’ Or: ‘My family follows this religion.’ with: ‘I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.’ When behavior becomes part of identity, change can feel much bigger. You are then not just changing a habit. It can feel as though you have to answer the question: ‘Who am I now?’ Internalization often starts young Children take on many norms before they can examine them philosophically. That is normal. A small child does not ask with every family rule: ‘What is the scientific and ethical basis for this?’ It trusts its parents. That trust is necessary for development. Later, there is more ability to re-examine values. That is why something that at age five was simply: ‘this is how we do things’ may at age twenty have become a personal conviction. When does ‘our’ eventually become ‘mine’? That is an important developmental question. A child first says: ‘We believe this.’ Later: ‘I believe this.’ But the transition is rarely one clear moment. It arises through: repetition, explanation, examples, personal experiences, connection, and reflection. The question is therefore not only: ‘Did I choose this myself?’ but also: ‘Did I later have the chance to examine it again?’ Internalization and socialization Socialization broadly describes how people learn to function within their family, culture, and group. Internalization is one possible outcome of that: the norms of the environment become part of one’s own inner world. You can see the difference like this: Socialization: ‘This is what our group teaches me.’ Internalization: ‘This now feels like what I myself believe.’ Internalization and social influence Social influence does not have to stop when other people are no longer present. That may be what is most striking about internalization. A parent may have died. Someone may have been out of a congregation for years. A former teacher may have been out of the picture long ago. And yet their message can remain: ‘That’s not appropriate.’ ‘That’s not like you, is it?’ ‘What will people think?’ The group no longer has to be literally in the room. Internalization and self-censorship An internalized norm can also lead to self-censorship . No one says: ‘Don’t post that photo.’ And yet someone thinks: ‘I can’t do that.’ No one says: ‘Don’t tell your parents about your relationship.’ And yet someone automatically keeps it hidden. It can help to ask: ‘Am I protecting myself from a real consequence, or have I also adopted an internal boundary that I might want to set differently today?’ Internalization and fear conditioning These concepts sometimes overlap, but they are not the same. Internalization is mainly about norms, values, and beliefs becoming part of one’s own thinking. Fear conditioning is about learned links between a stimulus and a fear response. They can occur together. Someone may think rationally: ‘I don’t think this is wrong.’ but at the same time: ‘My conscience says no’ and feel bodily tension. Then both internalized norms and learned fear responses may be at play. Internalization and cognitive dissonance When an old internalized norm clashes with a new belief, cognitive dissonance can arise. For example: ‘I don’t think birthdays are wrong.’ but: ‘I feel guilty because I’m celebrating one.’ The person then has two systems that are temporarily not fully aligned. That can lead to reflection: Which belief do I truly endorse today? The inner parent, elder, or group People sometimes say: ‘I still hear my mother in my head.’ or: ‘I can hear exactly what the elders would say.’ That does not necessarily mean hearing literal voices. It can simply refer to a strongly internalized expectation. In a sense, the person has learned to predict: ‘What would this important person think of this?’ Over time, that prediction can become part of one’s own self-evaluation. An internalized rule can remain after the group is gone This helps explain why someone can leave a religious group and still feel old rules for years afterward. Formally, there is freedom. No one is checking him anymore. Yet he may still judge himself by the same standards. For example: ‘Am I too worldly?’ ‘Am I being selfish?’ ‘Am I doing something Jehovah disapproves of?’ ‘What if I made the wrong choice?’ That can be confusing: ‘I’m out, so why do I still feel this?’ One possible answer is: because the social environment may disappear before the internalized norms do. This does not mean all old norms must disappear After leaving a religion, the goal does not have to be: to reverse everything. Someone may still value monogamy. Or honesty. Moderation. Family care. Volunteer work. Bible study. Some values may in fact remain after critical examination. Autonomy does not mean: ‘From now on I do the opposite.’ It can mean: ‘I consciously choose which values I want to take with me.’ Freedom is not automatically choosing the opposite This is especially important. Someone who has always been taught not to celebrate birthdays does not necessarily have to start celebrating birthdays in order to be free. Someone who has always been taught to dress modestly does not suddenly have to dress provocatively. That would again mean that the old norm determines your behavior, only in the opposite direction. Freedom can be: ‘I explore what I myself find important and then choose.’ Can an internalized belief really become your own? Yes. Something coming from outside once does not mean it can never become authentic. Almost all our values have social roots. The relevant question is not: ‘Did I come up with this entirely on my own?’ Almost nobody develops their entire moral code independently. A more useful question is: ‘Have I examined this value consciously, and do I still want to consider it my own?’ What if I don’t know what is mine? After strong socialization, someone may think: ‘I no longer know what I want myself.’ That can be temporarily confusing. You do not have to have all the answers right away. You can examine one topic at a time: What do I think about relationships? What do I think about holidays? What do I think about faith? What do I think about family responsibility? What do I think about sexuality? What do I think about work and leisure? Personal values often do not emerge in one big moment, but through many small reconsiderations. New experiences can help Some values you do not discover just by thinking about them. You experience something new. You go to a birthday party for the first time. You celebrate Christmas. You go out to eat with someone without feeling guilty. You choose a relationship that would once not have been allowed. Afterward, you can examine: How did this really feel? Did this fit my values? Was my fear based on what happened, or on what I expected would happen? New experiences can confirm, refine, or change old assumptions. The feeling may be there without making the decision When an internalized norm is challenged, guilt or discomfort may arise. It does not have to disappear immediately. You can think: ‘I notice that this feels wrong.’ and at the same time: ‘I’m going to examine why.’ That creates space between feeling and conclusion. Not: ‘I feel guilty, so it is wrong.’ but: ‘I feel guilty. Which norm is being touched here, and do I still endorse that norm today?’ For active Jehovah’s Witnesses An active Jehovah’s Witness may, after investigation, conclude precisely the opposite: ‘Yes, these values have become a deep part of me, and I want to keep them.’ That is also possible. Internalization is therefore not an argument for or against a faith. It describes a psychological process. A norm can be internalized and at the same time be consciously, sincerely, and personally endorsed. For someone who is questioning For a questioning Jehovah’s Witness, the concept can help distinguish between: ‘What do I believe?’ ‘What do I feel?’ and: ‘What have I learned to feel?’ Those three answers do not always have to be the same. Exploration does not have to lead beforehand to leaving or staying. It can actually help you see more clearly which beliefs have truly become personal. For someone who has left After leaving, the most important question may shift from: ‘What is allowed according to the organization?’ to: ‘What do I consider responsible myself?’ That sounds simple, but after decades it can be complicated. A personal compass sometimes has to be examined anew. Not because someone has no standards anymore. Precisely because they want to know: which standards do I want to consciously keep, and which no longer? When professional help can help When old norms are accompanied by intense guilt, anxiety, compulsive self-monitoring, or difficulty making everyday decisions, a psychologist can help. A good therapist does not have to decide which religious belief is correct. They can, however, help distinguish between: current values , learned reactions , fear , guilt and personal choice . For religious topics, knowledge of religious upbringing and religious change can be helpful. Questions to reflect on Which rules feel self-evident to me? When did I learn them? From whom did I learn them? Have I ever consciously re-examined these values later? Which norms do I still fully endorse today? Which still feel strong, even though I no longer share them rationally? What happens in me when I break an old rule? Do I feel guilty because I have genuinely hurt someone, or because I have broken a learned norm? Which old values do I want to consciously keep? Which ones do I want to change or let go of? Am I doing something because I personally value it, because I am afraid of guilt, or both? Can I choose a value again without pretending my upbringing had no influence on it? Can I let go of an old standard without automatically having to do the opposite? What would I believe or choose if I were able to calmly examine this topic for the first time today? Summary Internalization is the process by which norms, beliefs, and expectations from outside become part of our own inner world. That is a normal and necessary human process. We learn almost all our first values through other people. Some of them we later consciously make our own. Others keep functioning even when we no longer substantively endorse them. That is why someone can start thinking differently rationally while guilt, shame, or a feeling of ‘this isn’t right’ still remain. That does not automatically mean the old belief still feels true deep down. It may mean that a norm has been practiced for a long time and strongly internalized. Conversely, a social origin does not mean a belief is inauthentic. A value may once have come from parents, culture, or religion and later, after personal examination, truly become one’s own. Perhaps autonomy does not lie in being completely free of every influence. Perhaps it lies in the ability to examine: Which values did I inherit? Which of them do I want to consciously keep? And which no longer fit who I am now? ‘Do I really think this is right or wrong myself — or does it feel that way because I learned it so deeply?’ Sources Edward L. Deci & Richard M. Ryan - Self-Determination Theory and the internalization of motivation Richard M. Ryan & Edward L. Deci - Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions Albert Bandura - Social Learning Theory and Social Cognitive Theory Leon Festinger - A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Henri Tajfel & John Turner - Social Identity Theory American Psychological Association - information about socialization, motivation, guilt, and identity development See also in the A-Z Psychology Glossary A - Angstconditionering - Why can an old fear response remain after you rationally think differently? C - Cognitieve dissonantie - What happens when belief, behavior, and feeling clash? G - Groepsidentiteit - How can membership in a group become part of who you are? S - Sociale invloed - How do other people influence our thoughts and choices without direct coercion? S - Socialisatie - How do we learn the norms and values of our environment? Z - Zelfcensuur - What happens when you limit yourself without anyone directly asking that of you at that moment? Read also on ExJW.World G - Geloofsopvoeding - How do children inherit faith, norms, and religious habits? G - Geweten - How does the feeling arise that something is right or wrong? O - Ongedoopte verkondiger - When does taking part in preaching become a personal religious identity? V - Voorrechten - How can religious responsibilities become part of motivation and identity? V - Vrije wil - How free does a choice feel when conviction, conscience, and social consequences all play a role? W - Werelds - What happens when religious categories become part of your own thinking?