I - Internalization — EXJW World

How can beliefs and standards from the outside become part of your own inner voice?

Recognizable questions

- Why does something still feel wrong even though no one is confronting me about it anymore?

- Why do I, as it were, hear old rules in my head, even though I now believe differently?

- How do I know whether something is really my own conviction or something I was deeply taught?

- Can a norm become so obvious that I no longer notice where it came from?

- Why can guilt continue to exist 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 initially 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 then no longer has to be repeatedly reinforced from outside.
It has started to work from within.

Internalization is normal

Internalization is not a mental disorder, nor is it automatically something negative.
It is a normal part of human development.
We learn almost everything from others at first:
language, manners, ideas about right and wrong, work ethic, family habits, cultural norms, and religious beliefs.
Later, we consciously adopt some of these.
We let go of others.
And still others feel so natural that we barely even notice we once learned them.

From ‘they say so’ to ‘I think so’

At first, a rule may 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 gradually fades from view.
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 don’t need to be told every morning again that we shouldn’t 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 yourself stand behind it.

But not every internalized norm is automatically still yours

That raises an interesting question.
A belief can be deeply rooted in you and yet originally have been taken over from an 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 tells me this.’
But even a conscience develops.
A child learns through:
parents, school, culture, religion, peers, praise, correction, 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 formed, 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 do that.’
No one is checking 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 doesn’t have to be present.
A supervisor doesn’t have to watch.
A religious leader doesn’t have to call.
The person monitors 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 standards about behavior, morality, identity, relationships, clothing, sexuality, money, time, and faith.
For believers, such standards can be 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 a person’s own identity.

Within Jehovah’s Witnesses

Within Jehovah’s Witnesses too, children and adults learn certain standards and concepts through repetition and daily life.
These may include:
preaching, meetings, worldliness, sexual morality, political neutrality, birthdays, holidays, associating with other people, baptism, spiritual goals, and loyalty to Jehovah.
For an active Jehovah’s Witness, such beliefs can feel entirely their own:
‘I’m not doing this because someone is forcing me. I personally believe this is right.’
That can truly 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.’
Later still, no one needs to explain it anymore.
An invitation to a birthday party can automatically feel uncomfortable.
The standard 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 may think rationally:
‘I no longer believe that a birthday is wrong.’
But when they attend a birthday party for the first time, they feel tension.
Or guilt.
Or even:
‘This isn’t right.’
In that case, conviction and emotional reaction do not line up.
The old standard may have changed cognitively, but the internalized reaction may linger 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 conviction can therefore temporarily diverge.

Guilt can be internalized

Guilt is useful when we truly act against our values.
But guilt can also be triggered by violating an old standard that we no longer consciously endorse.
That is why it can help to ask:
‘Have I done something I personally think is wrong today, or have I done something I was taught to think was wrong in the past?’
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 provocative, too flashy, or too ‘worldly.’
Later, they see it differently.
Even so, when putting it on, they may think:
‘This really isn’t appropriate.’
Then it can be useful to examine:
Do I really think this is inappropriate today?
Or is an old standard still echoing in my head?

An example: relationships

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.
Even so, guilt may arise:
‘Am I doing something wrong?’
The person may rationally see the relationship as healthy and still emotionally experience old alarm or guilt reactions.
That does not necessarily mean they still deeply endorse the former rule.
It may also be an internalized norm that is still being activated.

An example: preaching

Positive religious standards can also be strongly internalized.
Someone may have spent years learning:
‘A good Christian shares the good news.’
As a result, they may be sincerely motivated to preach.
But during a period of exhaustion, that same standard can become:
‘If I don’t go today, I’m not spiritual enough.’
Then it becomes 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 say that he has to do a lot.
He can keep setting ever higher standards for himself:
‘I have to be available.’
‘I must not disappoint anyone.’
‘If I say no, I’m being ungrateful.’
That can stem 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 may be completely true.
A standard does not have to be continuously imposed from the outside in order to have influence.
Precisely through internalization, someone can direct themselves.
The question:
‘Who forced me?’
is therefore sometimes too limited.
Another question may be:
‘Which norms had I made so much my own that I began to correct myself?’

That does not mean someone has no free will

Internalization does not automatically make someone unfree.
We all have internalized values.
Freedom does not have to mean that you were never influenced by upbringing or culture.
Autonomy may instead mean:
that you become increasingly able to examine 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

In psychology, a distinction is made between different reasons why people do things.
Someone may do something:
to avoid punishment, to receive approval, because otherwise he feels guilty, because he personally considers the value important, or because it fully fits his identity.
These forms can overlap.
That is why the contrast between:
‘I did it for myself’
and:
‘I did it for others’
is often too simplistic.

‘I have to’ can become ‘I want to’

A rule can 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 happen:
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 to ask not only:
‘Am I doing this voluntarily?’
but also:
‘What happens inside me if I decide not to do it?’

Guilt as internal control

Suppose:
no one checks whether someone goes to the meeting.
Yet 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 just about what you do, but about who you are.
Compare:
‘I am going to preach.’
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.
Then you are not just changing a habit.
It can feel as though you have to answer the question:
‘Who am I now?’

Internalization often begins young

Children adopt 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 greater ability to re-examine values.
That is why something that at age five was simply:
‘this is how we do things’
may, by age twenty, have become a personal conviction.

When does “ours” 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 emerges through:
repetition, explanation, examples, personal experiences, connectedness, and personal 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 surrounding 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 the other people are no longer present.
Perhaps that is 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 who you are, 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 may help to ask:
‘Am I protecting myself from a real consequence, or have I also taken on 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 associations 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 aligning well.
That can lead to reflection:
Which belief do I truly endorse today?

The inner parent, elder, or group

People sometimes say:
‘I can still hear my mother in my head.’
or:
‘I can hear exactly what the elders would say.’
That does not necessarily mean literally hearing 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 controlling him anymore.
And yet he may still judge himself by the same standards.
For example:
‘Am I too worldly?’
‘Am I being selfish?’
‘Am I doing something that 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 actually be retained 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 carry forward.’

Freedom is not automatically choosing the opposite

This is especially important.
Someone who has always been taught not to celebrate birthdays does not necessarily need to start celebrating birthdays in order to be free.
Someone who has always been taught to dress modestly does not suddenly need to dress provocatively.
That would again mean that the former norm determines your behavior, only in the opposite direction.
Freedom can be:
‘I explore what I personally value and then choose accordingly.’

Can an internalized belief really become your own?

Yes.
Something having once come from outside 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 no one develops their entire moral code independently.
A more useful question is:
‘Have I consciously examined this value, and do I still want to consider it mine?’

What if I don’t know what is mine?

After strong socialization, someone may think:
‘I no longer know what I want.’
That can be temporarily confusing.
You do not need 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 re-evaluations.

New experiences can help

You do not discover some values only by thinking about them.
You experience something new.
You go to a birthday party for the first time.
You celebrate Christmas.
You go out for dinner with someone without feeling guilty.
You choose a relationship that would once not have been allowed.
Afterwards, you can examine:
How did this really feel?
Did this fit my values?
Was my fear based on what actually happened, or on what I expected would happen?
New experiences can confirm, nuance, or change old assumptions.

The feeling is allowed to be there without making the decision

When an internalized norm is challenged, guilt or discomfort can arise.
It does not have to disappear right away.
You can think:
‘I notice that this feels wrong.’
and at the same time:
‘I am going to investigate why.’
That creates room 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 reflection, conclude exactly 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 doubting

For a doubting 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 in advance 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 main question may change 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 again.
Not because someone no longer has any standards.
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 severe guilt, fear, obsessive self-control, or difficulty making everyday choices, a psychologist can help.
A good therapist does not need to determine which religious belief is correct.
They can help distinguish between:
current values, learned responses, fear, guilt, and personal choice.
With religious themes, 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 on?

- 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 actually harmed someone, or because I have broken a learned norm?

- Which old values do I want to consciously keep?

- Which do I want to adjust 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 norm without automatically having to do the opposite?

- What would I believe or choose if I were allowed 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 of our first values through other people.
Some of them we later consciously make our own.
Others continue to function even though we no longer substantively agree with them.
That is why someone can start thinking differently rationally while guilt, shame, or a sense of ‘this isn’t allowed’ is still present.
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 has been 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 therefore does not lie in completely freeing oneself from every influence.
Perhaps it lies in the ability to examine:

Which values did I absorb?
Which of them do I want to consciously keep?
And which no longer fit who I am now?

‘Do I really consider this 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 on socialization, motivation, guilt, and identity development