I - Indoctrination — EXJW World

Recognizable questions

- What exactly is indoctrination?

- Is every religious upbringing indoctrination?

- Can you be indoctrinated without someone consciously manipulating you?

- Why can learned beliefs feel completely your own?

- What role do repetition, peer pressure, information, fear, and the desire to belong play?

- And how free are you when you are allowed to doubt, but doubting feels emotionally or socially difficult?

The word indoctrination is often used as an accusation. When someone says ‘you’ve been indoctrinated’, it quickly sounds as though the other person cannot think for themselves. It is not that simple.

Every human being is influenced from birth. We learn from our parents what is right and wrong, at school how the world works, and within our culture what is considered normal. Religious parents also pass on their beliefs to their children. This is known, among other things, as upbringing and socialization.

The interesting question is therefore not: ‘Am I influenced?’ We all are. The more important question is: ‘How much room was I given to critically examine what I was taught and eventually come to a different conclusion?’

What does indoctrination mean?

In general terms, indoctrination refers to the systematic transfer of beliefs or doctrines in which critical evaluation of those beliefs may be limited or discouraged.

That makes indoctrination different from simply learning something. A teacher can, for example, say: ‘This is the theory. These are the arguments for it. These are the objections. Examine them and see which conclusion is best supported.’

In indoctrination, the desired conclusion is much more firmly fixed in advance. So it is not only about what someone learns, but also about how they are taught to deal with it.

Indoctrination is not the same as religious upbringing

Telling a child that God exists is not, in itself, proof of indoctrination. An atheist parent can likewise strongly pass on their worldview to a child. Reading the Bible, praying, attending religious meetings, or teaching children religious standards is also not automatically indoctrination.

A more important distinction is the space around that belief. Is the child later allowed to ask: ‘How do we actually know that?’ Can they seriously examine other religions? Can they read information that contradicts their parents’ beliefs? Can they eventually say: ‘I’ve looked into it and I believe something different’ without that putting important relationships, safety, or the feeling of being loved under pressure?

The smaller that space becomes, the more relevant the question of indoctrination becomes.

You do not have to be literally forced

Indoctrination is sometimes portrayed as if someone is constantly being ordered what to think. But influence can work much more subtly.

A child can hear the same explanation of the world over and over from an early age. The people they trust believe the same thing. Friends believe the same thing. Meetings confirm the same beliefs. Stories, examples, and teaching all line up with it.

Over time, that reality no longer feels like: ‘This is what my surroundings believe.’ But rather: ‘This is how reality is.’

That does not have to be the result of a conscious plan by parents or individual fellow believers. They may genuinely believe they are teaching someone the truth.

What you learn from childhood becomes your starting point

Suppose a child learns from birth that one religion has the truth. They learn who God is, what the future holds, what behavior God approves of, which people have a good influence, and what spiritual dangers exist.

For that child, this is initially not a religious hypothesis that they have placed alongside ten other hypotheses. It is their starting point. The same applies, incidentally, to many other beliefs children absorb from their environment.

That is why the question is not only whether someone can formally say at age eighteen: ‘I choose this for myself.’ A more interesting question is: ‘From how many different possibilities did I actually learn to view this choice?’

Indoctrination and Jehovah’s Witnesses

Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, great value is placed on religious upbringing. Parents are encouraged to teach their children about Jehovah, study the Bible together, attend meetings, and help their children move toward personal dedication and eventually baptism.

At the same time, Jehovah’s Witnesses emphasize that baptism is a personal decision and that children are not baptized as babies. Those are relevant facts when discussing indoctrination.

The question is therefore not simply: ‘Are children of Jehovah’s Witnesses forced to believe?’ Many parents will instead say: ‘My child must ultimately choose Jehovah for themselves.’

The more psychologically interesting question is: How is that choice shaped before the child makes it?

When one choice is constantly reinforced as positive

Suppose a child hears for years that serving Jehovah is the best way of life. They see adults who get baptized being congratulated. They hear experiences about young people setting spiritual goals. They learn which qualities are seen as belonging to a spiritually strong young person.

That does not have to be direct coercion. The child does learn which choice is regarded in their environment as good, wise, and spiritually mature.

That is social influence. And social influence by itself is not proof of indoctrination. The next question is more decisive: How is it responded to when the child seriously explores a different direction?

Information plays an important role

A belief can only be critically examined if you can also look at information that may contradict it. That is why freedom of information matters in the subject of indoctrination.

Jehovah’s Witnesses warn in their publications against apostate material and against information they believe is meant to create doubt about Jehovah or his organization. From their own perspective, there is a religious explanation for this: they see such information as spiritually dangerous or misleading.

From the perspective of indoctrination, a different question then arises: Can you fully examine a belief if certain information is already regarded as dangerous before you have assessed it yourself?

This does not yet establish that all external information is reliable. Critical websites, former members, and social media can also contain errors, exaggerations, or one-sided information. The same critical standard should therefore apply to all sources.

‘Don’t just believe us either’

This is an important difference between independent research and simply switching authorities.

When someone leaves Jehovah’s Witnesses and then automatically believes everything an ex-JW, YouTuber, or critical website says, that does not necessarily mean independent thinking has developed.

Critical thinking means precisely: Who is saying this? What is it based on? Can I look at the original source? What counterarguments exist? Would I use the same standard of evidence if this information contradicted my own opinion?

Free thinking does not mean you have to believe another group. It means that ExJW.World should be open to examination too.

The role of language

Groups develop their own words and meanings. Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, terms such as the truth, worldly, spiritually weak, associations, apostasy and Jehovah’s organization have a specific meaning within the community.

That is not unusual. Religions, professions, political movements, and even circles of friends develop their own language. But language can influence the way we think.

When someone is described not just as ‘someone who has reached a different religious conclusion’, but as ‘an apostate’, that word can immediately evoke all kinds of other associations.

That is why an interesting question is: Does a word only describe what someone does, or does it also tell me how I am supposed to think and feel about that person?

Wanting to belong

Indoctrination is not just about ideas. People are social beings. We want to belong to our family. We want friends. We want recognition. We want people who matter to us to be proud of us.

That is why a belief can become especially powerful when it becomes tied to social belonging. Then you do not just believe together. You eat together, go to meetings together, preach together, attend conventions together, often marry within the same community, and sometimes build almost your entire social network there.

That can create wonderful closeness. But it also means that a change in belief may affect more than just an idea.

Then the question ‘Do I still believe this?’ can unconsciously become linked to: ‘What happens to my people when my answer is no?’

Group pressure does not have to be stated out loud

No one has to say: ‘If you preach less, we think you are less spiritual.’ When you have spent years seeing which behavior is appreciated, you may already know what the norm is yourself.

As a result, people can do things they actually do not want to do. You still go in the field ministry. You still take part in a meeting item. You still try to study more. You still say nothing about your doubts.

Not necessarily because someone is literally forcing you, but because belief, conscience, group norms, and the need for belonging are all pointing in the same direction at once.

That can sometimes make the line between your own motivation and social influence hard to see.

When the voice of the group becomes your own voice

An important term here is internalization. That means that norms from your surroundings can become so much a part of you that eventually no one is needed to enforce them from the outside anymore.

You correct yourself: I shouldn’t be thinking this. I need to do more for Jehovah. Why don’t I feel like going in the field service? Maybe I’m spiritually weak. I shouldn’t be doubting this.

Those thoughts can feel completely like your own thoughts. And in part, they are: after all, they are in your head. But you can still examine where your standards came from.

Guilt and fear

Emotions can reinforce beliefs. When doubt immediately triggers guilt, calm examination becomes harder. When reading certain information causes fear, someone may stop before they have evaluated the content.

Here too, a distinction must be made. Fear or guilt does not automatically mean someone has been indoctrinated. A person can quite rightly feel guilty when they have hurt someone, and rightly be afraid of real danger.

That is why the more interesting question is: What exactly is my feeling warning me about?

Is there actual danger? Am I acting against my own values? Or have I learned that having this thought or examining this information is itself dangerous or wrong?

Indoctrination can happen without bad intentions

This is an important nuance. When a parent teaches their child that only their religion is true, that parent does not have to think: ‘I’m going to indoctrinate my child.’ More likely, they think: ‘I’m giving my child the most precious thing I have.’

The same can apply to other members of a community. People can perpetuate processes because they sincerely believe they are protecting, helping, or saving someone.

That is why examining indoctrination does not automatically say anything about the intentions of individual Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is mainly about the process and the consequences.

So what is the difference from socialization?

Socialization is the normal process by which we learn to function within a family, culture, or group. We learn language, manners, values, and social rules.

Indoctrination goes further when a certain system of ideas is passed on in such a way that critical evaluation and fundamental alternatives are given insufficient room or are actively discouraged.

There is no simple line where on the left ‘normal upbringing’ ends and on the right ‘indoctrination’ suddenly begins. There can be degrees. That is why it is often more useful to look at concrete features than simply to apply a label.

Seven questions that say more than the label

Instead of immediately asking ‘Was I indoctrinated?’ you can explore:

Could I ask fundamental questions without being afraid of what others would think of me?

- Could I examine information for and against my belief?

- Was I taught how to think, or also what the correct conclusion had to be?

- Could I say that the organization was wrong about something without this changing my position within the group?

- Could I change my belief without expecting major social consequences?

- Could I distinguish between Jehovah, the Bible, the organization, and the people within the organization?

- If I had been born into a different family and a different religion, how likely is it that I would have arrived at exactly the same belief on my own?

No single question proves indoctrination on its own. Together, however, they can make visible how much room there really was to investigate independently.

What does the BITE model have to do with this?

Indoctrination and the BITE model are not the same. Steven Hassan’s BITE model takes a broader look at four areas of possible authoritarian influence: behavior, information, thoughts, and emotions.

Indoctrination is mainly about the way beliefs are taught and how critically those beliefs can be examined. The BITE model also looks at how behavior, social environment, information, and emotions can exert influence.

That is why the two concepts complement each other.

Realizing you were influenced does not make you stupid

People who later change their beliefs may feel ashamed: How could I ever have believed this?

But that is a rather unhelpful conclusion. Our beliefs are never formed in a vacuum. Everyone is influenced by parents, culture, education, friends, media, experiences, and the groups they belong to. Intelligent and critical people are not immune to social influence.

The better question is therefore not: ‘How could I have been so stupid?’ But: ‘How did my belief develop, what information did I have at the time, and how much room did I experience to really question it?’

You do not have to reject all your old beliefs

Discovering that you were strongly influenced does not automatically mean that everything you learned is false. That would once again be black-and-white thinking.

Maybe you want to preserve certain values. Maybe you still believe in Jehovah. Maybe you remain a Christian. Maybe you become agnostic or atheist. Maybe you still do not know.

Independent thinking does not mean that you are obliged to reach a particular new conclusion. It means, rather, that the conclusion may be examined again.

In closing

Perhaps in the end indoctrination is less interesting as a label than as a question.

Not: ‘Was I indoctrinated: yes or no?’

But: How was my worldview formed? What alternatives did I know? What information was I allowed to examine? What emotions played a role? How important was belonging? What happened when I deviated? And how much room did I really have to say: maybe I believe something else?

After that examination, you may decide that your belief is still correct. You may change it. Or you may say: ‘I don’t know yet.’ That too is a possible outcome of independent inquiry.

Perhaps the most important question is not who influenced you, but whether you now give yourself permission to re-examine everything you have learned.

Sources

American Psychological Association - information about social influence, conformity, and group processes
Robert Jay Lifton - Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism
Edgar H. Schein - Coercive Persuasion
Leon Festinger - A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Steven Hassan - Freedom of Mind and the BITE Model of Authoritarian Control
JW.org - How do I become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
JW.org - Do Jehovah’s Witnesses force their children to adopt their faith?
JW.org - publications about apostasy and information from apostates
The Watchtower - articles about parents, children, and baptism