Indoctrination and Power: A Sociological Reading

Indoctrination isn't just a psychological issue. It can be viewed from a social perspective as a phenomenon that occurs when a community internalizes a set of ideas and values ​​without questioning them, often through tools such as education, the media, and propaganda.

In the field of sociology, therefore, indoctrination is not understood simply as a technique of individual manipulation, but as a systemic mechanism of social control , deeply rooted in the structure of institutions. It plays a strategic role within political and religious systems because it works on the collective imagination , contributing to the production of legitimacy, the normalization of authority, and the management of dissent. It is not an exceptional device of totalitarian regimes, but a standard technology of power , which is also perfectly suited to democratic and post-secular contexts.

Political power and the need for ideological consensus

To survive, every political order must do more than exert force: it must convince , train in loyalty , and above all neutralize critical thinking that could undermine its stability. In this sense, indoctrination is a fundamental resource. As Althusser (1970) explained, the State acts not only through repressive apparatuses (police, courts, army), but also—and above all—through ideological ones : school, family, the media, religion. In these spaces, the "normal man" is constructed, one who accepts the world as it is without question.

Political indoctrination is never neutral: it selects the past, defines the present, and imagines the future. We see it in authoritarian regimes like Russia, where control over historical narrative and information management allowed the government to justify the invasion of Ukraine as a "special operation," leveraging a national identity artfully constructed through schools, state media, and the selective repression of dissent. But we also see it in liberal democracies: just consider how the Trump administration in the United States is combating all forms of dissent—from anti-immigrant policies to universities—with the goal of protecting "national pride" and creating a narrative that reflects MAGA principles, or the exaggeration of WASP culture.

These are not simple examples of revisionism: they are manifestations of systemic indoctrination , in which the state promotes a closed, simplified, and morally legitimate collective identity. Its function is not only educational, but also identity-building and normative : to decide who we are, what we can know, what we are permitted to desire. This is where politics meets religion.

Religion and indoctrination

Religion has historically been one of the most powerful tools of social indoctrination. It's not so much—or not only—about inculcating metaphysical beliefs, but about structuring behaviors, roles, hierarchies, and worldviews so that they appear not only desirable, but sacred and immutable. As early as the late nineteenth century, sociologist Émile Durkheim demonstrated how religion was the primary form through which a society gains self-awareness and consolidates itself as a normative order.

In its institutionalized forms, religion functions as a comprehensive interpretative framework , capable of explaining everything: birth, death, justice, guilt, sexuality, destiny. This is where indoctrination finds fertile ground: not only because doctrines are transmitted from childhood, but because they do so with a claim to absolute , unquestionable truth, which penalizes any form of doubt as sin or deviance.

Legitimation and sacralization of the social order

Even today, in many parts of the world, religions serve as central mechanisms of political indoctrination. In Iran, the theocratic regime bases its legitimacy on a Shiite interpretation of Islamic law (Sharia), enforced through compulsory religious education, cultural censorship, and the repression of women. Public expressions of dissent, such as those sparked after the death of Mahsa Amini, oppose not only a policy, but an entire ideological infrastructure—religious and patriarchal—that shapes consciences from a very young age.

But religion as indoctrination isn't just about political Islam. Even in Western democracies, forms of Christian fundamentalism are infiltrating public debate, influencing educational, healthcare, and sexual choices. The case of "evangelicalism" in the United States, which actively supports ultraconservative policies on abortion, LGBT rights, and sexual education, shows how a religious vision can become an ideological apparatus serving political power. It's no coincidence that many contemporary populist leaders have sought and gained the support of fundamentalist churches, trading civil liberties for ideological adherence.

Social Indoctrination: The Israeli Example

In the context of the State of Israel, this process finds one of its most evident expressions in Zionism and the policies implemented under the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Zionism, born in 1897 as a political and cultural movement, shaped Jewish national identity around the dream of a return to the "Promised Land ." Through schools, institutions, and the media, this narrative was disseminated widely, building a sense of belonging and national legitimacy. However, this strong identity also contributed to a one-sided vision of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often limiting the capacity for internal criticism and dialogue.

Under Netanyahu, this narrative has intensified: government rhetoric often emphasizes the danger posed by Palestinians and their Arab neighbors, justifying harsh security policies, restrictions on Palestinian rights, and a strong militarization of society. Media campaigns, national celebrations, and symbols such as the flag or Holocaust remembrance are used as tools to cement a shared identity and normalize a way of thinking that tends to exclude dissent (Finkelstein, 2002).

This intertwining of national identity, politics, and communication represents a fundamental key to understanding not only Israeli society, but also the difficulties in finding a peaceful and shared solution to the Middle Eastern conflict.

Jihadist indoctrination today: how do you make a soldier of faith?

Jihadist indoctrination presents itself as yet another sophisticated form of psychological-religious engineering , which affects vulnerable, disillusioned, or marginalized individuals, offering them not only an ideology, but an alternative identity: pure, heroic, absolute. It is in this space that violence becomes a duty, martyrdom a social advancement, and religion a tool for political mobilization.

Extremist actors construct a powerful narrative: the world is split in two, "authentic" Islam on one side, the chaos of the West and Muslim "traitors" on the other. Within this binary vision, the fighter is not a criminal, but a "lion of God," part of a global brotherhood. Each step is punctuated by rituals and symbols, decontextualized religious texts, and videos aestheticized as epic trailers. Violent death is reinterpreted as a glorious rebirth.

The example of Hamas

In the case of Hamas , this logic takes on a more widespread and communal dimension. The Palestinian Islamist movement has built a parallel educational system—schools, mosques, summer camps—in which religious narratives merge with the memory of the Nakba, the humiliation of occupation, and the ideal of liberation. Even children's textbooks feature images of Jerusalem "to be reconquered," Qur'anic verses on jihad, and the exaltation of martyrdom. Not just an ideology, then, but a comprehensive pedagogy of resistance , in which the individual grows immersed in a symbolic language that normalizes violence.

And today? Although ISIS has lost the territories of the caliphate, jihadist indoctrination is far from gone. It has morphed. ISIS-K , active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia, is also gaining media attention. The March 2024 attack on the Crocus concert hall in Moscow was claimed by this group. The attackers were young people radicalized online, who grew up thousands of kilometers away from the organization's headquarters.

Even in Europe, the threat persists. People radicalize themselves alone, often in their own privacy, through Telegram groups, closed forums, or videos on opaque platforms. Today, we can speak of a new era of self-indoctrination , where the figure of the charismatic preacher is replaced by algorithmically enhanced content crafted to influence, move, and activate.

In this context, jihadist indoctrination is not a simple transmission of ideas: it is a parallel construction of reality , capable of replacing affections, the future, and the meaning of life. Fighting it requires not only repressive tools, but also cultural and social ones: because where integration fails, fanaticism thrives.

Indoctrination as a command: why does it work?

The most profound, and most disturbing, aspect of sociological indoctrination is that it doesn't necessarily require lies to be effective . Its strength lies in its ability to render alternatives invisible. It's an action that convinces not so much through persuasion as through the saturation of meaning. When an entire society converges on a single vision of reality, then anyone who dissents isn't simply wrong: they're unthinkable, unheard of, unworthy. Indoctrination succeeds when critical thinking appears as a threat, not a resource.

In the contemporary world, this form has evolved, becoming more fluid but no less effective. It no longer imposes itself solely through sermons or political proclamations, but also through popular culture, consumption, and the spectacularization of identity . Social networks, far from being neutral spaces of expression, often function as echo chambers where beliefs are reinforced, enemies constructed, and complexity expelled. In this scenario, indoctrination no longer appears as a vertical imposition, but as a horizontal and self-induced adherence , with individuals actively contributing to the construction of their own cognitive cage.

Is a society without indoctrination possible?

Every human group needs to establish common frameworks, guiding values, and shared narratives. But the crucial difference lies in the degree of transparency and pluralism with which these narratives are produced. When indoctrination becomes an instrument of power—political or religious—to shield reality and exclude dissent, then it becomes dangerous. The task of sociology is not to unmask a hidden truth, but to make the invisible visible : to show how certain thoughts dominate not because they are true, but because they have become normal.

References

• Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatusesRome: United Publishers.
• Asad, T. (2006). Formations of secularism: Christianity, Islam, modernityMilan: Ombre Corte.
• Bauman, Z. (2000). Modernity and ambivalenceRome-Bari: Laterza.
• Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1972). Reproduction. Elements for a Theory of the Teaching System. Rome: Armando Editore.
• Durkheim, É. (2005). The elementary forms of religious lifeMilan: Raffaello Cortina Editore.
  (Original work published in 1912)
• Finkelstein, N.G. (2002). The Holocaust Industry: The Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. Rizzoli.
• Gramsci, A. (1975). Prison notebooks. Turin: Einaudi.
• Mancini, S. (2022). Law and Religion: A Comparative Perspective. Bologna: The Mill.
• Zuboff, S. (2020). The capitalism of surveillanceMilan: Luiss University Press.