The Influence of Culture on Society and Religion: A Psychoanalytic View

Why do people in different cultures pray differently, fear different things, and raise their children with such distinct beliefs? The answer isn’t simply tradition – it runs much deeper, into the human psyche itself. Psychoanalytic theory, best known for exploring the inner world of the individual, has long offered a compelling lens for understanding how culture, society, and religion are not separate domains but deeply intertwined systems that shape – and are shaped by – unconscious psychological forces.

What psychoanalysis has to do with society 🔗

Psychoanalytic sociology is the field that applies methods developed for analyzing the individual mind to analyze society as a whole. At its core, it recognizes that the same unconscious processes governing individual psychology – repression, projection, guilt, desire – also operate at a collective level, giving rise to social norms, cultural rituals, and religious systems.

The individual interacts with a wide range of social groupings – family, class, religion, ethnicity, culture, and society – and all of these may shape psychological experience at once. This means that to understand a person’s inner world, one must also understand the cultural and societal world they inhabit. The two cannot be separated.

The greatest theoretical challenge in this area, as scholars have pointed out, is resisting the either/or trap – neither reducing everything psychological to the social, nor reducing social life entirely to the psychological. The goal is a genuinely integrated model that accounts for both.

Freud’s foundational argument: religion as a collective psychological product 🔗

Sigmund Freud was among the first to systematically apply psychoanalytic thinking to religion and culture. His argument was bold and provocative: religious belief is not a divine truth but a projection of deeply human, unconscious needs.

The Future of an Illusion 🔗

In The Future of an Illusion (1927), Freud argued that religion serves a defensive psychological function – it provides protection against the overwhelming forces of nature and compensates for the frustrations civilization imposes on individuals. For society to function, people must suppress their destructive impulses; religion, in Freud’s view, helps manage this suppression by offering meaning, moral authority, and comfort.

Freud concluded that all religious beliefs are “illusions” driven by wish fulfillment – projections of the child’s relationship with a powerful, protective father figure onto a cosmic scale. Just as a child depends on a father for safety and order, adults project those same needs onto God and divine authority.

Totem and Taboo: the social origins of religion 🔗

Even earlier, in Totem and Taboo (1913), Freud linked the origins of religion directly to the origins of society. Freud postulated that all religion was in effect an extended and collective form of guilt and ambivalence, rooted in a primal act of patricide in early human groups. The guilt generated by killing the dominant father figure became the psychological seed of totemism and later of organized religion – a shared way of processing and atoning for collective transgression.

Freud also connected the structures of civilization to the suppression of instinctual drives, arguing that limiting regulations on desire were necessary for communal life to emerge. Religion, in this framework, plays a key role in enforcing and legitimizing those limits – making cultural repression feel not just obligatory but sacred.

While Freud’s specific historical claims have been widely criticized by anthropologists, the emphasis on the past being alive in the present remains central to psychoanalytic approaches to both the individual and to society. Cultural practices, taboos, and religious rituals are, from this view, living traces of older psychological conflicts.

Jung and Fromm: expanding the psychoanalytic view of religion 🔗

Freud’s framework was influential but contested. Two of the most significant thinkers to build on and revise it were Carl Jung and Erich Fromm, each of whom developed a substantially different account of the relationship between psyche, culture, and religion.

Jung and the collective unconscious 🔗

Carl Jung departed from Freud’s reductive view of religion as neurosis. For Jung, the essence of religious experience is the encounter with powers beyond the individual self – forces that, rather than being dismissed as illusions, reflect the deeper architecture of the human psyche. Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious held that all humans share a layer of the unconscious populated by archetypes – universal symbols and patterns that recur across cultures in myths, dreams, and religious imagery.

This is why, Jung argued, a creation myth from ancient India can bear striking resemblance to one from pre-Columbian America: not because of cultural contact, but because both draw from the same deep psychological reservoir. Religious symbols, on this reading, are not irrational relics but meaningful expressions of universal human experience. Jung’s framework gave cultural and religious diversity a psychological legitimacy that Freud’s approach largely denied.

Fromm: social character and humanistic religion 🔗

Erich Fromm argued that an individual’s personality was the product of culture as well as biology, taking direct issue with Freud’s heavy emphasis on biological drives. For Fromm, societal structures, economic systems, and cultural values actively shape character. His concept of social character referred to the ways in which shared societal norms and values mold personality and behavior across entire populations.

Fromm also reframed religion itself. Rather than dismissing it, he drew a distinction between authoritarian and humanistic religious experience. Authoritarian religion demands surrender to a higher power, which for Fromm involved a loss of individual autonomy and integrity. Humanistic religion, by contrast, centers on human growth, self-awareness, and love – values Fromm considered essential to psychological health.

Crucially, Fromm argued that the socio-economic situation in a culture or society is more important in determining the type of religious experience that emerges than the specific theological tradition involved. Some strands of Buddhism, for instance, could be deeply authoritarian in practice, while certain expressions of Christianity carried genuinely humanistic qualities. The character of religion, in other words, is shaped by the society that hosts it.

Societal norms and the formation of religious identity 🔗

One of the most important insights from psychoanalytic theory is that cultural norms are not simply external rules people follow – they are internalized. Through childhood development, family dynamics, and social experience, the expectations of one’s culture become part of one’s psychological structure: the superego, in Freudian terms. This means that religious identity is never formed in isolation; it is built from the raw material of social life.

The norms of a society – who is respected, what behaviors are prohibited, what rituals mark life transitions – all feed into the individual’s developing sense of self, moral obligation, and relationship to the sacred. The problem for social psychoanalysis is to account both for the ways that norms are internalized and for what makes psychic resistance and challenge to those norms possible. This tension is visible in religious life too: individuals sometimes conform to the religious expectations of their community, and sometimes break from them, often at great psychological cost.

The Hindu context: Sudhir Kakar and Indian psyche 🔗

Western psychoanalytic theory was developed largely within a European cultural context, which raised serious questions about its applicability elsewhere. One of the most important attempts to adapt and extend psychoanalytic thinking to a non-Western setting was the work of Indian psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar (1938-2024), widely considered a pioneering figure in cultural psychology and the psychology of religion.

Kakar infused classical psychoanalysis with uniquely Indian experiences of tradition, religion, mythology, and folklore to enter the inner world of Hindu families and households. His landmark work, The Inner World: A Psycho-Analytic Study of Childhood and Society in India (1978), explored how cultural routines and religious practices influence the development of children’s identities, providing a nuanced account of the intersection between mythology and psychology in Indian society.

The mother-child relationship and Hindu identity 🔗

One of Kakar’s central observations concerned the early mother-child relationship in Hindu households and its formative effect on the psyche. In Indian families, the infant’s world is characterized by prolonged physical closeness with the mother, deep bodily attunement, and relatively permissive early childhood. The child may sleep with the mother well into puberty, shifting to another family member’s bed only when space requires it. This shapes a particular psychological orientation – one in which the boundaries of self and other are more fluid, and where intimacy, dependency, and spiritual merger are more culturally available experiences.

Kakar connected this to the Hindu religious ideal of moksha – liberation through dissolution of the individual ego into a greater whole. The psychological groundwork for this spiritual aspiration, he argued, is laid in the earliest experiences of infancy. Culture and religion here are not separate systems but deeply continuous ones.

Sexuality, spirituality, and the cultural unconscious 🔗

Kakar also addressed the Hindu integration of sexuality and spirituality – a relationship that Freudian theory, with its emphasis on repression and sublimation, struggles to account for. Kakar highlighted how Hindu tradition posits that sexual energy can transform into spiritual power, as evidenced in tantric practices and discussions of the Kamasutra as a spiritual as well as erotic text. Rather than repression, what operates in much of Hindu religious life is a transmutation of desire – a very different psychological mechanism.

Kakar introduced the concept of a cultural unconscious – the idea that just as individuals carry unconscious material shaped by their personal histories, entire cultures carry unconscious patterns imprinted through shared myths, rituals, values, and social arrangements. This cultural unconscious is imprinted by cultural myths, values, and products and shapes how people within that culture experience themselves, relate to others, and approach the sacred.

The guru-student relationship as a psychosocial structure 🔗

Another area where Kakar’s work illuminates the intersection of culture, society, and religion is the guru-shishya (teacher-student) relationship. Kakar held that the ability to realize mystical experience is enhanced through the guru-shishya relationship as exemplified in most Hindu and Buddhist schools. From a psychoanalytic standpoint, this relationship mirrors key aspects of the parent-child dynamic – authority, trust, idealization, and the gradual internalization of the teacher’s values – but transposes them into a spiritual register.

This is a clear example of how societal role structures (the authority of the teacher) and cultural norms (deference, devotion, spiritual aspiration) interact with individual psychology to produce a specifically Hindu form of religious experience. It cannot be explained by biology or by universal psychological laws alone; it requires cultural context.

Culture shapes religion, and religion shapes culture 🔗

A central point across all these thinkers – Freud, Jung, Fromm, and Kakar – is that the relationship between culture and religion is not one-directional. Mental health practitioners working psychoanalytically must adapt their approaches to account for differences that exist due to society, culture, religion, and related factors. This is not just a clinical recommendation; it reflects a deeper theoretical truth: that psychological concepts developed in one cultural context cannot simply be transplanted to another without distortion.

The guilt-driven totemism Freud described may resonate with aspects of Western Christian culture, where sin, atonement, and a paternal divine authority are central. But in Hindu culture, where the divine takes thousands of forms – maternal, erotic, destructive, playful – the psychological dynamics of religious life are substantially different. Kakar’s concern has been to understand the connection between subjective imagination and cultural processes as manifested in myths, folklore, popular arts, and the life histories of individuals.

What psychoanalytic theory ultimately contributes to the sociology of religion is not a single universal explanation but a set of conceptual tools – projection, internalization, the unconscious, social character, the cultural unconscious – that help make sense of why religious life takes the specific forms it does in any given society. The content of belief, the style of worship, the structure of religious authority: all of these are shaped by the psychological needs, conflicts, and cultural histories of the people who practice them.

What do you think? If religious expression is partly shaped by the unconscious dynamics of the culture that produces it, what does this suggest about the experience of people who convert to a religion from a completely different cultural background – do they adopt a new psychological framework, or adapt the religion to fit the one they already carry? And how might psychoanalytic insights change the way we approach intercultural religious dialogue?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalytic_sociology
2. https://tapmagazine.org/all-articles/psychoanalysis-and-the-social
3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3192378/
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud%27s_views_on_religion
5. https://iep.utm.edu/freud-r/
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem_and_Taboo
7. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/freud/freud03.html
8. https://medium.com/@dr.victor.bodo/two-psychological-titans-jung-and-fromm-65e302af9e84
9. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Erich-Fromm
10. https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/relexp/reviews/review_fromm01.htm
11. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/leaders-in-the-making/202405/how-sudhir-kakar-redefined-the-inner-world
12. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354067X251389921
13. https://terapia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Pschoanalysis-and-non-western-cultures.pdf
14. https://www.academia.edu/26635737/IN_A_BID_TO_RESTATE_THE_CULTURE_PSYCHE_PROBLEMATIC_REVISITING_THE_ESSENTIAL_WRITINGS_OF_SUDHIR_KAKAR_1
15. https://scroll.in/article/1067613/tribute-psychoanalyst-and-writer-sudhir-kakar-reminded-the-world-of-the-indian-way-of-dreaming
16. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/psychologicalroots/chapter/psychoanalysis-a-global-perspective/
17. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026525312705