DESCRIPTION:

Are emotions really individual? Cultural influences shape emotional behaviour and regulation more profoundly than previously thought. Perspectives.

Emotion and cultural conditioning

What we experience as authentic emotions – anger, disgust, outrage, pride – is only partly individual. Cultural patterns shape our emotional experience more deeply than we realise. The anthropologist Franz Boas described this process in detail over a century ago.

Who am I when I feel collectively? This question arises at a time of particular urgency, when waves of outrage sweep through social media, when millions of people seem to share the same emotion – the same disgust, the same poignancy, the same anger. It feels real. It feels like me. But is it really?

The answer suggested by both anthropology and psychology is more uncomfortable than one might assume at first glance. Every day, psychology clings stubbornly to a model: emotions are the unadulterated expression of the inner self, authentic precisely when they burst forth unfiltered. Those who are angry are genuine. Those who cry reveal themselves. Those who feel disgust have sensed a moral truth.

This model is not wrong, but it is considerably oversimplified. It overlooks something fundamental: that cultural conditioning not only accompanies emotion but reaches deep into it, shaping both experience and behaviour before we even perceive it.

How collective emotions affect us personally

A significant proportion of the emotions people experience as deeply personal exhibit a collective dynamic operating beneath the surface, making individual regulation considerably more difficult.

Byung-Chul Han has described, in a different context, how the present day industrially produces emotional states: outrage, excitement and enthusiasm as the driving forces of the attention economy. What is less frequently discussed is that these states are not merely offered from the outside and then accepted or rejected. They are experienced as if they came from within. They feel like convictions, values and identity. Both negative and positive emotions activate the same mechanism: the culturally informed construction.

This would not have surprised Boas. Cultural patterns are so effective precisely because they are not recognised as cultural. They are integrated into the cognitive and affective system, invisible because they are the very means by which we perceive, and not merely what we perceive. That is why their defining characteristic is self-evidence.

Someone experiences intense shame – absolute, irrefutable, fundamental. Yet shame is essentially a cultural experience. A baby does not feel shame, but may well feel sad or happy. Shame, on the other hand, is real and painful. But it is not the neutral result of direct self-perception. It is a culturally shaped experience and can therefore be regulated once one understands how the model works.

Franz Boas: Cultural lenses, patterned practices and psychological unity

The anthropologist Franz Boas (1858–1942), founder of modern American anthropology and a scholar born in Germany, spent his life grappling with a question that still resonates in the behavioural sciences today: To what extent does the culturally shaped permeate what we consider to be our most immediate, individual experience?

Boas argued that cultures do not simply impose rules of behaviour that lie above some raw, pre-cultural experience.

What we perceive is already the result of a process of comparison between an incoming signal and a culturally pre-formed framework of perception. The result: supposedly objective perception is always already a filtered process.

We do not experience anger, disgust or pride beyond cultural categorisation; we experience them through this categorisation. Cultures do not merely teach how to express an emotion. They shape what becomes accessible as an emotional experience in the first place – a dimension that is consistently underestimated.

Boas develops his concept of culture explicitly in opposition to evolutionary stage theories that hierarchise cultures from ‘primitive’ to ‘civilised’. The starting point is the psychological unity of humanity: all humans share fundamental cognitive and affective potentials – Bastian’s ‘elementary thoughts’ – whose concrete manifestation, however, varies historically and culturally. In Boas’s view, culture appears as a system of ‘patterned practices’, traditional habits of perception, evaluation and action, which, through imitation and habituation, become cognitive and affective ‘habits’. His analysis of ‘alternating sounds’ demonstrates paradigmatically that even elementary sensory data – such as sounds – are not perceived ‘raw’, but are sorted into culturally familiar categories through classification. Boas generalises this perspective to the entire relationship between the individual and the world: what we experience as immediate reality – including emotion – is the result of ‘subjectively conditioned relations’, that is, culturally shaped attributions of meaning such as pure/impure, honourable/dishonourable, sacred/profane, which feel like natural givens. Boas conceptualises this phenomenon using the image of ‘cultural lenses’: our perceptions, our concepts and our emotional reactions are governed by a cultural optical system that remains as self-evident as it is invisible, as long as it is not explicitly reflected upon. From this perspective, emotions are not pre-existing, purely biologically determined ‘facts of nature’ that culture merely embellishes, but rather the expression of historically and culturally configured attributions of meaning, value systems, and patterns of imitation which – despite a shared psychological basis – each constitute a specific emotional reality.

Boas, Freud and Collective Emotions

So, when does what is felt individually cease to be truly individual?

Freud was interested in the moment when collective dynamics infiltrate the individual subject, the superego structures, the ego ideal, and the emotional reaction patterns, which, whilst appearing consistently individual, are based on group-psychological dynamics. His ‘Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego’ (1921) is an early theory of collective emotions, presented against the backdrop of a universal human need for protection from loneliness.

Boas combines this perspective with a cultural-anthropological dimension: it is not merely about dynamics within groups, but about how culture as such pre-shapes emotional experience before any group, any family, or any therapeutic situation even begins. The principle is: we experience ourselves as emotionally sovereign. But this experience is itself part of a construction. The community into which one grows up writes emotional ‘scripts’ long before one recognises them as such.

Cultural conditioning runs so deep that emotion and individual experience cannot be neatly separated. What I experience as my own revulsion is both physiologically real and culturally pre-formed. Both dimensions exist simultaneously. Negative and positive emotions are both genuinely felt and culturally constructed.

What enables insight into cultural conditioning is metacognitive reflective ability – the capacity to pause and question. Boas described this as a prerequisite for an open mind: the willingness to identify one’s own categories of perception as such, rather than regarding them as a transparent window onto reality. However, this perspective must be systematically developed.

Behaviour and Emotion

The idea that cultural patterns structure emotional experience is confirmed by recent research. In her theory of constructed emotion, Lisa Feldman Barrett has demonstrated, using extensive data, that the brain does not passively register emotions but actively constructs them, based on concepts acquired through socialisation.

It is repeatedly demonstrated that the experience, regulation, and expression of emotions are influenced by culturally embedded value systems and social norms, and that emotions rated as negative or positive are constructed and regulated differently across cultural contexts. Emotions are never purely biologically determined.

This means that what feels like an immediate, highly personal reaction – the outrage whilst scrolling through a timeline, the disgust at the sight of a news item, the pride following a success – has always been shaped by collective emotional categories, by culturally available forms of expression, and by the emotional habits of the group into which one has grown up.

Emotions in a cultural context

These considerations take on greater significance in light of the current culture of outrage. Collective emotions spread in real time across digital networks and are experienced by millions of people as an immediate personal reaction. This is no coincidence. It is the cultural mechanism described by Boas, operating under conditions of digital acceleration.

Research into emotional contagion on social networks – a well-documented shift in emotional regulation – shows that emotional values spread virally and shape users’ individual experiences without their awareness. Negative emotions are amplified particularly effectively in these environments because they can trigger stronger motivation to share than positive content does.

Whether a collective emotion is ‘justified’ is another question. What matters is simply this: do I have this emotion, or ‘does it have me’?

Frequently asked questions

Are emotions culturally determined? Yes, but not exclusively. Emotions arise from the interplay of universal neurobiological processes and culturally acquired concepts and habitual patterns. Cultural influence runs deeper than previously assumed: it shapes not only the expression but the very construction of emotional states themselves, encompassing both subjective experience and outwardly visible behaviour.

What are collective emotions? Collective emotions are emotional states shared not only by individuals but by social groups, arising from cultural categories, the media, shared experiences and emotional contagion. Anger or outrage on social media are typical examples of everyday collective emotions.

Can the cultural shaping of emotions be addressed in therapy? Not in the sense of complete liberation. What is possible is metacognitive reflection as a method: the ability to examine one’s own emotional reactions in terms of their cultural and biographical roots. This is a core competence of psychotherapy and forms the basis for sustainable emotional regulation.

What does Franz Boas have to do with psychology and behavioural sciences? Boas was an anthropologist, but explicitly understood his work as comparative psychology. He investigated how cultural conditioning shapes cognitive and affective perception – a central theme in the sciences that he shared with Freud and which continues to influence contemporary affective neuroscience.

What is emotional conditioning? Emotional conditioning refers to the process by which certain stimuli – situational, social or cultural – reliably trigger emotional responses. Cultural patterns of behaviour, in Boas’s sense, are a form of profound emotional conditioning that occurs so early and so comprehensively that it is experienced as natural rather than culturally shaped.

RELATED ARTICLES:

• History and Emotion: Fundamentals of the History of Emotions

• Shame in History

• Zorn in der Geschichte: Symbolik, Wahnsinn und Moral im Mittelalter

• Emotionale Authentizität: Bewusste Emotionen entwickeln für wahre Authentizität

• The Science of Emotions

• Neuroimaging zeigt, dass sich sämtliche menschlichen Emotionen im rechten Schläfenlappen befinden