In 2018, a group of women in Kerala attempted to enter the Sabarimala temple after the Supreme Court of India lifted restrictions on female devotees. Despite the legal ruling, they faced violent opposition from communities who insisted that the ban was divinely mandated. This example illustrates how religious authority can function as a control in terms of social context because the norms are designed as “spiritual” profit that is unquestioned in legacy through biases from authority. In particular, women might internalise all of these expectations as holy responsibilities instead of thinking of them as social constructs, making it harder to challenge and strengthen patriarchal hierarchies.
This article explores how authority bias legitimises religious norms, how women internalise expectations framed as divine rather than social, and why these norms are harder to challenge.
Read More: God, Gender, and Power: How Women Reclaim Spiritual Authority and Challenge Religious Patriarchy
Religious Lawfulness and Authority Bias
The term authority bias refers to the tendency to accept information or directives from an authority figure who has been perceived as such without any external and critical analysis (Milgram, 1974). When religious leaders or texts present norms as divinely ordained, believers comply more readily even if those norms restrict autonomy.
- Sacred framing: Hindu texts such as the Manusmriti prescribed women’s dependence on men, legitimising patriarchal control (Das, 2025).
- Unquestioned obedience: Authority bias transforms cultural practices into unquestioned truths.
- Social reinforcement: Communities reinforce compliance through rituals, sermons, and sanctions, embedding authority bias into everyday life (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2013).
Read More: Women Journalists in Patriarchal Societies
Internalising Patriarchal Mandates
Women as a gender are often believed to internalise religious expectations because they are framed to perform sacred duties.
- Framing patriarchy as sacred: Roles like modesty, obedience, or any sacrifice are represented as spiritual obligations. Resisting it feels like betrayal of faith rather than disagreement.
- Psychological mechanism: Incorporation of these duties occurs through repeated rituals, teachings, and community reinforcement. The equation of compliance with moral purity and disobedience with sin is done by women (Chattopadhyay & Roy Chowdhury, 2024).
Read More: The Psychology Behind Following Leaders: Why People Trust and Identify with Authority
Few examples;
- Veiling practices: To regulate female sexuality and reinforce kinship solidarity by veiling practices (Das, 2025).
- Menstruation taboos: Taboos related to menstruation restrict women’s participation in rituals, stating that it’s impure (Gudykunst & Lee, 2001).
- Devadasi tradition: The tradition of devadasi, which presents girls to temples, but in reality, it is to trap them in exploitation, stating it on the terms of religious sanction (Das, 2025).
Religion as a Social Control
The functionality of religious practices or groups is usually seen as the epitome of social conduct, so they have social control by embedding laws into institutional, legal, and symbolic frameworks.
- Institutional power: Groups like religious institutions act as ushers of morality, explaining behaviours that are acceptable and punishing transgressions (Culture, Religion, and Gender Norms, 2025).
- Legal frameworks: Personal laws, which are religion based which are historically limited women’s rights (Springer, 2025).
- Symbolic control: The bodies of women were treated as symbols of honour within the community, which makes autonomy subject to collective policing (APA, 2026).
Cognitive Dissonance and Compliance
Women who were experiencing disputes between personal desires and religious demands often found a solution to resolve cognitive dissonance by conforming (Festinger, 1957). For instance, a woman who values independence but is taught obedience may suppress autonomy to decrease psychological discomfort.
A study done in 2024, that found that across all religions, the autonomy of women in healthcare, property, and labour participation remained limited despite legal reformations (Chattopadhyay & Roy Chowdhury, 2024). The reframing of religious gender roles continuously adds to expectations from patriarchal demands, with the perception of women’s compliance as a spiritual duty.
Outcomes of Internalisation
- Inadequate independence: Women who avoid challenging rules and believe resistance is sinful.
- Deep-rooted gender bias: Patriarchal structures are reproduced across generations, ensuring internalisation.
- Reform difficulty: The rules which are framed as divine face resistance to legal or social change.
Conclusion
The authorities that are religious become or present as social control when the rules and regulations are legitimised through authority bias. The internalisation of the expectations of women being framed as divine makes these norms harder to challenge, reinforcing patriarchy into identity and social structures. To understand these psychological mechanisms- authority bias, cognitive dissonance, and formation of identity that reveals why religiously sanctioned gender roles persist despite modern reformation.
References +
- American Psychological Association. (2022). Racism, bias, and discrimination. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/topics/racism-bias-discrimination
- Chattopadhyay, S., & Roy Chowdhury, J. (2024). Does Religion Affect Women’s Agency? Empirical Evidence from India. Journal of Economics, Race, and Policy, 7(4), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41996-024-00141-7
- GENDER, PATRIARCHY AND RELIGION – Religion and society. (2026). Inflibnet.ac.in. https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/socp12/chapter/gender-patriarchy-and-religion
- Culture, Religion, and Gender Norms: Shaping Social Identities» Gender Studies. (2025, September 16). Gender Studies. https://gender.study/psychology-of-gender/culture-religion-gender-norms-social-identities
- Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. The American Journal of Psychology, 72(1).
- Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2001). An Agenda for Studying Ethnicity and Family Communication. Journal of Family Communication, 1(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327698jfc0101_09
- Zeigler-Hill, V., Southard, A. C., Archer, L. M., & Donohoe, P. L. (2013). Neuroticism and Negative Affect Influence the Reluctance to Engage in Destructive Obedience in the Milgram Paradigm. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.713041
