Issues around Ethnocentrism

ETHNOCENTRISM

DEFINITION:

1) The belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.

2) A tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

Origin.

Ethnocentrism = ethno + center + ism

Thus, simply when a person keeps his ethnicity at centre, its being ethnocentric.

Ethnocentrism:

Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture. The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to his or her own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions and subdivisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity. Ethnocentrism may be overt or subtle, and while it is considered a natural proclivity of human psychology, it has developed a generally negative connotation.

"Ethnocentrism" is a commonly used word in circles where ethnicity, inter-ethnic relations, and similar social issues are of concern. The usual definition of the term is "thinking one's own group's ways are superior to others" or "judging other groups as inferior to one's own". "Ethnic" refers to cultural heritage, and "centrism" refers to the central starting point... so "ethnocentrism" basically refers to judging other groups from our own cultural point of view. But even this does not address the underlying issue of why people do this. Most people, thinking of the shallow definition, believe that they are not ethnocentric, but are rather "open minded" and "tolerant." However, as explained below, everyone is ethnocentric, and there is no way not to be ethnocentric... it cannot be avoided, nor can it be willed away by a positive or well-meaning attitude.

To address the deeper issues involved in ethnocentrism calls for a more explicit definition. In this sense, ethnocentrism can be defined as: making false assumptions about others' ways based on our own limited experience. The key word is assumptions, because we are not even aware that we are being ethnocentric... we don't understand that we don't understand.

The definition given above emphasizes that we make false assumptions based on our own limited experience. This is all we know... what we have already experienced is the basis for our "reality", what we expect. It is normal to assume it is the "natural" basis of reality... because our own ways work for us. Our perceptions of colors, our time frames, our values on industriousness, our social roles, our beliefs about Life and the Universe, and all our other ways help us organize life experience and provide important meanings and functions as we move through daily and life span activities. Therefore, our limited experiences we have already had are the basis for interpreting new experiences, in this case, others’ behavior.

Ethnocentrism is a major reason for divisions amongst members of different ethnicities, races, and religious groups in society. Ethnocentrism is the belief of superiority is one's personal ethnic group, but it can also develop from racial or religious differences.Ethnocentric individuals believe that they are better than other individuals for reasons based solely on their heritage. Clearly, this practice is related to problems of both racism and prejudice.While many people may recognize the problems, they may not realize that ethnocentrism occurs everywhere and everyday at both the local and political levels.

Examples of ethnocentrism:

One example of ethnocentrism is seen in the Inuit snowshoe race. Normally, we assumed that winning is the ultimate goal in a competition. But the Inuits enter the race for the sake of enjoyment and simply to participate. We have a binary conflict view of life (right or wrong, liberal versus conservative, etc.), and we impose "win or lose" perspective of life on the situation. As a result, we don’t understand how they experience life, that trying is a basic element of life. This did not necessarily involve thinking that our ways are superior, but rather that we  assumed our experience is not operational in another group's circumstances.

Another example illustrates how basic ethnocentrism is. If we go to a store and ask for a green coat and the sales clerk gives us a blue one, we would think the person was color blind at the best or stupid at the worst. However, "colors" are not so simple. The Inuit lump shades of what AngloAmericans call "blue" and "green" into one color category, tungortuk, which can only be translated as "bluegreen." Does this mean that they cannot see the difference? Just as we can distinguish between different shades (such as "sky blue" and "navy blue," and "kelly green" and "forest green"), so can the Inuit. If they want to refer to what we would call "green," they would say tungUYortuk, which can be translated something like "that bluegreen that looks like the color of a [conifer] tree." The point is that something so "simple" as colors has very different meanings to us and to the Inuit. How could an Inuk "feel blue"? Colors, after all, are only different wavelengths of light, and the rainbow can be divided in many different ways.

There are many, many examples of such differences in meanings that make life experience so unique for all the human groups around the world. For example, English has tenses built into our verb forms, so we automatically think in terms of time (being "punctual," "time is money," "make the time," etc.). But Algonquian Indian languages do not have tenses (not that they cannot express time if they wish), but rather have "animate" and "inanimate" verb forms, so they automatically think in terms of whether things around them have a life essence or not. So when Chippewa Indians do not show up for a medical appointment, Anglo health care workers may explain this as being "present oriented," since we normally cannot think except in terms of time frames. But this is the essence of ethnocentrism, since we may be imposing a time frame where none exists.

The assumptions we make about others' experience can involve false negative judgements, reflected in the common definition of ethnocentrism. For example, Anglos may observe Cree Indians sitting around a camp not doing obvious work that is needed and see Crees as "lazy". Westerners generally value "being busy" (industriousness), and so may not appreciate the Cree capacity to relax and not be compelled to pursue some activities of a temporary nature... nor realize how much effort is put into other activities like hunting.

Assumptions can also reflect false positive attitudes about others' ways. For example, we in urban industrial society frequently think of Cree Indians as being "free of the stresses of modern society," but this view fails to recognize that there are many stresses in their way of life, including the threat of starvation if injured while checking a trap line a hundred miles from base camp or when game cycles hit low ebbs. False positive assumptions are just as misleading as false negative assumptions.

Examples abound in our local communities, as well as around the world. When you think about your own experience with people from other ethnic groups and with attitudes expressed about relations with other countries, what examples come to your mind where you may have imposed your own views and feelings about life on their experience?

Origins of the concept and its study

The term ethnocentrism was coined by William G. Sumner, upon observing the tendency for people to differentiate between the in-group and others. He defined it as "the technical name for the view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it."[4] He further characterized it as often leading to pride, vanity, beliefs of one's own group's superiority, and contempt of outsiders.[5] Robert K. Merton comments that Sumner's additional characterization robbed the concept of some analytical power because, Merton argues, centrality and superiority are often correlated, but need to be kept analytically distinct.[4]

Anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski argued that any human science had to transcend the ethnocentrism of the scientist. Both urged anthropologists to conduct ethnographic fieldwork in order to overcome their ethnocentrism. Boas developed the principle of cultural relativism and Malinowski developed the theory of functionalism as guides for producing non-ethnocentric studies of different cultures. The books The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia, by Bronisław Malinowski, Patterns of Culture by Ruth Benedict, and Coming of Age in Samoa by Margaret Mead (two of Boas's students) are classic examples of anti-ethnocentric anthropology.

What is the problem with ethnocentrism?

Ethnocentrism leads to misunderstanding others. We falsely distort what is meaningful and functional to other peoples through our own tinted glasses. We see their ways in terms of our life experience, not their context. We do not understand that their ways have their own meanings and functions in life, just as our ways have for us. It also leads us to make false assumptions about cultural differences. We are ethnocentric when we use our cultural norms to make generalizations about other peoples' cultures and customs. Such generalizations -- often made without a conscious awareness that we've used our culture as a universal yardstick -- can be way off base and cause us to misjudge other peoples. Ethnocentrism also distorts communication between human beings.

At the heart of this is that we do not understand that we do not understand! So we aren't aware that we can develop more valid understandings about how they experience life.

At the best, we simply continue in our unawareness. Yet this can have consequences within our own society and in international relations. We may be well meaning in interethnic relations, for example, but can unintentionally offend others, generate ill feelings, and even set up situations that harm others. For example, it is easy not to see the life concerns of others (particularly minorities and the disadvantaged) or conversely to pity them for their inabilities to deal with life situations (like poverty or high crime rates). How do we feel when someone doesn't recognize our concerns, or feels sorry for us because we can't "just let go" of a stressful situation?

A lack of understanding can also inhibit constructive resolutions when we face conflicts between social groups. It is easy to assume that others "should" have certain perspectives or values. How often are we prone to address conflicts when others tell us how we should think and feel?

Ethnocentrism is also evident in international relations, creating conflicts and inhibiting resolution of conflicts. For example, how might our Western binary conflict view of life (A versus B) influence our interpretation of another group's intents when they express a different position on an issue? Is it just another" viewpoint, or is it "against" our viewpoint? If we don't "win" the conflict, will we "lose"? We may have positive intentions (from our viewpoint) in "helping" other groups deal with certain "problems," but how do they see the problem and what kind of solution do they want? Some peoples around the world see Americans as very competitive and violent people, as evidenced by our business practices, Hollywood movies, and events like the Columbine High School massacre. How much does this describe your personal experience? How do you think this perception might influence their assumptions about our intents in relations with their societies? An ultimate case of such misunderstandings is warfare, where many people are killed, maimed for life, have their families, subsistence, health, and way of life disrupted, sometimes forever.

There are extreme forms of ethnocentrism that pose serious social problems, of course, such as racism, colonialism, and ethnic cleansing. These views are generally condemned by the world community, but we regularly see such cases in the news.

One issue that we need to consider is that ethnocentrism is often exploited to foster conflict... and to promote the power of a particular group. History shows us that promoting an "us versus them" perspective, political, religious, and other groups foster discrimination and conflict to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Social conflict and wars usually have ethnocentrism at their core, which over time usually proves to be self-destructive for all concerned.

Can better understandings of others' life experience avoid conflicts that drain the resources and well-being of all parties, and instead promote cooperative relations between peoples to the mutual advantage of all?

So here we have a paradox: we falsely assume because we are not even aware we are assuming... and furthermore it is the normal thing to do. We cannot not be ethnocentric, and we cannot will it away or make ourselves have a completely open attitude. Is it ever possible not to be ethnocentric?

Ethnocentrism in Today's Society

Everybody can be accused on ethnocentrism at least once in their lives. Even though their crime may not be obvious to them, it is usually shown in little matters and ways of thinking. Ethnocentrism is simply the belief that one's group or culture is superior to another. This can be applied to race, different countries, or even to sexist or ageism issues. Typically, ethnocentrism is most commonly applied to race and other cultures/countries. Ethnocentrism is defined as a bad term. Wikipedia states, "The fallacy of ethnocentrism is committed by people who exaggerate the role of their own group in its interactions with other groups." However, in some cases, ethnocentrism can actually be a positive way of thinking.

Ethnocentrism is wrong for obvious reasons; it puts down a certain group or culture. I think the biggest case of ethnocentrism that America has experienced is the time of the second civil war. Ethnocentrism was what came between the white and black people for centuries. Even today, in 2007, white and black people are both suffering the consequences of the past ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism can lead to a group thinking they are self-righteous and better than another group. It also gives lead way to judge another culture's way of life. An example of this is when Adolph Hitler and his Nazi followers thought they were better then the Jewish people and even judged the Jewish people to be lower than dirt. This case of ethnocentrism lead to the horrifying deaths of about six million Jewish people. Hitler's ethnocentric mindset eventually led to World War 2.
Ethnocentrism has also been proven to be a positive thing as well. In regards to race, Mt. Diablo High School started having racially segregated school assemblies. In each assembly, they discussed the race's average test scores and encouraged them to do better. Although majority of the students and parents found these assemblies to be racist, the test scores improved among every racial group that year. However, while this may seem like a positive thing, it can also be a negative one as well. There was much confusion during the assemblies as well because the students who were racially mixed were torn between assembly groups.

Another positive thing birthed from ethnocentrism is patriotism. While extreme nationalism can lead to wars, having a sense of pride in one's country is always good for the society. Since Americans think they have the best culture, they tend to strut it around. With strutting around also comes a better lifestyle. Even though Americans do not have the best way of living, the belief of being the best has lead us to living a comfortable lifestyle. Being a little bit ethnocentric develops a strong unity in different people groups. It also helps social integration among groups. Social integration is a positive action according to Emile Durkheim. Durkheim even called social integration the "protection from suicide". So in a sense, ethnocentrism can be considered as a protection from suicide.

Another example of ethnocentrism can be seen in any military group. They use ethnocentrism to train new recruits. They teach every member that the "Army is the best," or the "Marines are the strongest", and so on. When they teach this to the members, they are heightening their group of fighters and lowering the others. The result of this has been brotherhood in each military group. It has also established extreme loyalty and respect that would carry several of these soldiers to sacrificing their lives. Although there seems to be a competition between each military group to be the best, no major offenses and crimes have been committed against one another.

In conclusion, ethnocentrism can be both a bad and good thing. It is good to be proud of one's heritage, country, and culture. Ethnocentrism can lead to social integration and strong personal, patriotism, and group ties. Two great examples of ethnocentrism being exercised for the common good can be seen in military groups and possibly Mt. Diablo High School. However, like anything in life, extremes are bad. Therefore extreme ethnocentrism can breed racism, hate crimes, and even wars. The worse cases of ethnocentrism can be seen in World War 2 and Civil War 2. Instead of people getting mad when others are being a little bit ethnocentric, they should first see the ethnocentrism in themselves. Then they should learn that a person's ethnocentrism is what their biases are.

Effects of Ethnocentrism:

Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture. Ethnocentrism often entails the belief that one's own race or ethnic group is the most important and/or that some or all aspects of its culture are superior to those of other groups. Within this ideology, individuals will judge other groups in relation to their own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behaviour, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions and sub-divisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity.

Ethnocentrism leads us to make false assumptions about cultural differences. We are ethnocentric when we use our cultural norms to make generalizations about other peoples' cultures and customs. Such generalizations -- often made without a conscious awareness that we've used our culture as a universal yardstick -- can be way off base and cause us to misjudge other peoples. Ethnocentrism also distorts communication between human beings.

Ethnocentric thinking causes us to make wrong assumptions about other people because . . .

Ethnocentrism leads us to make premature judgments.

"They" may not be very good at what we are best at.

By evaluating "them" by what we are best at, we miss the many other aspects of life that they often handle more competently than we do.

Conclusion:

The attitude of ethnocentrism brings about both positive and negative consequences to the group and to those outside the group. One of the advantages that it brings about is that it is unlikely to experience internal conflicts. Given that the group unanimously believes in a particular way of doing things, they abide with them and no opposition is likely to develop. The level of cohesion in such a group is very high and such is essential for developmental purposes. Another advantage is that an ethnocentric group is immune to external influence. For example communities that greatly value their traditions are unlikely to accept practices that are abolished by the values of the group like homosexuality. This enables them to maintain their long valued traditions for future generations.

Conducting market research within the group is easy because they will exhibit the same tastes and preferences. Furthermore the group is likely to share the same language thus one may not need an interpreter to communicate effectively. Thus carrying out in such a group is fast and economical.

Apart from the advantages that ethnocentric groups experience, they are bound to have negative consequences. For example there will be no diversity within the group thus missing on innovation and positive change that it comes with. This will render such a group outdated and out of touch with reality. Another disadvantage is that the group may wrongly evaluate the other people outside the group and miss out on the positive aspects that may be of benefit to them. Such a group is likely to prejudice and oppress other groups and cultures different from theirs.

Therefore, a highly ethnocentric group may be extinct and overtaken by events. For example a religious group may be using outdated practices such as use of non convectional methods of treatment. Although ethnocentrism still exists in the society, it should not be practiced on the extreme sides but find away of balancing their belief with those of other groups around them.