- Ethnocentrism in anthropology—means to apply one’s own culture or ethnicity as a frame of reference to judge other cultures, practices, behaviors, beliefs, and people, instead of using the standards of the particular culture involved. Since this judgement is often negative, some people also use the term to refer to the belief that one’s culture is superior to, or more correct or normal than, all others—especially regarding the distinctions that define each ethnicity’s cultural identity, such as language, behavior, customs, and religion. In common usage, it can also simply mean any culturally biased judgment.
- The term “ethnocentrism” was first applied in the social sciences by American sociologist William G. Sumner. In his 1906 book, Folkways, Sumner describes ethnocentrism 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.” He further characterized ethnocentrism as often leading to pride, vanity, the belief in one’s own group’s superiority, and contempt for outsiders. In the War and Other Essays (1911), William G. Sumner wrote that “the sentiment of cohesion, internal comradeship, and devotion to the in-group, which carries with it a sense of superiority to any out-group and readiness to defend the interests of the in-group against the out-group, is technically known as ethnocentrism.”
- Theodore W. Adorno established a broader definition of the term as a result of “in group out group differentiation”, stating that ethnocentrism “combines a positive attitude toward one’s own ethnic/cultural group (the in-group) with a negative attitude toward the other ethnic/cultural group (the out-group).”
- Ethnocentrism is sometimes related to racism, stereotyping, discrimination, or xenophobia. However, the term “ethnocentrism” does not necessarily involve a negative view of the others’ race or indicate a negative connotation. The opposite of ethnocentrism is cultural relativism, which means to understand a different culture in its own terms without subjective judgments.
Ethnocentrism in Anthropology:
The classifications of ethnocentrism originate from the studies of anthropology. With its omnipresence throughout history, ethnocentrism has always been a factor in how different cultures and groups related to one another. Examples including how historically, foreigners would be characterized as “Barbarians”, However, the anthropocentric interpretations initially took place most notably in the 19th century when anthropologists began to describe and rank various cultures according to the degree to which they had developed significant milestones, such as monotheistic religions, technological advancements, and other historical progressions. Most rankings were strongly influenced by colonization and the belief to improve societies they colonized, ranking the cultures based on the progression of their western societies and what they classified as milestones. Comparisons were mostly based on what the colonists believed as superior and what their western societies have accomplished. Ideas developed by Charles Darwin has ethnocentric ideals where societies who believed they were superior were most likely to survive and prosper.
The ethnocentric classification of “primitive” were also used by 19th and 20th century anthropologists and represented how unawareness in cultural and religious understanding changed overall reactions to non-Western societies. Modern anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor wrote about “primitive” societies in Primitive Culture (1871) creating a “civilization” scale where it was implied that ethnic cultures preceded civilized societies. The use of “savage” as a classification is modernly known as “tribal” or “pre-literate” where it was usually referred as a derogatory term as the “civilization” scale became more common.
European travelers judged different languages based on that fact that they could not understand it and displayed a negative reaction, or the intolerance displayed by Westerners when exposed to unknown religions and symbolisms. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a German philosopher, justified Western colonization by reasoning that since the non-Western societies were “primitive” and “uncivilized”, their culture and history was not worth conserving and should allow Westernization.
However, Anthropologist Franz Boas saw the flaws in this formulaic approach to ranking and interpreting cultural development and committed himself to overthrowing this inaccurate reasoning due to many factors involving their individual characteristics. With his methodological innovations, Boas sought to show the error of the proposition that race determined cultural capacity. In his 1911 book The Mind of Primitive Man, Boas wrote that: It is somewhat difficult for us to recognize that the value which we attribute to our own civilization is due to the fact that we participate in this civilization, and that it has been controlling all our actions from the time of our birth; but it is certainly conceivable that there may be other civilizations, based perhaps on different traditions and on a different equilibrium of emotion and reason, which are of no less value than ours, although it may be impossible for us to appreciate their values without having grown up under their influence.
Together, Boas and his colleagues propagated the certainty that there are no inferior races or cultures. This egalitarian approach introduced the concept of cultural relativism to anthropology, a methodological principle for investigating and comparing societies in as unprejudiced as possible and without using a developmental scale as anthropologists at the time were implementing.
Boas and anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski argued that any human science had to transcend the ethnocentric views that could blind any scientist’s ultimate conclusions. Both had also urged anthropologists to conduct ethnographic fieldwork to overcome their ethnocentrism. To help, Malinowski would develop the theory of functionalism as guides for producing non-ethnocentric studies of different cultures. Classic examples of anti- ethnocentric anthropology include Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), which in time has met with severe criticism for its incorrect data and generalisations, Malinowski’s The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia (1929), and Ruth Benedict’s Patterns of Culture (1934). Mead and Benedict were two of Boas’s students.
Causes
Ethnocentrism is believed to be a learned behavior embedded into a variety of beliefs and values of an individual or group. Due to enculturation, individuals in in-groups have a deeper sense of loyalty and are more likely to following the norms and develop relationships with associated members. Within relation to enculturation, ethnocentrism is said to be a transgenerational problem since stereotypes and similar perspectives can be enforced and encouraged as time progresses. Although loyalty can increase better in-grouper approval, limited interactions with other cultures can prevent individuals to have an understanding and appreciation towards cultural differences resulting in greater ethnocentrism.
- The social identity approach suggests that ethnocentric beliefs are caused by a strong identification with one’s own culture that directly creates a positive view of that culture. It is theorized by Henri Tajfel and John C. Turner that to maintain that positive view, people make social comparisons that cast competing cultural groups in an unfavorable light. Alternative or opposite perspectives could cause individuals to develop naïve realism and be subject to limitations in understandings. These characteristics can also lead to individuals to become subject to ethnocentrism, when referencing out-groups, and black sheep effect, where personal perspectives contradict those from fellow in-groupers.
- Realistic conflict theory assumes that ethnocentrism happens due to “real or perceived conflict” between groups. This also happens when a dominant group may perceive the new members as a threat. Scholars have recently demonstrated that individuals are more likely to develop in-group identification and out-group negatively in response to intergroup competition, conflict, or threat.
- Although the causes of ethnocentric beliefs and actions can have varying roots of context and reason, the effects of ethnocentrism has had both negative and positive effects throughout history. The most detrimental effects of ethnocentrism resulting into genocide, apartheid, slavery, and many violent conflicts. Historical examples of these negative effects of ethnocentrism are The Holocaust, the Crusades, the Trail of Tears, and the internment of Japanese Americans. These events were a result of cultural differences reinforced inhumanely by a superior, majority group. The positive examples of ethnocentrism throughout history have aimed to prohibit the callousness of ethnocentrism and reverse the perspectives of living in a single culture. These organizations can include the formation of the United Nations; aimed to maintain international relations, and the Olympic Games; a celebration of sports and friendly competition between cultures.
Ethnocentrism and racism
Ethnocentrism is usually associated with racism. However, as mentioned before, ethnocentrism does not necessarily implicate a negative connotation. In European research the term racism is not linked to ethnocentrism because Europeans avoid applying the concept of race to humans; meanwhile, using this term is not a problem for American researchers. Since ethnocentrism implicated a strong identification with one’s in-group, it mostly automatically leads to negative feelings and stereotyping to the members of the outgroup, which can be confused with racism.
Finally, scholars agree that avoiding stereotypes is an indispensable prerequisite to overcome ethnocentrism; and mass media play a key role regarding this issue.