What do you understand by cultural relativistic approach & ethnocentric approach in the study of culture?

Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism were the approaches developed by anthropologists to analyse , interprest and understanding exogentious societies. Both approaches evolved in Mid 19th and first half of 20th century respectively. They differ in each other in following in manner.

1. Definition and Perspective:

• Ethnocentric Approach:
  • Definition: 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.”
  • Perspective: This approach assumes that one’s own culture is the norm or superior, and other cultures are judged as inferior or lacking if they differ from it.
• Cultural Relativism:
  • Definition: Cultural relativism is the practice of understanding and evaluating a culture based on its own values, beliefs, and practices, rather than comparing it to another culture.
  • Perspective: This approach advocates for an unbiased view of cultures, recognizing that all cultures have their own internal logic and should be understood in their own context.

2. Methodology:

• Ethnocentric Approach:
  • Comparison with Own Culture: Researchers using this approach often compare other societies directly to their own, using their culture’s standards as the benchmark.
  • Imposition of Norms: Ethnocentric methodologies may impose the researcher’s cultural norms on the study, which can distort the understanding of the studied culture.
• Cultural Relativism:
  • Contextual Understanding: Researchers aim to understand cultural practices within the context of the society being studied, without imposing external judgments.
  • Avoidance of Bias: Relativism seeks to avoid bias by respecting the diversity of cultural expressions and avoiding ethnocentric judgments.

3. Case Studies and Examples of Cultural:

• Ethnocentric Approach:
  • Lewis Henry Morgan’s Stages of Development (1877):
    • Case Study: In “Ancient Society,” Morgan categorized societies into stages of development: savagery, barbarism, and civilization, with Western civilization as the pinnacle of progress.
    • Ethnocentrism: Morgan’s framework imposed a Western developmental trajectory on all societies, portraying non-Western cultures as primitive and less evolved. This approach reflects an ethnocentric view by evaluating other societies through a Eurocentric lens.
  • E.B Tylor’s Primitive Culture (1861) and James Frazer’s Golden Bough
• Cultural Relativism:
  • Franz Boas and the Kwakiutl:
    • Case Study: Franz Boas, often called the father of American anthropology, studied the Kwakiutl people of the Pacific Northwest.
    • Cultural Relativism: Boas emphasized understanding the Kwakiutl’s rituals, myths, and social structures within their own cultural context, without comparing them to Western norms. He argued that every culture has its own unique development and should be studied on its own terms.
  • Margaret Mead’s Study of Samoa (1928):
    • Case Study: In “Coming of Age in Samoa,” Mead studied adolescent behavior in Samoa.
    • Cultural Relativism: Although later critiqued for possible biases, Mead’s approach was fundamentally relativistic. She sought to understand Samoan culture from the perspective of the Samoans themselves, highlighting the differences in how adolescence is experienced in different cultural contexts.
  • Ruth Benedict and Patterns of Culture (1934):
    • Case Study: Ruth Benedict’s “Patterns of Culture” examined the cultures of the Zuni, Dobu, and Kwakiutl peoples.
    • Cultural Relativism: Benedict argued that each culture develops its own coherent patterns of thought and behavior. She advocated for the idea that cultural practices should be understood within their specific cultural context, rather than judged against external standards.

4. Consequences and Implications:

• Ethnocentric Approach:
  • Consequences: This approach often leads to the misrepresentation and misunderstanding of cultures, reinforcing stereotypes and cultural hierarchies. It can perpetuate colonialist and racist ideologies by portraying certain cultures as inferior.
  • Implications: Ethnocentrism has been criticized for its role in justifying imperialism, racism, and cultural dominance, as it often legitimizes the suppression or marginalization of non-Western cultures.
• Cultural Relativism:
  • Consequences: Cultural relativism promotes a deeper and more respectful understanding of cultural diversity. It challenges ethnocentric biases and encourages the appreciation of different ways of life.
  • Implications: While cultural relativism is essential for avoiding ethnocentric judgments, it can also lead to ethical dilemmas. For example, the challenge arises when cultural practices conflict with universal human rights, prompting debates on how to balance cultural respect with ethical standards.

Conclusion:

The ethnocentric approach and cultural relativism represent two fundamentally different ways of studying and understanding societies. While ethnocentrism judges other cultures based on the observer’s cultural norms, cultural relativism seeks to understand and appreciate cultures on their own terms. The shift from ethnocentrism to relativism in anthropology has led to more nuanced, respectful, and accurate representations of cultural diversity, though it also presents challenges in navigating ethical questions across different cultural contexts.