Ethnocentrisn

ABSTRACT

The disciplined study of ethnocentrism is relatively young, although it is an issue which has always been existent in the societies of the world. Although it has, as an issue come to the forefront of our focus in recent times it has been poorly treated and has met with definite and strong resistance when met with liberal and open minds. This topic is not one which is bound to any specific region, territory or peoples but transcends all known barriers and classifications. It is without doubt of universal renown. The sources used in this research came from books, journals and magazines. The result of this paper was that ethnocentrism is a learnt behaviour, and once learnt it takes Herculean effort to control. It is evident that while we cannot not be ethnocentric we can however, control for this bias whenever we recognise that it has reared its head and is wreaking havoc.

INTRODUCTION

According to Hutnik, (1991) ethnocentrism refers to the position that one particular culture is more important or better than another (p.40) and in order for us to fully understand the concept of ethnocentrism, we must first remember that culture and not race is a set of learned attributes including behaviour patterns, arts, beliefs, customs, language, lifestyles, values and the other products of human work. The concept of ethnocentrism illustrates the ways in which people come to accept their own culture as 'normal' while the cultures of other societies, because they are different, come to be viewed as 'inferior,' or 'unnatural.'

To advocate for a single culture over another denies the rich tapestry of cultures that make us who we are. Ethnocentrism is an out dated notion with no relevance in our global cosmopolitan society. According to Smith (1993) it is important to note that there are three levels at which ethnocentrism can exist: a positive, a negative, and an extremely negative level. The positive meaning defines ethnocentrism as the point of view that one's own way of life is to be preferred to all others (pp.297-299). Yet another source believed that there is nothing wrong with such feelings, as it is this point of view that gives people their sense of people-hood, group identity, and place in history (Druckman, 1994, p. 46)

Sumner (1906) stated that ethnocentrism becomes negative when one's own group becomes the center of everything, and all other are scaled and rated with reference to it (p.13). It escalates to extremely negative proportions when the more powerful group not only imposes its rule on another, but also actively depreciates the things they hold to be of value. This third level of ethnocentrism is found in examples of racial segregation, the holocaust, and genocide of a race of people, where extremists and fantasists manipulate and severely distort this valid and dynamic human facet.

ORIGIN OF ETHNOCENTRISM

Ethnocentrism came into popular language in the 19th century. It originally meant simply a belief in the cultural superiority of one's own ethnic group. It was not until 1906 that William Graham Sumner, in his classic volume on Folkways, formalized the term into a social science concept. It soon gained wide usage throughout the social sciences. Though a useful theoretical concept, ethnocentrism has eluded precise measurement. Sumner (1906), a Yale University Professor of Political and Social Science, held ethnocentrism as possessing two main components which are that one is an exaggeration of the ingroup's cultural superiority, the other a disparagement of all outgroup cultures. Sumner held these two components to be two sides of the same coin (p.113). This contention forms the Sumner (1906) hypothesis: "hostility toward outgroups is a direct function of an ingroup's sense of superiority" (p.23).

CULTURAL RELATIVISM

This is where the theory of cultural relativism steps unto the scene. Summerfield (1997) found that cultural relativism stated that concepts are socially constructed and vary cross-culturally (p.51). These concepts may include such fundamental notions as to what is considered to be true, morally correct, and what constitutes knowledge or even reality itself. The concept of culture, like any other piece of knowledge, can be abused and misinterpreted. When addressing adoption of cultural relativism it is viewed with much scepticism as Summerfield (1997) found that some held the view that the principles of cultural relativity would weaken the morality of their ingroup (p.56).

This theory, begs the question of how applicable is such a model is in the 'real' world? Let us suppose we agree that although cultural relativism is not universal, it is a crucial element in the formula for harmonious coexistence in our cosmopolitan society. What do we do in the case of a culture whose basic tenants involve notions of superiority over other cultures, hatred, discrimination against and destruction of other people either inside or outside the group? Think of the fundaments of groups like the Aryan Nation's subculture in the United States of America. If cultural relativity is to be embraced in this case, what is actually being supported are the concepts and beliefs of that culture -- in this case, racism.

Here exists a cultural and ethical contradiction, since cultures are the patterns, beliefs and values that guide our behaviour. If racism is taught, undesirable behaviours towards others groups will occur. However, if unconditional tolerance is given to anything and everything, the unchanging facet of change can be paralysed and the need to judge and evaluate some negative aspects of a culture is now nullified. On the other hand who are we to judge and evaluate whose notions of right and wrong are accurate? This presents a forum for rampant ethnocentrism. Although there are some basic truths which groups of cultures agree are important (human rights); these are always going to be applied and manipulated according to specific agendas and interests.

THE VALIDITY OF THE CONCEPT OF ETHNOCENTRISM - RACE, NATIONALITY OR CULTURE (ETHNICITY)

The stage has now been set for congruency among the co-inhabitants of our global society, but there are still some matters that possess the capacity to bring progress to a grinding halt if we do not put it in relevant perspective; and this is the issue of race. The topic of race has been unwittingly inducted into the fraternity