ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture. It is defined as the viewpoint that "one's own group/tribe is the center of everything," against which all other groups are judged. 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, behavior, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions and sub-divisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity.
One must be careful, of course, not to throw around charges of "ethnocentrism" to try to discredit people with whose views we disagree. The best use of an understanding of ethnocentrism is to use it to correct our own ethnocentric attitudes and behavior rather than that of others.
The feeling that one's group has a mode of living, values, and patterns of adaptation that are superior to those of other groups. It is coupled with a generalized contempt for members of other groups. Ethnocentrism may manifest itself in attitudes of superiority or sometimes hostility. Violence, discrimination, proselytizing, and verbal aggressiveness are other means whereby ethnocentrism may be expressed
Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion, usually another religion. Historically in the New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a person who had converted to the Jewish religion. Though the word proselytism was originally tied to Christianity, it is also used to refer to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not. Today, the connotations of the word proselytism are often negative but this blog will use the word neutrally to refer to any attempts to convert a person or people to another faith.
The difference between legitimate proselytism and illegitimate proselytism may not be definable. What one person considers legitimate, another may consider improper or even illegal. Proselytism can include:
No attempt to convert others unless they specifically ask about one's religion….Jewish, e.g."
Preaching…Billy Graham, "
Providing physical benefits in hopes that recipients will be open to listening … Mother Teresa, "
Providing physical benefits only to those willing to listen…homeless shelters, salvation army, "
Providing physical benefits only to proselytes….*Money, Republican party, e.g. * (sorry, couldn't help it, politico-centric, perhaps?)J
Forcing people to become proselytes….Islam, American economic sanctions…..do it 'our' way…..starve, fight or die…choose one.
Why is ethnocentrism bad?
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 ……...(insert skin pigment, religion, big ears, speaks with accent, funny clothes, poor dental /personal hygiene….…..et cetera, et cetera, here……….)
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.
*(statements that begin with "you people or those people" should be a red flag.)
Some very simple benign examples of ethnocentric thinking. . .
We often talk about British drivers driving "on the wrong side" of the road. Why not just say "opposite side" or even "left hand side"?
We talk about written Hebrew as reading "backward." Why not just say "from right to left" or "in the opposite direction from English."
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.
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 inter-ethnic 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 most 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. (many perceive the blanket statement: "All Americans are wealthy wasteful apathetic snobs as truth.") 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 ignore such cases in the news.
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? (we cannot, however.…we can be aware of it)
Raw population statistics overwhelm you. Here's one way of visualizing the world and its economic, housing, health, religious and educational needs:
Shrink the earth's population to one village of exactly 100 people. Apply the earth's racial, economic and other ratios to these 100 people. Here's how this village would look:
Origins: Remember these are one-hundred people not percentages representing the entire globe.
60 would be from Asia
12 would be European in origin
15 would have come from the Western Hemisphere (9 Latin Americans, 5 North Americans, and 1 from Oceania)
13 would be from Africa
Source: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, "World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision."
Sex / Gender:
50 would be female
50 would be male
Skin color
80 would be non-white
20 would be white
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census International Data Base, Table 001 : Total Midyear Population 2001, assuming the populations of South America, Asia, and Africa are "non-white" and those of North America, Europe, and Oceania are "white."
Religion:
67 would be non-Christian
33 would label themselves as "Christian", (only six apple pickers)
Economics
20 people would be receiving almost 90% of the village's total income
Housing:
25 would live in substandard housing
Literacy
17 would not be able to read at all
Nutrition
13 would be malnourished
Life and death
1 would die within the year
2 would give birth within the year
Education
2 would have a college education
Technology
4 would own a computer
This list is not presented to cause guilt; although I am reasonably certain it does not; it is simply the picture of reality. This post took a great deal of restraint on my part, meaning I attempted to omit my own crude ethnocentric redneck subjective color commentary. (I bit the crap out of my tongue in the process) I try, I say try to remove euphemisms that shield and sugarcoat our reality with politically correct "NEWSPEEK",
No comments:
Post a Comment