ethnocentrism essay pdf

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature

Anthropology

Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Ethnocentrism

Introduction.

Definitions
Disciplinary Precursors
Progressivism
Primitivism
Nineteenth-Century Evolutionism
Boasian Anthropology
Struggle against Racism
Functionalism
Malinowski’s Personal Writings
Postmodern Thought
Sociocultural Anthropology
Disease Avoidance
Ebonics or African American Language (AAL)
Archaeology
Applied Anthropology
Interdisciplinary Connections

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Anthropology of Corruption
Archaeologies of Sexuality
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Ethnocentrism by Elizabeth Baylor LAST REVIEWED: 11 January 2012 LAST MODIFIED: 11 January 2012 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0045

Ethnocentrism is a term applied to the cultural or ethnic bias—whether conscious or unconscious—in which an individual views the world from the perspective of his or her own group, establishing the in-group as archetypal and rating all other groups with reference to this ideal. This form of tunnel vision often results in: (1) an inability to adequately understand cultures that are different from one’s own and (2) value judgments that preference the in-group and assert its inherent superiority, thus linking the concept of ethnocentrism to multiple forms of chauvinism and prejudice, including nationalism, tribalism, racism, and even sexism and disability discrimination. Ethnocentrism is a concept that was coined within anthropology and formed the cornerstone of its early evolutionary theory before becoming one of the discipline’s primary social critiques. It continues to both challenge and inspire anthropologists, shifting in meaning and application with theoretical trends and across the subdisciplines. For many anthropologists in the Boasian tradition, ethnocentrism is the antithesis of anthropology, a mind-set that it actively counters through cultural relativism, education, and applied activities such as cultural brokering. Physical anthropologists have tended to define the concept more generally as preferential cooperation with a defined in-group and to interrogate its potential evolutionary origins, while the postmodern trend has been a growing suspicion of the anthropologist’s own ability to transcend cultural bias in his or her analysis and presentation of the “other,” leading to an emphasis on reflexivity and subjective diversity. Outside of the discipline, ethnocentrism is a topic of study for biologists, political scientists, communication experts, psychologists, and sociologists, particularly in the areas of politics, identity, and conflict. Marketing has seized on the term to describe consumers who prefer domestically produced goods, and the derivative ethnocentric has become a common criticism in the era of globalization for those assuming their own cultural superiority.

General Overviews and Foundational Texts

It is difficult to identify a definitive text for the concept of ethnocentrism, given its shifting meanings and common usage as an implicit critique. Sumner 1906 provides the original formulation of the term, defining it as a “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.” While Sumner is commonly credited with coining the term, ethnocentric was previously used in McGee 1900 to characterize what he termed the primitive mind-set. Levine and Campbell 1972 provides one of the most comprehensive and research-friendly definitions, drawing on the literature from anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and economics to create a set of twenty-three testable characteristics. Yet while Levine and Campbell 1972 combines in-group and out-group directed characteristics, many theorists have argued for a decoupling of these concepts, further problematizing the issue of defining ethnocentrism (see Definitions ). See Murdock 1949 for a classic formulation of ethnocentrism as a universal form of in-group consciousness and Herskovits 1948 for a standard reading of the term as a human cultural feature with an implied value judgment.

Herskovits, Melville J. 1948. Man and his works . New York: Knopf.

Classic definition of ethnocentrism as a feeling of superiority regarding one’s own culture or way of life.

Levine, Robert A., and Donald T. Campbell. 1972. Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior . New York: Wiley.

The author draws on literature from anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and economics in this text to define ethnocentrism as a set of twenty-three characteristics, nine of which are attitudes toward a perceived in-group (e.g., perceptions of superiority and virtue, sanctions against murder and theft) and fourteen of which are toward a perceived out-group (e.g., blaming, distrust, fear).

McGee, William J. 1900. Primitive numbers. Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report 19:821–851.

Early source predating the classic Sumner 1906 definition. In this work, McGee uses the term ethnocentric to describe the dominant orientation characterizing primitive thought and action.

Murdock, George P. 1949. Social structure . New York: Macmillan.

Provides a useful alternative understanding of the concept of ethnocentrism, defining it as a “tendency to exalt the in-group and to depreciate other groups” (pp. 83–84).

Sumner, William G. 1906. Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals . New York: Mentor.

Publication credited with coining the term ethnocentrism .

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Anthropology »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Africa, Anthropology of
Animal Cultures
Animal Ritual
Animal Sanctuaries
Anorexia Nervosa
Anthropocene, The
Anthropological Activism and Visual Ethnography
Anthropology and Education
Anthropology and Theology
Anthropology of Kurdistan
Anthropology of the Senses
Anthrozoology
Antiquity, Ethnography in
Archaeobotany
Archaeological Education
Archaeology and Museums
Archaeology and Political Evolution
Archaeology and Race
Archaeology and the Body
Archaeology, Gender and
Archaeology, Global
Archaeology, Historical
Archaeology, Indigenous
Archaeology of Childhood
Archaeology of the Senses
Art Museums
Art/Aesthetics
Autoethnography
Bakhtin, Mikhail
Bass, William M.
Benedict, Ruth
Binford, Lewis
Bioarchaeology
Biocultural Anthropology
Biological and Physical Anthropology
Biological Citizenship
Boas, Franz
Bone Histology
Bureaucracy
Business Anthropology
Cargo Cults
Charles Sanders Peirce and Anthropological Theory
Christianity, Anthropology of
Citizenship
Class, Archaeology and
Clinical Trials
Cobb, William Montague
Code-switching and Multilingualism
Cognitive Anthropology
Cole, Johnnetta
Colonialism
Commodities
Consumerism
Crapanzano, Vincent
Cultural Heritage Presentation and Interpretation
Cultural Heritage, Race and
Cultural Materialism
Cultural Resource Management
Culture, Popular
Curatorship
Cyber-Archaeology
Dalit Studies
Dance Ethnography
de Heusch, Luc
Deaccessioning
Design, Anthropology and
Digital Anthropology
Disability and Deaf Studies and Anthropology
Douglas, Mary
Drake, St. Clair
Durkheim and the Anthropology of Religion
Economic Anthropology
Embodied/Virtual Environments
Emotion, Anthropology of
Environmental Anthropology
Environmental Justice and Indigeneity
Ethnoarchaeology
Ethnocentrism
Ethnographic Documentary Production
Ethnographic Films from Iran
Ethnography
Ethnography Apps and Games
Ethnohistory and Historical Ethnography
Ethnomusicology
Ethnoscience
Evans-Pritchard, E. E.
Evolution, Cultural
Evolutionary Cognitive Archaeology
Evolutionary Theory
Experimental Archaeology
Federal Indian Law
Feminist Anthropology
Film, Ethnographic
Forensic Anthropology
Francophonie
Frazer, Sir James George
Geertz, Clifford
Gender and Religion
GIS and Archaeology
Global Health
Globalization
Gluckman, Max
Graphic Anthropology
Haraway, Donna
Healing and Religion
Health and Social Stratification
Health Policy, Anthropology of
Heritage Language
House Museums
Human Adaptability
Human Evolution
Human Rights
Human Rights Films
Humanistic Anthropology
Hurston, Zora Neale
Identity Politics
India, Masculinity, Identity
Indigeneity
Indigenous Boarding School Experiences
Indigenous Economic Development
Indigenous Media: Currents of Engagement
Industrial Archaeology
Institutions
Interpretive Anthropology
Intertextuality and Interdiscursivity
Laboratories
Language and Emotion
Language and Law
Language and Media
Language and Race
Language and Urban Place
Language Contact and its Sociocultural Contexts, Anthropol...
Language Ideology
Language Socialization
Leakey, Louis
Legal Anthropology
Legal Pluralism
Levantine Archaeology
Liberalism, Anthropology of
Linguistic Anthropology
Linguistics, Historical
Literary Anthropology
Local Biologies
Lévi-Strauss, Claude
Malinowski, Bronisław
Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, and Visual Anthropology
Maritime Archaeology
Material Culture
Materiality
Mathematical Anthropology
Matriarchal Studies
Mead, Margaret
Media Anthropology
Medical Anthropology
Medical Technology and Technique
Mediterranean
Mendel, Gregor
Mental Health and Illness
Mesoamerican Archaeology
Mexican Migration to the United States
Militarism, Anthropology and
Missionization
Morgan, Lewis Henry
Multimodal Ethnography
Multispecies Ethnography
Museum Anthropology
Museum Education
Museum Studies
NAGPRA and Repatriation of Native American Human Remains a...
Narrative in Sociocultural Studies of Language
Nationalism
Needham, Rodney
Neoliberalism
NGOs, Anthropology of
Niche Construction
Northwest Coast, The
Oceania, Archaeology of
Paleolithic Art
Paleontology
Performance Studies
Performativity
Perspectivism
Philosophy of Museums
Plantations
Political Anthropology
Postprocessual Archaeology
Postsocialism
Poverty, Culture of
Primatology
Primitivism and Race in Ethnographic Film: A Decolonial Re...
Processual Archaeology
Psycholinguistics
Psychological Anthropology
Public Archaeology
Public Sociocultural Anthropologies
Religion and Post-Socialism
Religious Conversion
Repatriation
Reproductive and Maternal Health in Anthropology
Reproductive Technologies
Rhetoric Culture Theory
Rural Anthropology
Sahlins, Marshall
Sapir, Edward
Scandinavia
Secularization
Settler Colonialism
Sex Estimation
Sign Language
Skeletal Age Estimation
Social Anthropology (British Tradition)
Social Movements
Socialization
Society for Visual Anthropology, History of
Socio-Cultural Approaches to the Anthropology of Reproduct...
Sociolinguistics
Sound Ethnography
Space and Place
Stable Isotopes
Stan Brakhage and Ethnographic Praxis
Structuralism
Studying Up
Sub-Saharan Africa, Democracy in
Surrealism and Anthropology
Technological Organization
Trans Studies in Anthroplogy
Transnationalism
Tree-Ring Dating
Turner, Edith L. B.
Turner, Victor
University Museums
Urban Anthropology
Virtual Ethnography
Visual Anthropology
Willey, Gordon
Wolf, Eric R.
Writing Culture
Youth Culture
Zora Neale Hurston and Visual Anthropology
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[81.177.182.154]
81.177.182.154

Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism

Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one’s own culture. Part of ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s own race, ethnic or cultural group is the most important or that some or all aspects of its culture are superior to those of other groups. Some people will simply call it cultural ignorance.

Ethnocentrism often leads to incorrect assumptions about others’ behavior based on your own norms, values, and beliefs. In extreme cases, a group of individuals may see another culture as wrong or immoral and because of this may try to convert, sometimes forcibly, the group to their own ways of living. War and genocide could be the devastating result if a group is unwilling to change their ways of living or cultural practices.

Ethnocentrism may not, in some circumstances, be avoidable. We often have involuntary reactions toward another person or culture’s practices or beliefs but these reactions do not have to result in horrible events such as genocide or war. In order to avoid conflict over culture practices and beliefs, we must all try to be more culturally relative.

Two young men walking and holding hands.

Cultural relativism is the principle of regarding and valuing the practices of a culture from the point of view of that culture and to avoid making hasty judgments. Cultural relativism tries to counter ethnocentrism by promoting the understanding of cultural practices that are unfamiliar to other cultures such as eating insects, genocides or genital cutting. Take for example, the common practice of same-sex friends in India walking in public while holding hands. This is a common behavior and a sign of connectedness between two people. In England, by contrast, holding hands is largely limited to romantically involved couples, and often suggests a sexual relationship. These are simply two different ways of understanding the meaning of holding hands. Someone who does not take a relativistic view might be tempted to see their own understanding of this behavior as superior and, perhaps, the foreign practice as being immoral.

D espite the fact that cultural relativism promotes the appreciation for cultural differences, it can also be problematic. At its most extreme, cultural relativism leaves no room for criticism of other cultures, even if certain cultural practices are horrific or harmful. Many practices have drawn criticism over the years. In Madagascar, for example, the famahidana funeral tradition includes bringing bodies out from tombs once every seven years, wrapping them in cloth, and dancing with them. Some people view this practice disrespectful to the body of the deceased person. Today, a debate rages about the ritual cutting of genitals of girls in several Middle Eastern and African cultures. To a lesser extent, this same debate arises around the circumcision of baby boys in Western hospitals. When considering harmful cultural traditions, it can be patronizing to use cultural relativism as an excuse for avoiding debate. To assume that people from other cultures are neither mature enough nor responsible enough to consider criticism from the outside is demeaning.

The concept of cross-cultural relationship is the idea that people from different cultures can have relationships that acknowledge, respect and begin to understand each other’s diverse lives. People with different backgrounds can help each other see possibilities that they never thought were there because of limitations, or cultural proscriptions, posed by their own traditions. Becoming aware of these new possibilities will ultimately change the people who are exposed to the new ideas. This cross-cultural relationship provides hope that new opportunities will be discovered, but at the same time it is threatening. The threat is that once the relationship occurs, one can no longer claim that any single culture is the absolute truth.

Culture and Psychology Copyright © 2020 by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

1.3 Overcoming Ethnocentrism

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Define the concept of ethnocentrism and explain the ubiquity of ethnocentrism as a consequence of enculturation.
Distinguish certain forms of ethnocentrism in terms of their historical relationship to forms of empire and domination.
Identify primitivism in European and American representations of African peoples.
Identify orientalism in European and American representations of Asian and Middle Eastern peoples.

Have you ever known somebody who seems to think the world revolves around them? The kind of friend who is always talking about themselves and never asks any questions about you and your life? The kind of person who thinks their own ideas are cool and special and their own way of doing things is absolutely the best? You may know the word used to describe that kind of person: egocentric. An egocentric person is entirely caught up in their own perspective and does not seem to care much about the perspectives of others. It is good to feel proud of your personal qualities and accomplishments, of course, but it is equally important to appreciate the personal qualities and accomplishments of others as well.

The same sort of “centric” complex operates at the level of culture. Some people in some cultures are convinced that their own ways of understanding the world and of doing things are absolutely the best and no other ways are worth consideration. They imagine that the world would be a much better place if the superior beliefs, values, and practices of their own culture were spread or imposed on everyone else in the world. This is what we call ethnocentrism .

Enculturation and Ethnocentrism

We are all brought up in a particular culture with particular norms and values and ways of doing things. Our parents or guardians teach us how to behave in social situations, how to take care of our bodies, how to lead a good life, and what we should value and think about. Our teachers, religious leaders, and bosses give us instruction about our roles, responsibilities, and relationships in life. By the time we are in our late teens or early twenties, we know a great deal about how our society works and our role in that society.

Anthropologists call this process of acquiring our particular culture enculturation . All humans go through this process. It is natural to value the particular knowledge gained through our own process of enculturation because we could not survive without it. It is natural to respect the instruction of our parents and teachers who want us to do well in life. It is good to be proud of who we are and where we came from. However, just as egocentrism is tiresome, it can be harmful for people to consider their own culture so superior that they cannot appreciate the unique qualities and accomplishments of other cultures. When people are so convinced that their own culture is more advanced, morally superior, efficient, or just plain better than any other culture, we call that ethnocentrism. When people are ethnocentric, they do not value the perspectives of people from other cultures, and they do not bother to learn about or consider other ways of doing things.

Beyond the sheer rudeness of ethnocentrism, the real problem emerges when the ethnocentrism of one group causes them to harm, exploit, and dominate other groups. Historically, the ethnocentrism of Europeans and Euro-Americans has been used to justify subjugation and violence against peoples from Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Americas. In the quest to colonize territories in these geographical areas, Europeans developed two main styles of ethnocentrism, styles that have dominated popular imagination over the past two centuries. These styles each identify a cultural “self” as European and a cultural other as a stereotypical member of a culture from a specific region of the world. Using both of these styles of ethnocentrism, Europeans strategically crafted their own coherent self-identity in contrast to these distorted images of other cultures.

Primitivism and Orientalism

Since the 18th century, views of Africans and Native Americans have been shaped by the obscuring lens of primitivism . Identifying themselves as enlightened and civilized, Europeans came to define Africans as ignorant savages, intellectually inferior and culturally backward. Nineteenth-century explorers such as Henry M. Stanley described Africa as “the dark continent,” a place of wildness and depravity (Stanley 1878). Similarly, European missionaries viewed Africans as simple heathens, steeped in sin and needing Christian redemption. Elaborated in the writings of travelers and traders, primitivism depicts Africans and Native Americans as exotic, simple, highly sexual, potentially violent, and closer to nature. Though both African and Native American societies of the time were highly organized and well-structured, Europeans often viewed them as chaotic and violent. An alternative version of primitivism depicts Africans and Native Americans as “noble savages,” innocent and simple, living in peaceful communities in harmony with nature. While less overtly insulting, the “noble savage” version of primitivism is still a racist stereotype, reinforcing the notion that non-Western peoples are ignorant, backward, and isolated.

Europeans developed a somewhat different style of ethnocentrism toward people from the Middle East and Asia, a style known as orientalism . As detailed by literary critic Edward Said (1979), orientalism portrays peoples of Asia and the Middle East as irrational, fanatical, and out of control. The “oriental” cultures of East Asia and Middle East are depicted as mystical and alluring. The emphasis here is less on biology and nature and more on sensual and emotional excess. Middle Eastern societies are viewed not as lawless but as tyrannical. Relations between men and women are deemed not just sexual but patriarchal and exploitative. Said argues that this view of Asian and Middle Eastern societies was strategically crafted to demonstrate the rationality, morality, and democracy of European societies by contrast.

In his critique of orientalism, Said points to the very common representation of Muslim and Middle Eastern peoples in mainstream American movies as irrational and violent. In the very first minute of the 1992 Disney film Aladdin , the theme song declares that Aladdin comes from “a faraway place / where the caravan camels roam / where they cut off your ear if they don’t like your face / it’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home.” Facing criticism by antidiscrimination groups, Disney was forced to change the lyrics for the home video release of the film (Nittle 2021). Many thrillers such as the 1994 film True Lies , starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, cast Arabs as America-hating villains scheming to plant bombs and take hostages. Arab women are frequently portrayed as sexualized belly dancers or silent, oppressed victims shrouded in veils. These forms of representation draw from and reproduce orientalist stereotypes.

Both primitivism and orientalism were developed when Europeans were colonizing these parts of the world. Primitivist views of Native Americans justified their subjugation and forced migration. In the next section, we’ll explore how current versions of primitivism and orientalism persist in American culture, tracing the harmful effects of these misrepresentations and the efforts of anthropologists to dismantle them.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Jennifer Hasty, David G. Lewis, Marjorie M. Snipes
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Introduction to Anthropology
Publication date: Feb 23, 2022
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-3-overcoming-ethnocentrism

© Dec 20, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Ethnocentrism In Psychology: Examples, Disadvantages, & Cultural Relativism

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Ethnocentrism in psychology refers to the tendency to view one’s own cultural or ethnic group as superior and to judge other groups based on the values and standards of one’s group. It is the belief that one’s own culture is correct and superior compared to other cultures.

In essence, ethnocentrism leads individuals to use their own ethnic group and its standards to interpret and evaluate other groups, often in a negative manner.

Those who are ethnocentric assume their cultural norms are the ideal that other cultures should be measured against or aspire to.

For example, someone who is ethnocentric might believe their traditional cuisine or clothing is the proper way, and that other cultural practices are inferior or strange in comparison.

Or they may think their language should be the default spoken, rather than needing to accommodate other languages.

Ethnocentrism occurs when one believes that their own cultural group is superior to others.

Explanation

Individuals who are ethnocentric will believe that their culture’s beliefs, ideas, values, and practices are correct, and they use the standards in their own culture to assess other cultural groups.

They will tend to have negative attitudes toward other cultures and believe their beliefs, ideas, values, and practices are wrong or strange.

A popular example of ethnocentrism is to think of the utensils different cultures prefer to use. Some cultures prefer to use forks, spoons, and knives to eat and may believe that it is weird or incorrect that some cultures traditionally use chopsticks to eat.

Ethnocentrism can occur for anyone across most cultures and societies and is not limited to one culture.

It is thought to occur largely because people have the greatest understanding of their own culture, leading them to believe that the norms and standards of their own culture are universally adopted.

So, if they notice anything that deviates from their cultural norms, this can lead to ethnocentric attitudes.

Some researchers believe that ethnocentrism comprises in-group favoritism and vilification of out-groups; thus, people have a high opinion of their own group and think negatively about out-groups.

How does ethnocentrism relate to psychology?

The predominant view in psychology has been white males, mainly from the USA.

It means psychologists ignore views, values, language, or culture from elsewhere.

For example, views about the signs and symptoms of mental disorders in the DSM are based on white male experiences, so other experiences are ignored.

Views about appropriate patterns of child rearing are based on the practices shared in white, English-speaking cultures and other ways devalued.

In psychology, ethnocentrism can exist when researchers design studies or draw conclusions that can only be applied to one cultural group.

Ethnocentrism occurs when a researcher assumes that their own culturally specific practices or ideas are ‘natural’ or ‘right.’

The individual uses their own ethnic group to evaluate and judge other individuals from other ethnic groups. Research that is ‘centered’ around one cultural group is called ‘ethnocentric.’

When other cultures are observed to differ from the researcher’s own, they may be regarded negatively, e.g., ‘primitive,’ ‘degenerate,’ ‘unsophisticated,’ ‘undeveloped,’ etc.

This becomes racism when other cultures are denigrated, or their traditions are regarded as irrelevant etc.

Ethnocentrism in psychology can reduce the generalisability of findings since the researchers may not have accounted for cultural diversity.

What are the disadvantages of ethnocentrism?

While it is not necessarily bad to believe your culture is good or to be patriotic, ethnocentrism is the belief that your culture is superior, which can come with downfalls.

Ethnocentrism can lead to people being more close-minded to how other people live, almost as if they are living in a bubble of their own culture. This can reinforce the in-group/out-group mentality.

Believing that one’s own culture is correct can spread misinformation about other cultures, leading to negative consequences.

If a group upholds the belief that other groups are inferior to them, this could result in groups discriminating against each other. On an extreme scale, ethnocentrism can lead to prejudice or racism.

Upholding the sanctity of one’s own culture may hinder societal progress and may prevent cooperation between cultures.

Cultural groups may be less likely to help each other in times of need and may only seek to preserve the people in their own group whom they consider more important.

Specifically, ethnocentrism in research could result in negative consequences if the materials used for research are produced with one culture in mind.

An example of this is when the United States Army used IQ tests on individuals before World War I, which was biased towards white American ideas of intelligence.

Because of this, Europeans had lower scores of intelligence, and African Americans were at the bottom of the IQ scale.

This had a negative effect on the attitudes of white Americans towards these other groups of people, specifically that they were not as intelligent as them.

When research does not consider ethnocentrism, this can reinforce pre-existing discrimination and prevent other cultures from having equal opportunities.

Ethnocentrism examples

Ethnocentrism in samples.

Some of the most famous psychological studies (such as Milgram’s, Asch’s , and Zimbardo’s) used only white American males in their samples.

Conclusions were drawn from the results that the results would be the same across all cultures. However, the results were different when these studies were replicated on other groups of people.

As these studies were conducted a long time ago, you may expect that psychological research is more culturally diverse now.

However, psychology still has a long way to go to be truly representative of all cultures. There is still a strong Western bias, with one analysis finding that 90% of participants in research are drawn from Western countries, with 60% of these participants being American (Thalmayer et al., 2021).

They go on to say that only about 11% of the world’s population is represented in the top psychology journals and that 89% of the population is neglected.

The Strange Situation

Ainsworth’s classic study of The Strange Situation (1970) is an example of ethnocentric research. This study was developed to assess the attachment types of infants – the sample in this study used all American infants.

Many researchers assumed this study has the same meaning for infants from other cultures as it did for American children. However, the results from other cultures were very different.

Most noteworthy are the differences observed in Japanese and German infants compared to American infants.

While the American ideal standard for attachment is ‘secure attachment,’ many Japanese infants displayed behaviors that would be considered ‘insecure-resistant attachment’ whilst many of the German infants displayed what would be considered ‘insecure-avoidant attachment.’

The different results from other cultures were presented as ‘abnormal’ and in need of explanation rather than considering that the differences are due to cultural differences in how children are raised.

It does not mean that German mothers are more insensitive or that Japanese mothers are too clingy to their children just because their infants react differently to American children.

The methods used in The Strange Situation are examples of imposed etic, meaning to study a culture from the outside and make inferences in relation to one culture’s standard.

More valid results could be obtained through the use of an emic study, meaning studying culture from the inside.

Ethnocentrism and Cultural Bias

Cultural bias in psychology is when research is conducted in one culture, and the findings are generalized to other cultures or are accepted as universally applicable.

Ainsworth’s research is culturally biased since standards were set regarding what securely attached means based on an American-only sample.

This theory was then generalized to other cultures so that what was considered the behavior of securely attached children in America should be what all children in other cultures should behave to be considered securely attached.

The parenting styles and behavior of their infants in cultures outside of America being seen as abnormal because it doesn’t fit the American norms is what relates cultural bias to ethnocentrism.

Another example of cultural bias relates to the designs of standardized tests such as intelligence tests. Intelligence tests that are designed by Western researchers reflect the idea of what the West considers as being intelligent.

However, Western cultures may have a different idea of what qualifies as intelligence compared to other cultures.

Thus, when using Western-designed intelligence tests in non-western countries, there is likely to be a bias in the results since the test measures something from the benchmark of different cultural experiences.

This can lead to ethnocentrism if those outside of the West score significantly lower on intelligence scores, leading to the West having the misconception that non-Western countries are less intelligent.

There are two types of cultural bias that can relate to psychological research:

Alpha bias – this occurs when a theory assumes that cultural groups are profoundly different. Since their differences are exaggerated, the cultural norms and values of the researchers are considered superior to other cultures.

Beta bias – this occurs when real cultural differences are ignored or minimized. All people are assumed to be the same, resulting in research that is universally applied to all cultures.

What is Cross-Cultural Psychology?

Cross-cultural psychology is a branch of psychology that examines how cultural factors influence human behavior.

The goal is to look at both universal and unique behaviors to establish the ways in which culture has an influence on behavior, relationships, education, etc.

After focusing on North American and European research for many years, Western researchers began to question whether many of the observations and ideas that were considered to be universal actually apply to other cultures outside of the sample that was studied.

Many cross-cultural psychologists have found that many observations about human thought and behavior may only be generalizable to specific groups.

An emic approach, which looks within cultures to identify behaviors that are specific to that culture, is usually the most appropriate approach to studying cross-culturally.

With the emic approach, researchers can immerse themselves fully into a culture and develop a deep understanding of their practices and values.

From this, they can develop research procedures and interpret the findings with that culture in mind. These procedures would then not be used across other cultures where they may yield invalid results.

What topics can be studied in cross-cultural psychology?

Cross-cultural psychology can explore many topics, such as:

Child development – whether unique cultural practices influence development.

Emotions – do all people experience emotions the same way? Is emotional expression universal?

Language – whether the acquisition of language and its development is similar or different between cultures?

Relationships – the differences in family, romantic relationships, and friendships that are influenced by culture.

Personality – the degree to which aspects of personality might be influenced by or linked with cultural influences.

Social behavior – understanding how cultural norms and expectations have an effect on social behavior.

What are the benefits of cross-cultural psychology?

By understanding what could have been cultural bias, researchers have increased their understanding of the impact of culture, cultural differences, and culture-specific behaviors.

This has had benefits when it comes to diagnosing mental illness, for example. Previously, some culture-specific behaviors were often misdiagnosed as a symptom of a disorder.

Recent issues of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) now include a list of culture-specific behaviors that help diagnose mental health issues accurately.

Modern researchers are now able to travel a lot more than they would have done in the past. They are able to have contact with people from all across the globe as well as being able to hold talks and conferences where researchers from different cultures can meet to discuss ideas.

This may mean there should be less cultural bias now since researchers from other cultures being able to talk can help grow understanding and acceptance of differences.

Researchers can also use input from people from different cultures to discuss any potential methodology flaws which can lead to cultural bias.

Ethnocentrism vs. cultural relativism

Ethnocentrism	Cultural Relativism
The belief that one’s own cultural or ethnic group is superior to others.	The principle that all cultures should be understood and evaluated on their own terms, rather than judged by the standards of another culture.
Views other cultures as inferior or less important.	Respects and appreciates the diversity of other cultures.
Uses the standards and values of one’s own culture to judge others.	Recognizes that each culture has its own unique standards and values that should be understood and respected.
Unwilling to learn about other cultures because they are perceived as inferior.	Open to learning about and understanding other cultures.
Can lead to prejudice, discrimination, and conflict between different cultural groups.	Promotes understanding and appreciation of different cultures, and can reduce conflict between them.

Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two ways in which we assess a culture that is not our own.

While ethnocentrism means someone may judge other cultures based on the standards of their own cultures, cultural relativism is the notion that a culture should be understood on its own terms, without judgment against the criteria of another culture.

Someone who is ethnocentric may believe that their culture is ‘correct’ and ‘normal,’ but someone who adopts cultural relativism understands that one culture is not better than another.

An example of ethnocentrism is believing that the traditional clothing of a culture other than your own is ‘strange’ or ‘incorrect.’ In contrast, cultural relativism would appreciate and accept that different cultures have their own clothing and would not make a negative judgment about someone’s clothing even if it is different from what is the norm for them.

In research, cultural relativism is the ideology that what may be observable in research may only make sense from the perspective of the observed culture and cannot be applied to different cultures.

Ethnocentrism can be avoided or reduced by studying culture using an emic approach. This approach aims to observe cultural differences in the relevant context and uses that culture’s concepts or standards.

Ethnocentric studies are not inherently invalid and should not be disregarded. Instead, researchers should make sure to point out that their research may only be applied to the sample they studied, and the application to other cultures is questionable.

Cultural Relativism in Psychology

An example of how cultural relativism is relevant in research is noted by Sternberg (1985), who stated that the meaning of intelligence is different in every culture.

They noticed that in some cultures, coordination and motor skills are essential to life, so if someone excels in these skills, they are considered highly intelligent according to that culture.

However, in other cultures, motor skills are less relevant to intelligent behaviors, and the culture instead values vast knowledge on a range of topics, such as intelligence instead.

There is the development of ‘indigenous psychologies’ in research, which draws explicitly on the unique experience of people in a different cultural context.

Afrocentrism is an example of this, which suggests that theories of people with African heritage must recognize the African context of behaviors and attitudes.

This approach matters because it has led to the emergence of theories that are more relevant to the lives and cultures of people not only in Africa but also those far removed from their African origins.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are some examples of ethnocentric behavior.

In psychology, ethnocentric behavior can occur when a researcher conducts a study in a particular culture and then states in their findings that their results can be generalized to all cultures.

Likewise, when researchers apply their theory to another culture, and the results differ from what was the norm in their culture, they state that there is something wrong with that culture.

Otherwise, some other examples of ethnocentric behavior include:

– Judging other cultures’ food and specialty dishes.

– Judging people’s cultural outfits.

– Expecting others to speak your language and criticizing them if they can’t.

– Historical colonialism.

– Judging someone who chooses to live on their own when it is traditional to always live with family in your culture.

What is ethnorelativism?

Ethnorelativism is the ability to see values and behaviors as cultural rather than universal.

It is a belief based on respect for other cultures, believing that all groups, cultures, or subcultures are inherently equal.

Furthermore, it is the belief that other cultures are no better or worse than one’s own but are equally valid despite their differences.

What is the difference between ethnocentrism and racism?

As ethnocentrism implicates a strong identification with an in-group, it can lead to ingrained negative feelings and stereotyping of out-group members, which can be confused with racism.

Whilst they are not the same, ethnocentrism can lead to prejudiced behaviors and attempts to impose one’s subjective culture onto other cultural groups.

Ethnocentric attitudes can lead to prejudice and discrimination based on race and the belief that one race is superior to all others.

What is the difference between ethnocentrism and xenocentrism?

While ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s own culture is superior and correct compared to others, xenocentrism is the belief that other cultures are better than one’s own culture.

Essentially, xenocentrism is the opposite of ethnocentrism. In some ways, xenocentrism is considered deviant behavior as it goes against the norms of what someone is expected to appreciate.

Examples of this can include:

– The belief is that vehicles manufactured in other countries are better than ones made in your own country.

– European Renaissance artists desired to emulate ancient Greek artwork.

– The belief that cheeses and wines from other countries are superior to the products from your own country.

– The belief that the style of clothing in another culture is superior to those within your own culture.

– The idea that quality products cannot be purchased in one’s own country.

Further Information

Teo, Thomas, and Angela R. Febbraro. “Ethnocentrism as a form of intuition in psychology.” Theory & Psychology 13.5 (2003): 673-694.
Christopher, J. C., & Hickinbottom, S. (2008). Positive psychology, ethnocentrism, and the disguised ideology of individualism. Theory & psychology, 18(5), 563-589.

Hasa. (2020, February 17). What is the Difference Between Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism. PEDIAA. https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethnocentrism-and-cultural-relativism/#:~:text=and%20Cultural%20Relativism-,Definition,using%20standards%20of%20another%20culture

Rosado, C. (1994). Understanding cultural relativism in a multicultural world. The Elements of Moral Philosophy , 15-29.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(3), 607.

Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C., & Arnett, J. J. (2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129.

Tilley, J. J. (2000). Cultural relativism. Hum. Rts. Q. , 22 , 501.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Understanding Cultural Relativism: A critical Appraisal of the Theory

2017, International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding

The aim of this review article is to reveal the cons and pros of ethical relativism, especially conventionalism. This article is written with the intention of showing some of the practical upshots of conventionalism without totally denying some of its virtues in a world where diversity of cultures and customs is apparent. The article inquires the question: Is ethical relativism tenable? The review article relies on reviewing secondary sources. What I am arguing in this article is that despite the attraction of ethical relativism as an intellectual weapon to fight against ethnocentrism and cultural intolerance, the view still goes against the idea of intercultural comparison, criticism and moral argumentation, so that it would have serious disastrous implication on practice, especially on the universal character of human rights and shutters all together any sort of moral progress and reform. The article concludes that we can set forth certain objective moral codes, discovered through...

Related Papers

Sonia Sikka

This paper criticises the concept of culture as deployed within debates on moral relativism, arguing for a greater appreciation of the role of power in the production of a society’s purportedly ‘moral’ norms. The argument is developed in three stages: (1) analysis of the relation between ideology and morality, noting that the concept of morality excludes self-serving moral claims and justifications; (2) analysis of the concept of culture, drawing attention to an ambiguity in its usage and to the hierarchical social structures within which the actual bodies of cultures are produced and reproduced; and (3) contention that (1) and (2) provide the basis for a radical and socially effective species of immanent critique: the exposure of existing norms and institutions purported to be morally justified as masks for the self-interest of elite groups.

cabrillo.edu

Caleb Rosado

Kpanie Addy

Peter Critchley

A brief look at the view that 'one man's meat is another man's poison'.

Daniel Guerriere

This paper defines moral relativism, refutes it, explores its motivations, and examines its social consequences.

Journal of Business Ethics

Bruce Seaton , Philip Shepherd

Page 1. ABSTRACT. While some of the great thinkers (Socrates, Kant) have argued for an absolutist view of ethical behavior, over the past 250 years the relativist view has become ascendant. Following the contingency framework ...

Seungbae Park

Current Anthropology

Michael F Brown

David Alvargonzález

This paper discusses the ethical and epistemological implications of cultural relativism. An initial analysis identifies two possible sources of cultural relativism – the ideology rampant in current liberal democracies and what I term as “environmental fundamentalism”. It then moves on to discuss cultural relativism in relation to such universal ethical values as the basic human right of survival and the right to physical integrity. The paper ends by pitting itself against epistemological relativism and by upholding the universal character of scientific theorems.

The Southern Journal of Philosophy

yitzhak benbaji

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Joseph E. Davis

Unpublished

Aysel Dogan

Melese Zeleke

Principles of Health Care Ethics

Mark Sheehan

Richard Kulczak

Antti Kauppinen

Carolyn Edwards

Muhammet Enes Kala

Journal of Anthropological Research

Elizabeth M Zechenter

Polish Psychological Bulletin

Seth Oppong, PhD

Menachem Fisch

Dr. Shaheer Ellahi

Elizabeth Ivwurie

Takami Kuwayama

ARE HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL? ISSUE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM

dasarathi bhuyan

Jonny Ututalum

Philadelphia: Rosado Consulting for Change in Human …

James Mensch

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

Matti Häyry

Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology

Carlo Alvaro, Ph.D.

Maria Baghramian

What's Wrong with Relativism

H.G. Callaway

J. David Velleman

Anthropological Theory

John T Metts