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