Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism has to do with how people define themselves and how they view others unlike themselves. It is a learned behavior that presumes one’s own culture is the standard for measuring others’ values and assumptions. It is the way each of us views the world, a perspective, which like patriotism, may be legitimate provided it does not involve prejudice against others who are different. Often, however, ethnocentrism becomes racism and is accompanied by a belief that “our” culture is better than “their” culture. This unhealthy elitism usually extends to linguistic, religious, racial, cultural and national prejudice.

Ethnocentrism can take a variety of forms. It may refer to the monocultural Chinese looking at the Tibetan, the Iranian viewing the American or the Zairian looking at the African-American. Specialized forms of it include Eurocentrism, which in the past viewed and interpreted the world through colonizing eyes. The colonized had their own lenses, such as Afrocentric, Indocentric, Sinocentric and so on. In many nations, where immigration has been the dominant mode for population increase, there may be a wide variety of views, each conflicting with other isolated positions. These are often identified by such hyphenated descriptions as Japanese-American, African-American, Native-American, French-Canadian and German-Canadian. Ethnocentrism generally assumes one’s own group is the standard and norm.

Issues Surrounding Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism can be defended as a response to the desire for survival of the human species. Children begin life demanding that their biological needs be met, and as they grow, they learn to trust and depend on their family for food, shelter, clothing and physical protection. This trust expands to include neighbors and by extension the entire cultural group. Protection of the family, clan, tribe or ethnic group may depend on preservation of tradition, territory and/or linguistic integrity. Directly or indirectly the child’s education teaches it what must be done to protect the group’s survival. This usually includes story, myth and experience that warns against those who are different from the norm. Children are taught what is and is not socially acceptable, whom to trust and not to trust.

There may also be national pressures that assume loyalties will extend to the nation-state. In areas of the world where the nation-state is composed of ethnically and linguistically similar peoples, these loyalties are rallied by a call for self-preservation. Many political boundaries, however, have been drawn so that similar people groups are divided and groups with ethnic or linguistic differences are combined into one nation. This brings the challenge of ethnocentrism much closer to home.

If at its best ethnocentrism assists in identity formation and social survival, at it worst ethnocentrism involves xenophobia, fear or hatred of another race. When “others” are judged as inferior, as outsiders or as physical threats, then intolerance quickly develops. With the hardening of the belief that one’s group is legitimate and other groups are not goes an increasing probability of violent conflict. In some extreme cases these conflicts have escalated to genocide or “ethnic cleansing,” as this form of mass murder is euphemistically called. People are classified in a hierarchical way. The farther away someone else is from “my own group,” the greater the probability of being judged inferior and treated unequally. As the notion of superiority becomes entrenched, oppressive and discriminatory behavior appears to be the “normal” way of doing things. This in turn becomes learned behavior for other group members.

Factors in Escalating Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism is most often characterized by monoglotism—knowledge of only one language. Monolingualism severely limits the full understanding of other cultures. Ethnocentrism is further fed by isolation. This generally results in stereotyping “other people.” Studies show that most stereotyping is based on hearsay and learned attitudes rather than on actual experience (Todd). This is the source of such common judgments as these: those people are not clean; their food smells; they dress strangely; they don’t believe what we believe; they are lazy; they want our jobs; they are violent; and they should go back where they came from (even if here is home). Such derisory statements escalate ethnocentrism.

The expressed character of ethnocentrism varies with the perceived threat of the “enemy at the gate.” At times of national crisis, such as real or perceived economic or military threat, exaggerated stereotypes are often created as a rallying point to focus common resolve. For several generations the West focused its attention against the “evil communist bloc” with its brutality, lack of democracy and desire to rule the world. The stereotypical equating of the word Islamic with extremist or terrorist is an example of ethnocentrism abused for political advantage in a way similar to the use of the phrase “America the great Satan.” The desire to find a scapegoat is a common human response.

Dealing with Ethnocentrism

Understanding people who are different takes discipline and invites personal growth. When people are confronted with new cultural concepts, it is difficult not to be judgmental. Our worldview provides a given framework for making assessments of our world. For example, if we understand time as linear, moving from the past through the present to the future, then we have difficulty understanding others for whom it is cyclical. In East Africa attendance at a social event, like a wedding, is not measured by time. Participants go to visit, to be seen and to become part of the lives of the people. There is no start time or end time. It is a social occasion with its own rhythm. In North America people expect a wedding to begin and end “on time.” Time is treated as a scarce or limited commodity. It is not difficult for these divergent views of time to create conflict.

Ethnocentrism can be overcome through several strategies. First, there must be increasing opportunities for intercultural, rather than monocultural, education. Second, individual relationships must become more and more multicultural as we extend friendship to those who are different from us. Third, government policies must become less discriminatory. In North America 250 years of sociopolitical history have shaped attitudes and racism, which will be overcome only with concerted efforts from all parties. The church has a role to play in this.

The church needs to confront its own ethnocentrism concerning the gospel message. Does it preach the message in a way that contextualizes across cultural boundaries? Do we read the Bible with a sinful bias? There is no hierarchy among the peoples God created, even though many have attempted to distort Scripture in this direction. Though the gospel was given initially to a group of Jewish followers, it rapidly spread into Africa, Asia and Europe. Today there are more Christians south of the equator than north of it; yet many of the dominant worship styles and church structures come from the north. To reduce ethnocentrism in the church, we must learn to understand other cultures in terms of their own assumptions and values and to view their members as fellow humans who bear the image of God.

» See also: Culture

» See also: Multiculturalism

» See also: Pluralism

» See also: Racism

» See also: Society

References and Resources

A. Bonnet, Radicalism, Anti-racism and Representation (London: Routledge, 1993); W. Connor, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994); P. G. Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988); C. McCarthy and Warren Crichlow, Race Identity and Representation in Education (New York: Routledge, 1993); K. A. Moodley, ed., Beyond Multicultural Education: International Perspectives (Calgary: Detselig Enterprises, 1992); R. Todd, Education in a Multicultural Society (London: Cassell, 1991).

—Brian F. Stelck