Posted on 08/17/2012 6:54:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
thnocentrism is under-rated. Most college students are exposed to the concept only if they take a course in Introductory Sociology or if they should chose to major in sociology. Even then, the concept of ethnocentrism is presented as an evil to be extinguished by fostering the value of anti-ethnocentrism.
For those who are not well-versed in the language of sociology, ethnocentrism refers to the tendency to judge other cultures by the standards of one’s own culture. Since this is a natural human tendency, the task of fostering anti-ethnocentrism is difficult, to say the least. But it is also self-defeating.
Technically speaking, sociologists form a sub-culture with their own set of values, beliefs, and practices. And they are the only sub-culture that is known to promote the value of anti-ethnocentrism. Therefore, when sociologists tell people of other cultures (non-sociologists) that it is bad to judge people of other cultures by the values of their own culture, they are doing just that: judging people of other cultures by the values of their own culture. In fact, the value they impose on others (anti-ethnocentrism) cannot be imposed without engaging in ethnocentrism. It is intellectual Onanism. It produces no fruit.
While anti-ethnocentrism fails the test of internal consistency, its greatest weakness is external. That is to say, it fails when applied to real-world problems – problems outside the realm of theory and abstract sociological jargon. Who can read about the Rape of Nanking or the Nazi Holocaust and remain convinced that we should somehow refrain from judging that which is self-evidently wrong?
Today’s college student is just as intellectually capable as yesterday’s college student. But he (and increasingly she) often suffers from moral atrophy. We need to combat this atrophy by exercising the natural moral reflex. It might not require a whole major in Ethnocentric Studies dedicated to teaching the upside of judging cultures like Nazi Germany. But we should at least consider a course called Introduction to Ethnocentrism. It should be a required course within the Department of Sociology so that no one actually graduates before fully appreciating the necessity of judging other cultures.
On March 7 of 1996, the day I became a former atheist, I had the unique experience of interviewing prisoners inside a filthy prison in Quito, Ecuador. I was appalled by the fact that the prison served rotten meat to prisoners after boiling it in large vats in order to make it edible. In fact, I was so appalled by what I saw that I wrote an expose for an academic human rights journal. In that article, I summarized numerous human rights abuses. Unfortunately, the editor of the journal was a sociologist who was more interested in defending the Ecuadorian culture than in defending the individuals being fed objectively rotten, sub-standard food.
Her name was Michelle Stone, then an Associate Professor of Sociology at Youngstown State University. She told me she liked the article and would publish it. Then she changed her mind and made its publication contingent: I had to remove the portion of the article criticizing the food given to the prisoners. Her exact words were “It isn’t nice to judge the foods of cultures other than your own.”
Eventually, Stone stepped down as editor of that journal. The next editor was forwarded an email from me showing that Stone had gone back on her word. Because he was a psychology professor, not a sociology professor, the new editor was able to recognize the absurdity of Stone’s anti-judgmental judgmentalism. So he over-ruled her and ran the article, which was later read by a congresswoman from Florida. After reading my article, the congresswoman flew down to Ecuador to negotiate the release of a woman who was stuck in an Ecuadorian prison and subjected to inhumane treatment.
It is sad when I reflect on that incident. An article that helped secure the release of an American woman held prisoner without due process almost did not see the light of day. And the sole reason for the delay in publication was that a sociologist had given the war on ethnocentrism greater priority than the war on human suffering. Unfortunately, this is a common occurrence in the intellectually and morally confused discipline of sociology.
Someone needs to teach future sociologists that the failure to impose judgment results in the failure to remedy injustice. Ironically, the ones most qualified to enlighten them come from a culture other than their own.
Makes me throw up a bit just remembering it.
Anyway, I'm not sure that I'm ethnocentic, but I'm definitely a Cultural Imperialist.
I heard this word back in the early seventies, at approximately the middle school level, and even then I knew it was some sort of mumbo-jumbo to make nationalism and pride in one’s own country look bad.
I put the subject of ethnocentrism/multi-culturalism in real-life terms for my students during my lectures on the treatment of women in different cultures.
When I talk about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) as practiced in African/Islamic cultures, supplemented with slides of the process, a lot of folks start re-thinking their position rather quickly.
(Pointing out that the NAGs have said nothing about the practice is only icing on the cake.)
Actually, today’s college students aren’t as intellectually able as yesterday’s. It used to be that only ‘college material’ students went to college.
Proud ethnocentric Western Civilization Real American bump!
If there is a better civilization on this planet than Western Civilization, please prove it to me!
If there is a better country to live in on this planet than the USA, please prove it to me!
HSAT, we Westerners and Americans are in grave danger of losing both our civilization and our country to the multiculturists and One-Worlders.
Adams makes a great point: “. . . the failure to impose judgment results in the failure to remedy injustice.”
[We Americans need to remedy an injustice on November 6!]
We make judgements all the time about all manner of things, concepts, people, etc., etc.
I, for one, will continue to do so, based on my understanding of the World in which I live — as long as I don’t violate the law (presuming it is not some dumbass PC law!).
The good news is that there is a God's-eye view of human culture. The bad news is that only God gets to see it.
Ethnocentrism only works in societies with strong ethics. Almost exclusively modern western nations.
For example, when a modern western nation has an enclave of a minority group, perhaps a ghetto, the people of the western nation are *able* to judge that minority group.
They do so *not* by the “best and brightest” of that minority, but both by the bad behavior of its “worst and stupidest”, *and*, importantly, how that minority treats its “worst and stupidest” who misbehave.
When the minority has criminal offenders that abuse the majority, yet the minority *rejects* these offenders and condemns them loudly, and offers them up for punishment by the majority, that minority group is seen as being of good character and good members of society.
If, however, the minority excuses and rationalizes the bad behavior of its offenders, expresses no regret to the victims, claims victimization by the majority as an excuse, and seeks to hide and help the offenders, the *entire* minority group is judged by the majority as being of poor character, not a good part of society, and not to be trusted.
This is a reasonable use of ethnocentricity.
However, in less modern, eastern nations, ethnocentricity takes on the bad characteristics of xenophobia, prejudice, bigotry, inequality before the law, and persecution of minorities.
An important distinction needs to be made between equality before the law, equal opportunity, and foolish efforts to force equality and equality of outcomes.
Again in western nations, equality before the law and equal opportunity are not static things, but dynamic ones. There are no minorities that do not have to continually demonstrate their good character to be seen as good. Society as a whole reserves the right to change its judgment of a minority if it changes its behavior for better or for worse.
Equality or equality of outcomes has no real possibility, however, because they are static things that do not last, even if briefly achieved.
As my intelligent grandmother used to say, many years ago, “I remember when ‘discriminating’ was a nice word.”
I wuz ethno-centric before ethno-centric was un-cool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.