The tendency to view one’s own group as ideal and all other groups with reference to this ideal could lead to prejudice, dislike, dominance, conflict, instability of democratic institutions, and even war
Ethnocentrism broadly refers to ethnic self-centredness and self-importance. This attitude could lead an individual to believe that their own culture or way of life is the correct way of living. It could also result in hostility towards other cultures. Ethnocentrism is therefore the tendency to view one’s own group, the ‘in-group’, as the archetype and all the other groups, the ‘out-groups’, with reference to this ideal. The in-group’s boundaries are defined by one or more observable characteristics such as language, accent, physical features or religion, indicating common descent. While initially used in anthropology, the term is now used widely in sociology, psychology, political science, economics and markets, among other disciplines.
Changing definitions
Scientific interest in the term ethnocentrism started in the late 19th and early 20th century. Charles Darwin argued that competition with other groups makes people more cooperative with members of their own group, which further influences group prosperity (Boris Bizumic, 2012). Herbert Spencer argued that societies in general are characterised by internal amity (towards members of one’s group) and external enmity (towards everyone else).
Neither of them used the term ethnocentrism, however. Developing their ideas, it was the anthropologist William Sumner who is first said to have coined the term in 1906 in his book folkways and also used the concepts ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’. However, it was the geologist and anthropologist William John McGee who is said to have first used the term in print. For McGee, ethnocentrism was a particular way of thinking similar to egocentrism, but characteristic of ethnic groups.
Robert A. Levine, an anthropologist, and Donald T. Campbell, a social psychologist, argued that ethnocentrism is a set of 23 characteristics, nine of which are positive attitudes towards a perceived in-group (such as perceptions about virtue and morals) and 14 of which are negative attitudes towards a perceived out-group (such as distrust, suspicion and blame). Early anthropologists argued that this feeling of superiority about the in-group curtailed an individual’s ability to understand the practices and values of other groups and to trust them. This feeling, they said, could lead to prejudice, dislike, dominance, ethnic conflict, instability of democratic institutions, and even war.
Ethnocentrism can also affect consumer choices and voting. However, later theorists argued that ethnocentrism might simply be preference for in-groups over out-groups. They said that the segregation of in-groups and out-groups should not necessarily be attributed to bias. In other words, they argued that you can be indifferent towards perceived out-groups or even like them, but less than you like your perceived in-group. Or you may dislike an out-group, but that attitude might not necessarily translate into some sort of discriminatory behaviour in a given situation. The ways of defining ethnocentrism thus keep changing and there is no definite consensus on the meaning of the term even today.
There are many examples of ethnocentric behaviour. Let’s try to understand this rather fluid concept with a simple example that many of us may be familiar with. Let’s assume that Ravi in India prefers to eat food with his hands. Ravi invites his American friend, Robert, to attend his sister’s wedding in India. When Robert arrives at the wedding, he is horrified to see everyone eating with their hands instead of using cutlery, as they do mostly in the U.S. Robert makes a rude remark about this unfamiliar practice and Ravi is hurt and angry. Robert’s attitude may be conscious or unconscious but his inability to accept this way of eating food as another culture’s practice and his tendency to view it as primitive while seeing his own culture as superior or advanced is ethnocentric.
Ethnocentrism is also quite similar to nationalism. All the expressions of ethnocentrism, such as feelings of superiority and even hostility towards out-groups, could be easily attributed to nationalism, but while ethnocentrism is at the level of an ethnic group, nationalism is at the level of a national group. Nevertheless, it is also important to note that nationalism also assumes certain factors that are not necessary for ethnocentrism. National groups are defined by the belongingness to a group that inhabits a national state or aspires to form a national state whereas ethnic groups do not require national states to be called ethnic groups, and they may lack a shared public culture or even territory (Smith, 2001). Ethnocentric feelings and attitudes such as preference for a familiar culture and group superiority have been exploited by nationalism.
A study from India
We can also understand ethnocentrism with a study from India. In a paper published in 1974 in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Donald M. Taylor and Vaishna Jaggi tried to understand ethnocentrism and causal relations in the south Indian context. Thirty Hindus were asked to attribute the behaviour of their in-group (Hindus) and out-group (in this case, Muslims) performing socially desirable or undesirable acts to internal or external causes.
The subjects in the study were presented with a series of one paragraph-descriptions of an actor behaving in a social context. They were asked to imagine that they were in that situation and the actor was directing the behaviour at them. Each situation depicted one of four situations involving a Hindu or Muslim behaving towards them in a desirable or undesirable way. The situations included a shopkeeper being generous to the subject or cheating the subject and a teacher praising or scolding the subject.
For each paragraph, the subject was provided with four or five possible reasons for the behaviour. One of these reflected internal attributions (Hindu shopkeepers are generous or Hindus are rude) and the remaining reflected external attributions (the actor was compelled by social rules to behave as he did or there was a misunderstanding between the actor and the perceiver).
The study found that Hindus were more favourable to their in-group. They were more likely to make internal attributions for socially desirable behaviour performed by Hindus than for socially undesirable behaviour. Thus, they said Hindu shopkeepers are generous or Hindu teachers praise students. Conversely, undesirable behaviour performed by the same were not seen as reflections of internal behaviour but caused by external factors.
The subjects reversed their internal attributions for Muslim actors. Thus, they made internal attributions for socially undesirable behaviour (cheating was seen to reflect the internal characteristic of the actor) and external attributions for socially desirable behaviour. The study showed how ethnocentrism is evidenced not only in the form of generalised attitudes but also in the form of attributions for specific behaviour.
Latest News
General Studies