Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Influence of religion on culture
Ethnocentrism cultural relativism
Ethnocentrism cultural relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Influence of religion on culture
Cultural Relativism And Ethnocentrism: Sleeping Habits Across Cultures
Have you ever felt as though your culture is superior to another, solely because of the things that they do or do not do? This opinion is a product of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism, a term coined by William Graham Sumner, is the common belief that your culture or way of life is superior to that of other cultures. To avoid biased research and conclusions, though, social scientists must view their topics objectively and without any cultural bias. To do this, researchers employ the approach known as “cultural relativism.” Cultural relativism is defined as the belief that no one culture is superior to another morally, politically, etc., and that all “normal” human behavior is entirely relative, depending on the cultural
…show more content…
Parents are expected to train their children to sleep alone in their cribs, in a separate nursery, from the time they are born onward. This practice stems from the belief that there are far too many risks involved in co-sleeping, but the truth is that there is little to no evidence suggesting that children who sleep with their parents are at any greater risk than those who don’t.
In reality, according to James McKenna, a professor of anthropology at the University of Notre Dame and director of the Mother-Baby Behavioral Sleep Laboratory, co-sleeping is very beneficial for the child. He states:
"Studies have revealed that co-sleeping babies often grow to be less fearful and more independent than their non-co-sleeping counterparts. From an early age, we're arming infants, babies and children with the support they need to be independent. Co-sleeping with the mother or caregiver supports the baby. He responds to the noises, motions and reactions of the mother or
Cultural Relativism is a moral theory which states that due to the vastly differing cultural norms held by people across the globe, morality cannot be judged objectively, and must instead be judged subjectively through the lense of an individuals own cultural norms. Because it is obvious that there are many different beliefs that are held by people around the world, cultural relativism can easily be seen as answer to the question of how to accurately and fairly judge the cultural morality of others, by not doing so at all. However Cultural Relativism is a lazy way to avoid the difficult task of evaluating one’s own values and weighing them against the values of other cultures. Many Cultural Relativist might abstain from making moral judgments about other cultures based on an assumed lack of understanding of other cultures, but I would argue that they do no favors to the cultures of others by assuming them to be so firmly ‘other’ that they would be unable to comprehend their moral decisions. Cultural Relativism as a moral theory fails to allow for critical thoughts on the nature of morality and encourages the stagnation
There was this study done by Meret A. Keller and Wendy A. Goldberg that is focused on if co-sleeping is affecting student’s independence and self-reliance in a negative way. They hypothesized that children who sleep on their own are more independent and self-reliant than children who co-sleep. The procedure focuses on 83 preschool aged children and their mothers. They send out surveys to the parents to answer questions that are about independence and self-reliance. For a child to be independent they need to be able to fall asleep on their own, sleep through the entire night all by themselves, and be weaned from breastfeeding. In order for the child to be self-reliant, they need to be able to do things themselves such as dress themselves. For the results the children were split into three categories, early co-sleeping where the parents started co-sleeping their child when they were infants, reactive co-sleeping where the parents started co-sleeping their child at or after they were a one-year-old, and solitary sleeper where the child sleeps in the different room as the parents. The results were interesting. They were split into three different types of results. There was “Children’s Self-reliance and Social Independence,” “Independent Sleep Behaviors,” and “Adaptive Independence.” In “Children’s
Sara believed that it was important for the infant to establish a sense of security by sleeping in the same room as the parents early on, so that in the future when the child becomes old enough to sleep in a different room, the child will feel secure and be calm even when she is alone by knowing that her parents are just in the other room. One way to understand the link between Sara’s sleeping arrangements and her goal of making the infant feel more secure is to consider Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development (Erikson, 1963) The first stage of Erikson’s (1963) theory is trust versus mistrust, during which babies come to trust that their caregivers and other people will meet their physical and emotional needs or start to mistrust that the parents and other people will not take care of them. Sara hoped that by sleeping near her infant so that she could let her child see her when the child goes to sleep or wakes up in the middle of the night, the infant could feel more safe, or “trust,” that the infant’s needs would be tended to whenever necessary. The “trust” would then impact the child’s future development and especially when the time comes for the child to move to a separate room. The child, having received reliable
Newborns do not contribute much to society at large. In fact, they do not do much in general. It is impossible to know the details of what goes on in an infant’s mind. One of the things we do know about newborns is that sleep is crucial and they spend an average of 16-18 hours each day sleeping (Ward, 2015). This paper will examine the experiences of one mother’s decisions in regard to sleeping arrangements and the values, both cultural and personal, that support these arrangements. It will also compare her decisions to the decisions of U.S. and Mayan mothers discussed in the research article “Cultural Variation in Infants’ Sleeping Arrangements: Questions of Independence.” The mother who was interviewed for this paper is 54 years old and
Thousands of years ago, a baby left to sleep alone was not likely to survive very long. Keep in mind co-sleeping is still done in many parts of the world, especially in eastern countries. The western movement to push babies to sleep alone and toward independence as a whole, I believe, is a sign of our shift from a collectivist culture to an individualist one. There are many things said about co-sleeping to the general public. We have been warned that it is dangerous.
The short-term benefits to infants of co-sleeping with their mothers would be increase breast feeding which promotes bed-sharing, increase sleep interval and duration, less crying time, increase compassion to mother’s communication (McKenna, Mosko , & Richard, pg. 604). Short-term benefits to mothers who co-sleep with their infants would be more sleep time with gratification, increase sensitization to infant’s physiological-social status, increase wellbeing and the ability to understand developmental signals from the infant, and improved skill to supervise and accomplish infant wants (McKenna, Mosko , & Richard, pg. 604). Long-term benefits of co-sleeping for infants are under-represented, but it can spread relief with sexual identity, infants become independent and increase control of their reactions and anxiety, and they become more self-determining in task problem solving and initiating because they are better at being unaccompanied (McKenna, Mosko , & Richard, pg. 604). Parents should know the benefits of co-sleeping either long-term or
Throughout the world, for centuries, parents and infants have engage in many different sleeping arrangements. In the Western World solitary sleeping is strongly encouraged by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Solitary sleeping, or sleeping in separate rooms and separate beds, is said to promote the infants independence and reduce the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). The AAP has even issued multiple warnings on the dangers of shared sleeping arrangements, citing concerns regarding the safety, wellbeing, and the independence of the child. While the health and safety of an infant is the top priority for all the Western idea of solitary sleeping does not consider the different cultural beliefs of others. Therefore, despite
(IEP) Relativism is related to the theory of morals where the acceptance of its views and actions is based upon the culture, the people within the society, and the overall outlook based upon a specific group of individuals. The idea and practice of relativism causes much controversy around the world amongst different cultures and societies. Although relativism can vary amongst different cultures based upon the morals, beliefs, and values that are considered accepted, the theory behind relativism can be practiced as a universal theory. Children in society are raised according to how their parents want to raise them. Parents practice the way they raise their children based upon what their society accepts and/or how they were raised by their parents. Children become developed into believing how they were raised is true, therefore, they will one day raise their own children in the exact same practice. As these children grow and develop, they will learn to understand whether or not their actions and what they say are accepted or not accepted within their
Feldman, Ruth, Weller, Aron, Sirota, Lea & Eidelman, Arthur I. (2002). Skin-to-skin contact (kangaroo care) promotes self-regulation in premature infants: Sleep-wake cyclicity, arousal modulation, and sustained exploration. Developmental Psychology, 38, 194-207. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.194
After analyzing cultural relativism over the semester, I have come to the conclusion that cultural relativism under anthropological analysis defines every single culture with some aspect of worth as viewed by an individual within that society. Franz Boas, termed the “Father of American Anthropology”, first introduced the concept of cultural relativism. He wanted people to understand the way certain cultures conditioned people to interact with the world around them, which created a necessity to understand the culture being studied. In my words, cultural relativism is the concept that cultures should be viewed from the people among that culture. When studied by anthropologists, cultural relativism is employed to give all cultures an equal
New parents often wonder when the best time is to train a baby to sleep through the night.
With cultural relativism, events in our lifetime would be stable and consistent. There would be no room for things to improve due to the fact we may think everything is as it should be. Just as Rachel's had mentioned previously, we can take into account slavery. (Sher, 155) There would be no progression in regards to the abolishment of slavery if we adhered to Cultural Relativism as a set standard. We would accept slavery as the way things are, we would hold this view that we could not voice our own opinion as we should “respect,” other cultures. Rachel’s also makes an important point stating there is actually less disagreement than it seems when it comes to Cultural Relativism. (Sher, 174) In summary, he explains that our disagreement between other cultures needs to be looked more into. The actions of an individual from another culture needs to be looked in at a different perspective. He uses people who refuse to eat cows as an example. Are we judging them because they don’t want to eat an animal? Or do they not want to eat an animal because they believe there is a form of reincarnation involved? Rachels says this is not too far from our beliefs in where for example, some believe in going to heaven. When comparing ourselves to them, we are valuing the same things but show it in different
Culture Relativism; what is it? Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different. Rachels as well believes that “certain basic values are common to all cultures.” I agree with Rachels in that culture relativism cannot assure us that there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.