Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cultural relativism and the impact on society
Cultural relativism and the impact on society
Cultural relativism and the impact on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cultural relativism and the impact on society
In the era of globalization, it has been more convenient for people to access to foreign culture and develop a better understanding towards its values and attitudes. Yet, being able to put away all preconceived ideas when exploring an unfamiliar culture is extremely critical. In this context, cultural relativism would be a useful anthropological approach to be adopted when one is trying to interpret a foreign culture. It is an aesthetics advocate that all cultures are of equal value that no single culture is uniquely privileged over any others. This essay will argue for cultural relativism because it encourages people to respect and comprehend a culture from a neutral point of view. This will be asserted by demonstrating how interpreting the …show more content…
Ethnocentrism, on the other hand, is a contrasting idea to cultural relativism. It is a principle posit that people should see themselves metaphorically as being the center of the universe; one’s own culture as more superior and natural than the others. People adopted this particular mindset would develop negative judgments towards customs and cultures that violate their norms because they only see the culture they familiar with as ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’. It leads to discrimination, racism or persecution, or worst and extreme cases, war and genocide. History has proven that miserable consequences could be brought out by people who are too arrogant to respect foreign cultures; European imperialism in the 19th and 20th century is the product of Ethnocentrism. “Ethnocentrism stems from the way that Europeans conquered and subdued the indigenous peoples of Africa, Central and South America and Australasia through the spread of colonialism”(Giddens, 1997). Europeans assumed they were more civilized and privileged than other countries. Therefore there was a need for them to control their colonies in order to help these countries to civilize up to their standards. It leads to serious racism phenomenon at that time since indigenous people were seen as savages by European, following the trend of slave trade. In addition, the most extreme and tragic example of ethnocentrism occurred in the history was the Nazi Germany. Hitler and many of his followers ignorantly believed that their race was the purest and was superior to the Jewish race. As a result of this prejudice, thousands of innocent Jewish people were slaughtered and tortured in concentration camps. The above examples are the evidence of how adopting an ethnocentrism principle instead of cultural relativism could cause racism, war or even
Ethnocentrism is the belief that one's ethnic group or culture is superior (Leeder, 2004). In order to gain citizenship David Aldwinkle was subject to investigation by inspectors to prove he was culturally Japanese. These investigations included interviewing his neighbors,
The term “ethnocentrism,” meaning the sense of taken-for-granted superiority in the context of cultural practices and attitudes, described the way Europeans looked at their “culture” as though they were superior to all others. Westerns even stated that non-Westerns had no culture and that they were inferior to the culture that was building in Europe.
Cultural relativism was introduced in the U.S. by Frank Boas in 1887 (ibid). This theory postulates that cultures must be understood in terms of the values and ideas of that specific culture; the underlying objective here was to delegitimize notions of ethnocentrism (the belief that one culture may judge another based on their cultural standards) (Miller, 12-3). Though this theory seems to provide a framework to eliminate a discriminatory belief, it would not allow then, for example, people to attack the events that took place in Germany circa 1930s-40s (Miller, 23). Critical cultural relativism avoids this ‘homogenizing trap’
(1) Ethnocentrism is looking at one’s own culture and placing it above other cultures, constantly comparing it to the other cultures “below”. In America today, many people look at conflicted areas in the globe such as the Middle East and wonder why their system cannot keep a stable democracy. This idea of constantly comparing other cultures to one’s own and expecting them to be alike or follow the example is a problem in reading historical documents and understanding history as a whole. Nomadic invaders such as the Mongols were described as horrible savage people in the written accounts of the sedentary peoples. This must not be taken quite as literally because accounts tend to be biased more often than not. In examining ethnocentrism, one must always remember that few, if not none, cultures behave extremely irrationally as they may seem. For example, referring back to the views of Middle East today, one must remember that the system of Islamic law and customs has held for centuries, and would not have survived that long if they truly are as irrational as they might seem. Referring back to the example of the Mongols, the attacked people were obviously biased and the Mongols would not have had ruled for so long if they were cruel, savage, irrational monsters. Ethnocentrism is extremely difficult to avoid and is apparent in many documents, such as Columbus’s description of the American Natives (in comparison to the “civilized” Europeans), and should be dealt with carefully. In order to understand all sides of an account, one must look at what is written with deference and understanding.
Ethnocentrism by definition is the “evaluation of other cultures according to preconceptions originating in the standards and customs of
Each culture has a certain level of ethnocentrism which can have positive and negative consequences. Ethnocentrism provides a feeling of unwillingness to change one’s culture or specific institution by placing them in a box. They can only see things through their specific lens and when something differs from what they know, they believe that it is a violation of the ways things should be. They become ignorant of the cultures that they may be right in the middle of by comparing them to the culture that they are familiar with and grading it on a scale. This causes a level of unwillingness to change institutions within a society because they are the standard. This makes it exceedingly difficult to relate to other people and the world as a whole because when someone is always trying to look at something while envisioning it as something else; they will never fully see the beauty of what they are observing. They limit their own experience for the sake of comfort and security, for the safety found within the familiar. Ethnocentrism is the safety blanket for many people yet the enervation that prevents them from fully experiencing the world and all of its different
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
The problems of ethnocentrism tend to manifest themselves in the philosophy of history, when philosophers attempt to interpret empirical history in teleological terms. Ethnocentrism arises whenever the researcher attempts to universalize the Western subject-position. In sociological terms that have been widely popularized since Sumner, ethnocentrism involves one first identifying with an in-group, with whom one shares certain observable characteristics (culture, language, physical features, or customs, for example).[1] The belief in shared characteristics leads to an assertion of identity, and this belief in turn influences attitudes. Our attitude toward the in-group is one of favouritism, whereas our attitude toward the out-group is one of
The Challenge of Culture Relativism written by James Rachels argues the downsides and upsides to the idea of Cultural Relativism. This is the idea of Cultural Relativism: the principle that an individual human 's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual 's own culture. It was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students.
Ethnocentrism can be defined as an individual’s belief that the ethnic group or cultural they identify with is superior to all others. “The ethnocentric person judges other groups and other cultures by the standards of his or her own group” (Schaefer 34).
Ethnocentrism is when one culture judge’s another culture by the standard of their own (Health, 2001). Stereotypes, biases, and prejudices against other people are all in a sense a form of ethnocentrism (Astle, Barton, Johnson, & Mill, 2014). It is okay to be proud of your own culture, but you need to remember to do so in such a way, that you are not putting down any other culture (Arnold, 2016).
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.
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.
There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.
... its proper expressions, structure and grammar. Moreover, each language is linked to a specific dialect which is associated with educational, economic, social and historical conditions. Moreover, cultural variations also exist in the rules for general discourse in oral communication. Similar to verbal communication, there are also variations in non-verbal communication between cultures. Gestures, facial expressions, sense of time and personal distance take different forms in different cultures. Furthermore, there is an infinite number of cultural diversities which are at the root of intercultural miscommunication. Variations in values , social relationships, religion, economy and politics consist of only a few of these diversities. These differences can be the source of ethnocentrism, if one becomes over patriotic in regards to one’s own culture. Ethnocentrism, is the concept which states that we tend to judge other cultures through our own. Ethnocentric behavior, can cause racism and chauvinism, as in the case of the Second World War. However, intercultural problems can be avoided if we all develop mindfulness, a sense of flexibility and seek information about the other culture.