To view one’s own culture as the universal by which all others are judged would be ultimately subjective, as our perceptions of cultural differences are shaped largely by our immersion in our own culture. An ethnocentric approach stems from judging an alternate culture in relation to one’s own pre-conceived cultural values, held to be superior; the parallax phenomenon, the inability to escape our own biases, prevents objective analysis of different cultures. A cultural relativist maintains the post-modernist view that there is no moral or cultural high-ground with which to judge one culture in relation to another, thus each culture must be understood from its own perspective, and within its own context. Some practices may appear bizarre when observed cross-culturally, however, in their own cultural context, they seem quite natural. A relativist approach has its limits, and these boundaries are drawn at cross-cultural universals. Practices such as female genital mutilation and cannibalism are abhorrent from an ethnocentric, western point of view; however relativist thinking requires greater analysis and debate as to whether such abhorrence is purely ethnocentric, or whether such practices break cross-cultural universals. Marriage practices, which vary widely in different cultures require a culturally relativist understanding in order to prevent subjective criticism. Fundamental to ethnocentrism is the notion of fallibility; there is no infallible, moral or cultural ‘high-ground’ by which all cultures and practices may be judged. Our moral perceptions have their basis in social conditioning and our enculturation into a specific culture (Spiro, 1986, p260) and so objectivity can only arise from distancing the observer from his or her preconceived ideas of what is correct and what is morally acceptable. The key to distancing oneself from one’s preconceptions is through relativism; thorough knowledge and understanding of one’s own values and the ‘subtle value-laden assumptions [that] creep into sociological research’ (Weber, 1949, as cited in Jureidini & Poole, 2003, p68). Social prejudice and a human propensity for ethnocentrism cause observers of a culture other than their own to judge such practices and beliefs as peculiar, yet ‘many of our own practices are peculiar when viewed through the lenses of other cultures’ (Karp, 1990, p74-75, cited in Schultz &... ... middle of paper ... ...23, No. 1. March, 1988, pp. 56-76. Available from: Stable URL: < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-1496%28198803%292%3A23%3A1%3C56%3ATSG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X > Jureidini, R. & Poole, M. Sociology: Australian Connections, Third Edition, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2003. Leach, E.R. ‘Polyandry, Inheritance and the Definition of Marriage’, Man, Vol. 55. December, 1955, pp. 182-186. Available from: Stable URL: < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-1496%28195512%291%3A55%3C182%3A1PIATD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6 > Renteln, A.D. ‘Relativism and the Search for Human Rights’, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 90, No. 1. March, 1988, pp. 56-72. Available from: Stable URL: < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7294%28198803%292%3A90%3A1%3C56%3ARATSFH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9 > Schultz, E.A. & Lavenda, R.H. Cultural Anthropology: A Perspective on the Human Condition, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005. Spiro, M.E. ‘Cultural Relativism and the Future of Anthropology’, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 1, No. 3. August, 1986, pp. 259-286. Available from: Stable URL: < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0886-7356%28198608%291%3A3%3C259%3ACRATFO%3E2.0.CO%3B2- >
Robbins, R. H. (2014). Cultural anthropology: a problem-based approach (Second Canadian ed.). Itasca: F.E. Peacock.
In Barre Toelken’s essay “Seeing with a Native Eye: How Many Sheep Will It Hold?”, the ways in which one culture perceives another and the criteria used to make judgements are explored. Toelken states “I think I can say something about how differently we see things, envision things, look at things, how dissimilarly different cultures try to process the world of reality” (10-11). In essence, Toelken is alluding to how different cultures will interpret their experiences and rituals according to their own set of beliefs and practices. This complicates situations in which the experiences or rituals are not comparable across cultural lines; someone will always be missing an aspect or a significant purpose if they do not try to “see it as much as possible with the ‘native eye’” (12). In other words, one must immerse themselves in the culture they are analyzing, while not comparing it to their own cultural experiences. One must consider all the cultural implications of that specific culture when wondering why things are done a certain way. Toelken provides
Beckwith described many situations that would have us believe that certain aspects of other cultures have radically different moral values. The most predominant example he uses from philosopher James Rachels, agreeing with his claim he used over Eskimo culture and infanticide. In the Eskimo culture, it is a social and moral norm to kill a child to ensure the family’s survival. When looking at it from an ethnocentric view, many see that as morally wrong, but what Beckwith argues is that if we dig deeper and gain more knowledge of particular facts on these cultures that differences in cultures may not be too far off from our own. So from a morally objective standpoint, Beckwith believes that disagreements are overrated due to the lack of factual information and biases over issues.
Macklin, Ruth. "Ethical relativism in a multicultural society." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8.1 (1998): 1-22.
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
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
Desjarlais, R., & Throop, C. J. (2011). Phenomenological approaches in anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 87-102. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-092010-153345.
Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge, 14th Edition William A. Havilland; Harald E. L. Prins; Bunny McBride; Dana Walrath Published by Wadsworth, Cengage Learning (2014)
In the book titled Around the World in 30 Years, Barbara Gallatin Anderson’s makes a precise and convincing argument regarding the acts of being a cultural anthropologist. Her humor, attention to detail, and familiar analogies really allow for a wholesome and educating experience for the reader. Her credible sources and uniform writing structure benefits the information. Simply, the book represents an insider’s look into the life of a cultural anthropologist who is getting the insider’s look to the lives of everybody
Ethnocentrism is the name given to a tendency to interpret or evaluate other cultures in terms of one's own. This tendency has been, perhaps, more prevalent in modern nations than among preliterate tribes. The citizens of a large nation, especially in the past, have been less likely to observe people in another nation or culture than have been members of small tribes who are well acquainted with the ways of their culturally diverse neighbours. Thus, the American tourist could report that Londoners drive "on the wrong side of the street" or an Englishman might find some customs on the Continent "queer" or "boorish," merely because they are different. Members of a Pueblo tribe in the American Southwest, on the other hand, might be well acquainted with cultural differences not only among other Pueblos but also in non-Pueblo tribes such as the Navajo and Apache.
Welsch, Robert L, and Kirk M Endicott. “Should Cultural Anthropology Model itself on the Natural Science.” Taking sides clashing views on controversial issues in cultural anthropology. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print.
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
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.
Ethical relativism is can be defined as the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or historical period. There are two types of ethical relativism: cultural relativism as well as individual relativism. Cultural relativism is a concept that cultural norms and values derive their meaning within a specific social context. A lot of cultures do things a way which they were taught was always the right way and everything within that particular norm is viewed to be correct. In contrast, other cultures might see it differently. To them, it might seem wrong and even offensive which is actually relevant.