Introduction to Cultural Studies

Ethnocentrism is the term anthropologists use to describe the opinion that one’s own
way of life is natural or correct. Some would simply call it cultural ignorance.
Ethnocentrism means that one may see his/her own culture as the correct way of
living. For those who have not experienced other cultures in depth can be said to be
ethnocentric if they feel that their lives are the most natural way of living. Some
cultures may be similar or overlap in ideas or concepts, however, some people are in
a sense, shocked to experience differences they may encounter with individuals
culturally different than themselves. In extreme cases, a group of individuals may see
another cultures way of life and consider it wrong, because of this, the group may try
to convert the other group to their own ways of living. Fearful war and genocide
could be the devastating result if a group is unwilling to change their ways of living.

An example of ethnocentrism in culture is the Asian cultures across all the countries
of Asia. Throughout Asia, the way of eating is to use chopsticks with every meal.
These people may find it unnecessary to find that people in other societies, such as
the American society, eat using forks, spoons, knives, etc. Since these countries use
chopsticks to eat every meal, they find it foolish for other cultures to not use utensils
similar to chopsticks; however, they do accept the fact that they use different utensils
for eating. This example is not something extreme that could lead to genocide or war,
but it is a large enough gap between these cultures for people to see their way of
eating as the natural or best way to typically eat their food.

Another example of ethnocentrism is colonialism. Colonialism can be defined as

cultural domination with enforced social change. Colonialism refers to the social
system in which the political conquests by one society of another leads to “cultural
domination with enforced social change”. A good example to look at when
examining colonialism is the British overtake of India. The British had little
understanding of the culture in India which created a lot of problems an unrest
during their rule.[10]

Ethnocentrism may not, in some circumstances, be avoidable. We all often have

instinctual reactions toward another person or culture’s practices or beliefs. But these
reactions do not have to result in horrible events such as genocide or war. In order to
avoid such awful things like those we must all try to be more culturally relative.
Ethnocentrism is one solution to tension between one cultural self and another
cultural self. It helps reduce the other way of life to a version of one’s own.

Ethnocentrism" is a commonly used word in circles where ethnicity, inter-ethnic

relations, and similar inter-group issues are of concern. The usual definition of the

1
term is "thinking one's own group's ways are superior to others" or "judging other
groups as inferior to one's own". "Ethnic" refers to cultural heritage, and "centrism"
refers to the central starting point... so "ethnocentrism" basically refers to judging
other groups from our own cultural point of view. But even this does not address the
underlying issue of why people do this. Most people, thinking of the shallow
definition, believe that they are not ethnocentric, but are rather "open minded" and
"tolerant." However, as explained below, everyone is ethnocentric, and there is no
way not to be ethnocentric... it cannot be avoided, nor can it be willed away by a
positive or well-meaning attitude. It can, however, be an opportunity to recognize and
resolve our own biases, and to learn more about potentials we all have for being
human... a lifelong process of learning and growth.

To address the deeper issues involved in ethnocentrism calls for a more explicit
definition. In this sense, ethnocentrism can be defined as: making false assumptions
about others' ways based on our own limited experience. The key word
is assumptions, because we are not even aware that we are being ethnocentric... we
don't understand that we don't understand.

One example of ethnocentrism is seen in the above comments on the Inuit snowshoe
race. I assumed that I had "lost" the race, but it turns out the Inuit saw the same
situation very differently than I did. Westerners have a binary-conflict view of life
(right or wrong, liberal versus conservative, etc.), and I had imposed my "win or lose"
perspective of life on the situation. As a result, I did not understand
how they experience life, that trying is a basic element of life. This did not necessarily
involve thinking that my ways were superior, but rather that I assumed my
experience was the "normal" in another group's circumstances.

Another example illustrates how basic ethnocentrism is. If we go to a store and ask
for a green coat and the sales clerk gives us a blue one, we would think the person
was color blind at the best or stupid at the worst. However, "colors" are not so
simple. The Inuit lump shades of what AngloAmericans call "blue" and "green" into
one color category, tungortuk, which can only be translated as "bluegreen." Does this
mean that they cannot see the difference? Just as we can distinguish between
different shades (such as "sky blue", "navy blue", "kelly green", and "forest green"), so
can the Inuit and other humans around the world. If they want to refer to what we
would call "green," they would say tungUYortuk, which can be translated something
like "that bluegreen that looks like the color of a [conifer] tree." The point is that
something so "simple" as colors has very different meanings to us and to the Inuit.
How could an Inuk "feel blue"? Colors, after all, are only different wavelengths of
light, and the rainbow can be perceived in many different ways.

There are many, many examples of such differences in meanings that make life
experience so unique for all the human groups around the world. For example,

2
English has tenses built into our verb forms, so we automatically think in terms of
time (being "punctual", "time is money", "make the time", etc.). But Algonquian
Indian languages do not have tenses (though they cannot express time in other
ways), but rather have "animate" and "inanimate" verb forms, so they automatically
think in terms of whether things around them have a life essence or not. So when
Cree Indians do not show up for a medical appointment, Anglo health care workers
may explain this as being "present-oriented" (or "lazy", "stupid", etc.), since we
normally cannot think except in terms of time frames. But this is the essence of
ethnocentrism, since we would be imposing a time frame where none exists.

The assumptions we make about others' experience can involve

false negative judgments, reflected in the common definition of ethnocentrism. For
example, Anglos may observe Cree Indians sitting around a camp not doing obvious
work that is needed and see Crees as "lazy". Westerners generally value "being busy"
(industriousness), and so may not appreciate the Cree capacity to relax and not be
compelled to pursue some activities of a temporary nature... nor realize how much
effort is put into other activities like hunting and trapping.

Assumptions can also reflect false positive attitudes about others' ways. For example,
we in urban industrial society frequently think of Cree Indians as being "free of the
stresses of modern society," but this view fails to recognize that there are many
stresses in their way of life, including the threat of starvation if injured while
checking a trap line a hundred miles from base camp or when game cycles hit low
ebbs. False positive assumptions are just as misleading as false negative assumptions.

Examples of such biases abound in our own communities, as well as around the
world. When you think about your own experience with people from other ethnic
groups and with attitudes expressed about relations with other countries, what
assumptions come to your mind where you may have imposed your own views and
feelings about life on their experience?

Everybody is ethnocentric, as all of us around the world assume things about other
people's ways. The question then is not whether we have biases, but why are we
ethnocentric?

The definition given above emphasizes that we make false assumptions based on our
own limited experience. This is all we know... what we have already experienced is the
basis for our "reality", what we expect as we go through our daily lives. It is normal to
assume it is the "natural" basis of reality... because our own ways have generally

3
worked for us throughout our lives. Our perceptions of colors, our time frames, our
values, our social roles, our beliefs about Life and the Universe, and all our other
ways help us organize life experience and provide important meanings and functions
as we move through our lives. Therefore, the limited experiences we have already
had provide the basis for interpreting new experiences, in this case, the behaviors of
other people.

Since we have not experienced everything others have experienced, how can

we not be ethnocentric? This same principle works on many levels, such as inter-
personal and inter-species relations.

So what is the problem with ethnocentrism?

Ethnocentrism leads to misunderstanding others. We falsely distort what is

meaningful and functional to other peoples through the tinted lens of our own life
experience. We see their ways in terms of our experience, not their context. We do not
understand that their ways have their own meanings and functions in life, just as our
ways have for us.

At the heart of this is that we do not understand that we do not understand! So we aren't
aware that we can develop more valid and balanced understandings about how
others experience life.

At the best, we simply continue in our unawareness. Yet this can have consequences
within our own society and in international relations. We may be well meaning in
interethnic relations, for example, but can unintentionally offend others, generate ill
feelings, and even set up situations that harm others. For example, it is easy not to see
the life concerns of others (particularly minorities and the disadvantaged), or
conversely we pity them for their inabilities to deal with life situations (like poverty
or high crime rates). How do we feel when someone doesn't recognize our concerns,
or feels sorry for us because we can't "just let go" of a stressful situation?

A lack of understanding can also inhibit constructive solutions when we face

conflicts between social groups. It is easy to assume that others "should" have certain
views or values. How often are we prone to respond negatively when others tell us
how we should think and feel?

Ethnocentrism is also evident in international relations, creating conflicts and

thwarting resolution of conflicts. For example, how might our Western binary

4
conflict view of life (A versus B) influence our interpretation of another group's
intents when they express a different position on an issue? Is it just another"
viewpoint, or is it "against" our viewpoint? If we don't "win" the conflict, will we
"lose"? We may have positive intentions (from our viewpoint) in "helping" other
groups deal with certain "problems," but how do they see the problem and what kind
of solutions do they want? Some peoples around the world see Americans as a very
competitive and violent people, as evidenced by our business practices, Hollywood
movies, and events like the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in
Parkland, Florida. How much does these views describe your personal experience?
How do you think this perception might influence their assumptions about our
intents in relations with their countries? An ultimate case of such misunderstandings
is war, where many people are killed, maimed for life, have their families,
subsistence, health, and way of life disrupted, sometimes forever, because politicians
and their followers are convinced that others are "evil" or a threat to ""our way of
life?

There are extreme forms of ethnocentrism that pose serious social problems, of
course, such as racism, colonialism, and ethnic cleansing. These views are generally
condemned by the world community, but we regularly see such cases in the news.

One issue that we need to consider is that ethnocentrism is often exploited to foster

conflict... and to promote the power of a particular group. History shows us that
promoting an "us versus them" perspective against political, religious, and other
groups fosters discrimination and conflict that mainly benefit one group at the
expense of others. Social conflict and wars usually have ethnocentrism at their core,
which over time usually proves to be self-destructive for all concerned.

Can a more valid and balanced understanding of others' life experience avoid
conflicts that drain the resources and well-being of all parties, and instead promote
cooperative relations between peoples to the mutual advantage of all? Is there an
option of "we all benefit" as an alternative to "us or" them?

So here we have a paradox: we falsely assume because we are not even aware we are
assuming... and furthermore it is the normal thing to do. We cannot not be
ethnocentric, and we cannot will it away or make ourselves have a completely open
attitude. Is it ever possible not to be ethnocentric?

So what can we do about ethnocentrism?

5
Since we cannot undo our past life experiences, it is of little use to try and not be
ethnocentric. This is an impossible task, since we cannot experience every life
situation of everyone else around the world. We will always have our assumptions
about life based on our own existing limited experience. So a much more productive
approach is to be aware when we are being ethnocentric and to control for this bias as
we seek to develop more accurate and balanced understandings of others (and
ourselves).

In science, grounded understandings are not developed from the absence of biases,

but rather the recognition and control of biases. The scientific process helps us have a
clearer view of what we do know in the context of what we do not know.
Ethnocentrism is a bias that keeps us from such understandings of other people's life
experience, but it is possible to recognize this bias and control for it... so that we can
go on to develop more valid and balanced understandings. This calls for us to
develop our learning skills, but it can be done. Many of us know people who have
moved to other or our own societies and have learned to become functional in their
new social/ethnic setting, evidence that it is possible to develop effective
understandings. Anthropologists, of course, have worked on systematically
developing these skills for well over a century.

 The first step in developing more balanced understandings is

to recognize that we do not understand, that we are falsely assuming
something that is not the case and is out of context. So, how can we
consciously become aware of something that is happening subconsciously? In
this case, how can we know when we are being biased?

One of the most effective means for recognizing that biases are inhibiting our
understandings is to watch for reactions. Reactions tell us that our
assumptions are not working.

We can always observe our own reactions. When we have negative reactions

towards others (such as thinking "that doesn't make sense" or "that's wrong,"
or feeling offended or confused, etc.), these are clues that our assumptions are
not working in the situation. For example, we may feel Cree Indians are
"unfriendly" because they are often nonexpressive in social situations; but
recognizing our reaction can provide an opportunity to better understand
Cree values on self-control, which can be adaptive when a small family group
has to be self-sufficient in a winter camp far from others' help. Observing
our positive reactions towards others (such as thinking "that's really nice" or
"that's wonderful," or feeling pleased or satisfied) can also help us to be aware
that we are not really understanding. For example, Anglos frequently think
the Inuit are "happy" and "friendly" because they smile a lot in social
situations, but recognizing this reaction can provide an opportunity to better

6
 understand Inuit social values, which are adaptive where subsistence is based
on cooperative hunting.

We can also observe their reactions. If we blissfully go on in our

misconceptions but they don't respond the way we would, this is also an
important clue that our assumptions are not working in the situation. Again,
their reactions may be both positive and negative. For example, if a Cree
shows gratification when we give him a gift, recognizing his reaction can
provide an opportunity to better understand adaptive Cree values on
economic leveling (rather than assuming that our "generosity" has been duly
recognized). Also, if an Inuk responds to our inquiry about how to keep our
shoulders warm while spending weeks on a mid-winter hunting trip with a
surprised "You mean you want to be warm all over?", recognizing his reaction
can provide an opportunity to better understand Inuit concepts of self and the
environment (rather than providing us with the desired "answer" to
maintaining our own concept of bodily comfort).

In general, reactions tell us first about us. Why do we think people should be

"friendly"? should appreciate material goods? should feel warm all over?
When we refer to others as "primitive" or "superstitious," what are we saying
about our own perceptions of Life? When we idealize others as being "simple"
or "not wasting anything," what are we saying about the problems we
perceive in our own way of life? When others consider us as "technologically
skilled" or "selfish," what does this say about us that we may never have
realized? Cross-cultural encounters reveal more about our own perspectives,
values, and emotional investments than about others, and so provide us
unique opportunities to learn more about ourselves.

 Once we realize that we are not understanding, we are now in a better position

to control our biases and to seek more valid and balanced understandings.

The first step involves an attitude: we are the learners. In this process, we area
aware that we do not know, and that is why we are seeking to develop better
understandings. They are the ones who do know what their life experience is
like... we are asking them to help us understand better. The best method is to
ask for their explanations about what they do or say. ("Can you help me
understand X better?") In particular, avoid posing questions that impose our
own realities and bound their realities. (For example, not "Why do you use
'green'?") Also, we should give people an out, and respect their right
to not share with us (just as we may not want to share things that are 'private'
or 'sacred'). If we appreciate that their life experience can be as valid for them
as ours is for us, acknowledge that we may be misunderstanding, and ask
them to help us understand, most people are more than willing to help us

7
 understand better. (This is a lesson I learned primarily from the Inuit, and
many others have contributed to it since.)

Next, we have to ask two sets of questions (first to ourselves) to provide more

insights into life experience in their context:

(1) What are their meanings about the behavior and situation? (In anthropological

terms, what is their emic experience?) This includes both their
cognitive views and their emotional feelings. This essentially involves inquiring
about their perspectives on their own life experience, including specific
cognitive views about colors and the structure of the Universe, feelings about
social relationships and proper behavior, and every other area of cultural life.
Also, observing what they are not ready to talk about can open new insights,
for example, about their introspection and sense of self or about why they
consider certain rituals to be secret. We need to keep in mind that there are
many meanings of any given behavior and that these are often very deep in
people's subconscious and are often difficult to put into words. For instance,
how would we explain to someone from another culture what "freedom"
means to Americans? Usually it is these differences in meanings that are the
basis of ethnocentrism.

(2) What are the adaptive functions of the behavior and situation? (In

anthropological terms, what is their etic experience?) How does this help the
group adapt to life challenges (ecologically, biologically, economically,
socially, psychologically, etc.)? This is the question which is usually not asked
on a common level, yet is the one that can provide the greatest insights and
understandings. For example, some may accept that a group's belief that
witchcraft causes illness is meaningful to a particular people (rather than
simply writing this off as "superstitious"). But they may fail to consider that
such beliefs often have important functions in these groups. For example, the
character and behavior of "witches" defines norms of socially unacceptable
and disruptive deviancy, and in contrast also defines "good" behavioral
standards for the group. This also serves as a mechanism of social control,
because people are afraid of being accused of witchcraft if they step out of
accepted boundaries of behavior. If we did not ask about the functions of
beliefs in witchcraft, we would never develop insights like understanding that
such views can help promote constructive behavior that helps the whole
group adapt. A particular meaning may have an important function in
another area of life, such as a religious belief in witchcraft having an important
social function. We also need to keep in mind that there are many functions of
any given cultural practice, including ecological, biological, economic, social,
and psychological functions that help a group adapt to life challenges. "What

8
 are the adaptive functions?" is the question that is generally not asked, but
which usually leads to the greatest insights into others' cultural system.

Asking about the meanings and functions of behavior is not a matter of "insiders" or
"outsiders," however. We can analyze the meanings of our own behavior, which are
highly complex and normally seated deeply in our subconscious, as with the
American idea of "freedom"... which others who have dominant views of "family".
We can also analyze the functions of our own behavior. For example, why is
"freedom" such an important American value? how does it help us as a nation of
immigrants adapt to life challenges? Sometimes outsiders can see things we don't
usually see because they are contrasting our behavior with others' ways, but being an
insider does not preclude members of any group from understanding their own
behavior.

When we start asking about how others' ways are meaningful and functional to its

participants, we come to realize that there are many valid ways in which human
beings can experience life.

What can we do when we recognize ethnocentrism in others? We can follow the same
process, and ask them what they think the meanings involved are? the functions?
This usually brings the focus to more critical awareness and understandings.

When we encounter ethnocentrism being promoted by particular groups, we can ask

ourselves and those around us "Why are they doing this?" What function does
promoting ethnocentrism and sowing conflict serve for this group? This exposes
ulterior motives behind the group's rhetoric and actions.

Perhaps no one can ever have complete understanding of another people, without
fully experiencing everything they experience. However, this does not mean we
cannot develop a functional understanding, to interact successfully with each other.
The many immigrants who have become functional members of our society
demonstrate this is possible, as well as anthropologists and others who have become
functional members of other groups. One goal that is achievable, however, is to make
sure that what we what we do understand is valid and balanced in the context of
recognizing what we do not understand.

How can we develop these skills? Like other life skills, practice at every opportunity
helps us develop our abilities, in this case to catch ourselves being ethnocentric and
asking good questions to better understand others' cultural behavior.

9
How does all this concern the idea of relativism, a prominent value in anthropology?

"Relativism" usually means not judging others' ways and accepting them as equal to
our own. This may be a positive value in terms of interethnic relations, though it is
often unrealistic since we cannot avoid ethnocentrism. We do not necessarily have to
agree with others' ways, and we have the right to our own ways, since they provide
important meanings and adaptive functions for us.

The real issue of relativism, I believe, is at what point is one group justified in intervening
in the behavior of another group? There are areas where most people around the world
believe there is little justification, such as how an ethnic group defines a desirable
marriage partner. There are also areas where most people believe there is great
justification, as with genocide and atrocities that violate international principles of
human rights. Also, there are areas where most people readily accept aid to meet
catastrophic circumstances, like relief supplies for earthquake victims.

There is a wide gray area in between where different opinions abound, such as "free
trade" which fosters both investment opportunities and child labor. Who is right in
these circumstances? There are few absolute answers, but there are some guiding
principles included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which can be
applied in evaluating what to do. This declaration sets standards upon which the
global community has agreed (even if such standards are regularly not met) What
are the community positions about the situation? Most groups have norms that are
both meaningful and functional. If they promote well-being within and across
groups, then we have to ask what right we have to intervene. If situations arise that
jeopardize the adaptive balance within and across groups, there may be some room
for addressing the situation, as long as it includes all the groups concerned and it is
made clear whose well-being is being served on the part of all parties involved. As
indicated, the world community has reached an international consensus about human
rights and about world functioning and balances.

We need to be careful, however, in how to be involved. There are many examples of

people using stated values to justify their own vested interests, as with efforts to
"civilize", or "develop", or "liberate" other peoples, which has promoted access to raw
materials and new markets for their own industries. There are also many examples of
people being sincerely well-meaning towards others (in terms of their own values)
with dire unforeseen consequences, such as introducing medical technologies which
undermine local social structures and cohesiveness. Whose interests are being served
the most? What is the overall impact on the group's adaptation?

Before we act, we need to evaluate several issues:

 What is our basis for becoming involved? What of our own cultural views are
involved? our values? our vested interests? Even where "justice," "health,"
10
 "standards of living," and other views are shared by others, they exist in
different contexts of cultural meanings and functions. We are still acting
from our values, and do we have the right to decide they are valid
for them? Why do we want to "help"? We can be more effective in determining
mutual solutions if we can control for our own life views, and recognize
what we want to get out of the results.
 What are their meanings and functions regarding the situation? What do they
want? What are the likely outcomes for them? What do they get out of the
results? Where we have more valid understandings, we have a more sound
basis for identifying the common overlap areas where mutual agreements and
solutions can be reached.

Self-determination is one of the most effective means of social change for all parties
concerned. Who is in the best position for understanding what is best for them? We
all make mistakes, but they are our mistakes and we have the opportunity to develop
from them. If we decide for others, then they will never have the opportunity to test
their own initiative in doing what is best for themselves, to develop their own
judgements, to learn from their own mistakes. Also, it is when people are denied the
legitimacy of their own life goals that they may turn to radical means outside
accepted practice, such as terrorism. I believe our most effective role is
to support them in achieving their own goals where these overlap ours.

In the long run, hasty "solutions" that impose one side's views about the situation
rarely work. How many times have we enthusiastically acted with high hopes, only
to realize later that there were unforeseen and unwanted consequences that we
ourselves may have generated? The most effective resolutions are those that
negotiate the common areas which allow each party validation of their own ways,
where the solution is desired by both parties, and, of course, where each party is
really able to make a contribution.

Encountering ethnocentrism, then, can be an opportunity.

One of Anthropology's greatest contributions is this concept

of ethnocentrism and how to recognize and control for our own biases so we can go
on to develop more valid and balanced understandings of other cultural ways and of
ourselves... and to grow in Life.

A standard scientific principle is that diversity is adaptive. The more different

resources a group has, the more potentials it has for adapting to life challenges,

11
particularly new and unforeseen conditions. We have come to realize this in
ecodiversity, but perhaps we still have to realize this in terms of ethnic diversity. The
more different ways of experiencing life available to us, for example, the more
resources we have for meeting adaptive challenges. One of the United State's greatest
strengths is its ethnic diversity. We have available within our society adaptive
resources from peoples all over the world, available to contribute to our continued
adaptation.

When we encounter people from other ethnic backgrounds, we have

an opportunity to learn new ways of seeing and experiencing life which we never
knew existed. In a larger framework, we can learn the
tremendous potentials humans have for being human. These potentials also exist
for us, possibilities that we never knew we could be... such as looking at solutions to
conflict as "win-win" instead of zero-sum "win-lose". And, on the negative side,
possibilities that we want to be sure that we not foster, such as the brutality exhibited
by average young American men as they massacred Vietnamese civilians at Mi Lai.
We can also better understand ourselves, by contrasting our own ways with other
life experiences and asking about our own meanings and functions.

When we go beyond ethnocentrism, there are whole new areas of understanding the
possibilities in how all humans can experience life... lessons that can provide us with
new possibilities for better experiencing life.

12
13
 Cultural Relativism*

How is culture defined?

What if someone told you their culture was the internet? Would that make sense to you?
Culture is the beliefs, behaviors, objects, and other characteristics shared by groups of
people. Given this, someone could very well say that they are influenced by internet
culture, rather than an ethnicity or a society! Culture could be based on shared ethnicity,
gender, customs, values, or even objects. Can you think of any cultural objects? Some
cultures place significant value in things such as ceremonial artifacts, jewelry, or even
clothing. For example, Christmas trees can be considered ceremonial or cultural objects.
They are representative in both Western religious and commercial holiday culture.

In addition, culture can also demonstrate the way a group thinks, their practices, or
behavioral patterns, or their views of the world. For example, in some countries like
China, it is acceptable to stare at others in public, or to stand very close to others in public
spaces. In South Africa, if you board a nearly empty bus or enter a nearly empty movie
theater, it is regarded as polite to sit next to the only person there. On the other hand, in a
recent study of Greyhound bus trips in the US, a researcher found that the greatest
unspoken rule of bus-taking is that if other seats are available, one should never sit next
to another person. Numerous passengers expressed that “it makes you look weird”.
These are all examples of cultural norms that people in one society may be used to.
Norms that you are used to are neither right nor wrong, just different. Picture walking
into a nearly empty movie theater when visiting another country, and not sitting next to
the only person in the theater. Another person walks up and tells you off for being rude.
You, not used to these norms, feel confused, and anxious. This disorientation you feel is
an example of culture shock.

Cartoon showing two people in an empty movie theater. One person is saying "you're a
jerk" to the person who sat far away from him.

14
What is cultural relativism?

Have you ever seen or eaten food from another country, such as dried squid or fried
crickets and think of it as weird and gross? This is an example of ethnocentrism! That
means you use your own culture as the center and evaluate other cultures based on it.
You are judging, or making assumptions about the food of other countries based on your
own norms, values, or beliefs. Thinking “dried squid is smelly” or “people shouldn’t eat
insects” are examples of ethnocentrism in societies where people may not eat dried squid
or insects.

Cartoon showing a person offering another man some deep fried crickets. The man who
is being offered the crickets says "um, I think I'll pass."

Is ethnocentrism bad or good? On the one hand, ethnocentrism can lead to negative
judgments of the behaviors of groups or societies. It can also lead to discrimination
against people who are different. For example, in many countries, religious minorities
(religions that are not the dominant religion) often face discrimination. But on the other
hand, ethnocentrism can create loyalty among the same social group or people in the
same society. For example, during the World Cup or Olympics, you may tend to root for
your own country and believe that the players or teams representing your country are
much better. National pride is also part of ethnocentrism.

To avoid judging the cultural practices of groups that are different to yours, we can use
the cultural relativism approach. Cultural relativism refers to not judging a culture to our
own standards of what is right or wrong, strange or normal. Instead, we should try to
understand cultural practices of other groups in its own cultural context. For example,
instead of thinking, “Fried crickets are disgusting! ” one should instead ask, “Why do
some cultures eat fried insects?”. You may learn that fried crickets or grasshoppers are
full of protein and in Mexico, it is famous Oaxaca regional cuisine and have been eaten
for thousands of years as a healthy food source!

15
 Cartoon showing a person offering another man some deep fried crickets.

The man who is being offered the crickets asks to know more about them.

Some people worry that the concept of culture can also be abused and misinterpreted. If
one culture behaves one way, does that mean all cultures can behave that way as well?
For example, many countries and international organizations oppose the act of whaling
(the fishing of whales) for environmental reasons. These environmental organizations say
that there are not many whales left and such fishing practices should be stopped.
However, other countries argue that whaling is a cultural practice that has been around
for thousands of years. Because it may be part of a country’s oceanic culture, this country
may say that such a cultural practice should not be opposed based on cultural
differences, say, by an inland country that does not understand. Who gets to define what
a moral cultural behavior is? Is whaling immoral? Two different cultures may have very
different answers, as we saw in the above example. Another more extreme instance
would be female genital cutting in some parts of the world. Locally, it is argued that the
practice has cultural roots, but such a practice has raised concerns among many
international human rights organizations.

Anthropologists say that when we think about different cultures and societies, we should
think about their customs in a way that helps us make sense of how their cultural
practices fit within their overall cultural context. For example, having several wives
perhaps makes economic sense among herders who move around frequently. Through
such an understanding, polygamy makes cultural sense.

What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (linguistic relativism) and how does it impact us?

In the 1930s, two anthropologists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, noticed that
the Hopi Indians in the United States had no words to differentiate between the past,
present, and future. This was a surprising discovery. In English, we can easily think of
tense and know what time frame someone is referring to. The two scholars found that the
way language is used affected the way we think about and perceive the world. In other

16
words, worldviews and cultural influences are largely embedded within the language we
use, even if we are saying things like coffee. When we talk about coffee in the US, we
would think of a large mug, and the coffee would come from a pot of coffee. When
Europeans talk about coffee, they are most likely thinking about little espresso cups filled
with strong coffee.

How a language affects the way we think about the world is called linguistic relativism or
the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Linguistic relativism means that there are certain thoughts we
have in one language (e.g. English) that cannot be understood by those who exist in
another language context (e.g. Spanish). The way we think is also strongly affected by
our native languages. For example, the Inuits (northern aboriginals) have dozens of ways
to convey the word snow. In English, how many ways can you think of to express snow?
Maybe four or five ways? Snow, flurry, sleet,...?

Let’s think about another everyday example. Imagine that we are watching an American
teen movie on TV. The main character walks into the high school cafeteria, and sees the
students sitting in a particular arrangement: the jocks, the mean girls, the nerds, the band
geeks, the stoners, the goths. If you went to an American high school, you may
immediately understand what the groupings mean. However, even among those of you
that did go to an American high school, the definition of mean girls may be completely
different. Now think, on the other side of the world, a high school student watching this
movie in China would be very confused. If you try to explain these groupings to
someone outside the linguistic cultural context, it becomes very difficult. Why are people
in bands geeks? What is a stoner, can someone be both a nerd and a stoner at the same
time?

So, learning a language does not mean only learning words. It also means that we need
to learn the cultural contexts that are embedded in the language itself. Languages reflect
our cultural experiences. For example, if you hear someone say that ginger is warm food,
and melons are chilly food, in English, it may make little sense. However, for those who
are well-versed in Chinese or Ayurvedic medicine will likely understand that warm foods
would be good for the sniffles or even rheumatoid arthritis, while chilly foods would be

17
good for constipation or mouth ulcers. Sometimes doctors in a US hospital are confused
when Chinese language speakers express pain symptoms in English as hot and cold.
These are all examples of cultural and linguistic differences and the importance of
understanding language and culture.

18