|
|
| School of Education |
| Teaching Diverse Populations EDG 2701 Unit II Lesson II Ethnocentricism |
|||
| Personal Information Associate Professor, Senior |
|
Links |
|
| Introduction to the Lesson The purpose of this second lesson in this second unit is to introduce the education student to the specific beliefs, values and attitudes rooted in fear and ignorance and are known collectively as ethnocentrism. The student will study the overarching concepts of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. There are several definitions of these concepts which will guide the discussions in this lesson. Ethnocentrism as defined by Haviland is “the belief that one’s own culture is superior in every way to all others” (Haviland, 1991/2001) It is a belief validated by the culture’s own criteria for superiority. Even when cultures or individual members of cultures assimilate “foreign” objects, practices or ideas, the outgroup origins of the same are de-emphasized and quickly and conveniently forgotten. Garcia (1991) in a much more comprehensive definition places ethnocentrism on a continuum that ranges from cultural degradation to cultural pride to cultural chauvinism, with cultural chauvinism being the extreme aspect of ethnocentrism cited in the Haviland definition. Cultural degradation, the other extreme, is a “reaction or a defense mechanism to cultural chauvinism” (Garcia, 1991, in McNair, 1998). Cultural pride, also an aspect of ethnocentrism, isan important state from which can emerge such positives as self-esteem, group identity, group solidarity, and group cohesion. Alternatively, ethnocentrism is
Such feelings often characterize "...the way most individuals feel about their own cultures, whether or not they verbalize their feelings” (Herskovits 1973:21). It is this point of view that gives people their sense of people-hood, group identity, and place in history. Accordingly, ethnocentrism becomes negative when “ one’s own group becomes the center of everything, and all other are scaled and rated with reference to it”(Herskovits 1973:21). It takes its most extreme form when “a more powerful group not only imposes its rule on another, but actively depreciates the things they hold to be of value” (Herskovits 1973:103). This third level of ethnocentrism is found in examples of racial segregation, the holocaust, and "ethnic cleansing". Cultural relativity is an attempt to understand the cultural development of societies and social groups own their own terms; that is, without trying to impose absolute ideas of moral value or trying to measure different cultural variations in terms of some form of absolute cultural standard.In this sense, under specific circumstances, any form of human behaviour can appear to be good or bad. A good example here is our attitude to the killing of another human being.
As this example suggests, what is significant is not the act itself (taking the life of another person) but the social context of the act (in this instance, the moral background against which the act is viewed).However, the concept of cultural relativity does present problems, since if we apply it politically, not just sociologically, we have to accept any form of behaviour as acceptable as long as it conforms to the cultural expectations of the society in which it takes place. (http://www.sociology.org.uk/p2d4.htm) (from Plant Papers.com) Cultural relativism “asserts that concepts are socially constructed and vary cross-culturally. These concepts may include such fundamental notions as what is considered true, morally correct, and what constitutes knowledge or even reality itself”…. (Harper Collin Dictionary of Sociology). The concept of culture, like any other piece of knowledge, can be abused and misinterpreted. Some fear that the principles of cultural relativity will weaken morality.
But this is exactly what cultural relativity does not mean. Cultural relativity challenges our ordinary beliefs in the objectivity and universality of moral truths. Different societies have different moral codes. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is only one among many. It is only clear that a negative attitude towards other culture or groups arise out of ethnocentrism, while positive attitude is the result of a cultural relativist approach. One must never feel that not understanding another culture is problematic. It is always a disadvantage to view culture in an etic way. To understand culture one must endure and encounter the culture from the emic, the inside. It would be mere arrogance to try to judge the conduct of other cultures. We should perhaps keep an open mind and a genuine insight that different cultures do have different moral codes. (Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativity - Planet Papers.htm) Under the rubric of these definitions the student will look at such topics as the Holocaust, Puerto Rican statehood and various kinds of "ethnic cleansing." This lesson was developed to address elements of competency #3 on the barriers to understanding diversity for education majors who are taking EDG 2701 in partial fulfillment of the graduation requirements for an Associate of Arts degree in Teaching (Elementary), Teaching (Secondary), Early Childhood and Exceptional Education.Competency #3 reads (in part) as follows: "The student will examine barriers to understanding diversity by
(A complete list of all the competencies for EDF 1005 is provided below by clicking on the link titled competencies) |
|||
