Ethnocentrism is a system of views in which the life and culture of other peoples are viewed through the prism of culture, traditional attitudes and value orientations of their ethnic group (considered as a standard) and which considers “one’s own” ethnic group to be better than others. This term indicates the existence of certain prejudices in the relationship between those who are and who are not members of a given ethnic group. “We” is a universal psychological form of self-consciousness of any community of people, but it always implies opposition to some definite or indefinite “they”. In this case, a clear distinction is made between the concepts of "us" and "them", and the attitudes, customs and behavior that characterize "us" are uncritically considered as unquestionably superior to "their" ethnic characteristics.
The term "ethnocentrism" was introduced in 1906 by the American scientist W. Sumner, who believed that in the minds of people there is a tendency to use the standards of their group to evaluate other groups, placing their group at the top of the hierarchy and considering other groups as subordinate. Ethnocentrism is associated with the initial opposition of one's own group to the alien "we - they", which underlies ethnic self-consciousness, and is rooted in the peculiarities of the psyche, which reacts warily or hostilely to unfamiliar phenomena (xenophobia), which largely determines the specifics of the socialization of the individual in the ethno-cultural environment. A significant role in the formation of ethnocentrism belongs, in particular, to attitudes and ideas received in the family, in the course of school education and public education, under the influence of ethnically colored literature and art, ethnically oriented media, etc.
Ethnocentrism has many faces. It is a deep substratum of both chauvinism and patriotism. Ethnocentrism is an integral part of human consciousness, and in a certain context it is morally justified if it is combined with tolerance for the way of life and culture of other peoples, respect for the human person. In the mind of a person who combines devotion to his people with respect for humanity, ethnocentrism turns into a patriotic feeling.
Ethnocentrism in its other quality - primitive group egoism - exists secretly in the conditions of the rule of law. The state considers a person as a citizen, and not as a member of an ethnic community, and prevents the ignition of ethnic hostility. Ethnocentrism in its ancient guise awakens where people have ceased to believe in the justice of the social and state order, where society has lost its spiritual orientation. In such a state, it is already difficult to contain destructive ethnic passions. And the more open space is given to group egoism, the more unceremoniously ethnic priorities are put forward, the more rigidly ethnocentrism asserts itself, gradually pushing aside those social aspirations that were characteristic of the initial stages of ethnic movements. And then political actions become a way by which the ethnic group is glorified. Ethnicity, having begun as a healthy desire of an ethnic community to defend its identity, often develops into embittered nationalism.
A negative connotation in ethnic orientations under the influence of ethnocentrism is especially often manifested under unfavorable social and cultural circumstances. The erection of the ethnocentric nature of the attitude towards other peoples into a universal law (the so-called ethnocentrism syndrome) inevitably leads to the recognition of the pattern of ethnophobia, i.e. hostility, intolerance, hatred towards people of a different culture, nationality.
To maintain a positive identity by a group, a specific mechanism of intergroup perception is used - intragroup favoritism, which consists in the tendency to favor one's own group and its members when compared with other comparable groups. This term - tracing paper from the English language - has already become quite firmly established in scientific circulation, although, apparently, the Russian phrase preference for one's group would be more appropriate.
A well-known example of intra-group favoritism is ethnocentrism - preference for one's own ethnic group. The definition of this concept was given back in 1906 by W. Sumner, according to whom, ethnocentrism- this is "a vision of things in which one's own group is at the center of everything, and all others are commensurate with it or evaluated with reference to it" .
Modern researchers consider ethnocentrism as a property inherent in people "to perceive and evaluate life phenomena through the prism of the traditions and values of their own ethnic group, acting as a kind of standard or optimum" (Kon, 1983, p. 812). Anything can be considered a reference: religion, language, literature, food, clothing, for example, the ancient Chinese way of wrapping a bathrobe, etc. and so on.
M. Brewer and D. Campbell identified the main indicators of ethnocentrism:
■ perception of elements of one's own culture as "natural" and "correct" and elements of other cultures as "unnatural" and "wrong";
■ considering. the customs of their group as universal;
■ assessment of the norms, roles and values of one's group as indisputably correct;
■ the idea that it is natural for a person to cooperate with members of his group, to help them, to prefer his group, be proud of it and not trust and even be at enmity with members of other groups (see Brewer, Campbell, 1976>.
It should be noted that among researchers there is no unanimity in relation to ethnocentrism. Soviet social scientists believed that ethnocentrism is a negative social phenomenon, equivalent to nationalism and even racism. And many psychologists consider ethnocentrism a negative socio-psychological phenomenon, manifested in the tendency to reject all foreign groups, combined with an overestimation of one's own group.
But like any other socio-psychological phenomenon, ethnocentrism cannot be considered as something only positive or only negative, and a value judgment about it is absolutely unacceptable. Although ethnocentrism often proves to be an obstacle to intergroup interaction, at the same time it performs a useful function for the group to maintain a positive identity and even preserve the integrity and specificity of the group.
Moreover, ethnocentrism initially does not carry a hostile attitude towards other groups and can be combined with a tolerant attitude towards intergroup differences. Thus, Brewer and Campbell found ethnocentrism in all thirty ethnic communities they studied in three countries of East Africa. Representatives of all nations treated their group with greater sympathy, more positively assessed its moral virtues and achievements. But the degree of expression of ethnocentrism varied. In assessing group achievement, favoritism was significantly weaker than in assessing other aspects. A third of the communities rated the achievements of at least one of the outgroups higher than their own (see Brewer and Campbell, 1976.
Ethnocentrism, in which an uncritical attitude does not apply to all the properties and spheres of life of one's group and attempts are made to understand and objectively evaluate a foreign culture, is called by different authors benevolent or flexible.
But ethnocentrism can manifest itself in very different degrees of severity. Some researchers see the main reason for this in the characteristics of culture. Thus, there is evidence that representatives of collectivist cultures are more ethnocentric than members of individualistic cultures. But other authors have found that it is in collectivist cultures, where the values of modesty and harmony prevail, that there is less intergroup bias, for example, Polynesians showed less preference for their group than Europeans.
When analyzing ethnocentrism, like any other socio-psychological phenomenon, it is necessary to take into account social factors. The degree of its manifestation is more significantly influenced not by the peculiarities of culture, but by the system of social relations of society, the objective nature of interethnic relations. In the presence of a conflict between ethnic communities and other unfavorable social conditions, ethnocentrism can manifest itself in very vivid forms and become dysfunctional for the individual and the group. With such ethnocentrism, which received the name of militant, people not only judge other people's values based on their own, but also impose them on others.
Militant ethnocentrism expressed in hatred, distrust, fear, and blaming other groups for their own failures. Such ethnocentrism is also unfavorable for personal growth, because love for the motherland is brought up from its position, and the child, as E. Erickson wrote not without sarcasm: species was an event of cosmic significance and that it was he who was destined by history to stand guard over the only correct variety of humanity under the leadership of a select elite and leaders ”(Erickson, 1996 b, pp. 311-312).
So, the inhabitants of China in ancient times were brought up in the belief that it was their homeland - the "navel of the Earth" and there is no doubt about this, since the sun rises and sets at the same distance from the Middle Kingdom. Group-centrism in its great-power version was also characteristic of Soviet ideology: even small children in the USSR knew that "the Earth, as you know, begins from the Kremlin."
If ethnocentrism is a tendency to overestimate one's nation, then nationalism is expressed in extreme manifestations of ethnocentrism. The nationalist not only declares the nation's claims to exclusivity, but also takes appropriate actions for this - prints and distributes nationalist literature, takes part in political actions, criticizes and persecutes representatives of other peoples. The relationship between ethnocentrism and nationalism can be defined as follows - ethnocentrists are those who vote for nationalists in elections.
Passive (ethnocentrism) or active (nationalism) a person's position on the issue of attitude to his own nation may vary depending on the political and economic situation. Life shows that patriotic sentiments among large groups of people wake up when an external threat appears, or at least circumstances that interfere with the interests of the nation.
Thus, groups and their members are characterized by varying degrees of ethnocentrism. We present explicit intra-group and outward group favoritism as two poles of a certain theoretical continuum, and each specific case of inter-ethnic perception can be characterized in terms of approaching one of them. Both ends of the continuum correspond to differentiation in the form of opposition, which suggests at least a bias towards other groups. The closer to the center of the continuum, the weaker the opposition is expressed, which can be expressed both in integrative processes and in a tendency to differentiation in the form of comparison - “peaceful non-identity”, in the terminology of B.F. Porshnev. In this case, one's own group may be preferred in some spheres of life, and another's - in others, which does not exclude criticality to the activities and qualities of both. The possibility of integration of ethnic communities - at least in the foreseeable future - seems doubtful. We see the results of the "rapprochement of nations" in the expanses of the former USSR. And American researchers have recognized as obsolete the theory of "fundamental changes", according to which "as a result of the mixing of various ethnic and racial groups, a certain homogeneous amalgam is formed" (Smelser, 1994, p. 324). Not integration, namely comparison - acceptance and recognition of differences - can be considered the most acceptable form of social perception in the interaction of ethnic communities and cultures at the present stage of human history.
The main mechanisms that perform the function of intergroup differentiation are attributive processes. At the level of intergroup relations, two main types of attributive processes are studied. First, stereotyping as a special case of trait attribution, when characteristics are attributed to an individual based on his group membership. Second, social causal attribution, or attributing the causes of individuals' behavior and achievements on the basis of group membership.
Ethnocentrism is a general concept or point of view of individuals, according to which one's own people, social stratum, one's own race or some one's own group is put forward in a central place as superior to all others and prevailing. The concept of "ethnocentrism" is associated with both positive consequences (to a lesser extent) - for example, patriotism, a sense of national dignity, and negative (mostly) - discrimination, nationalism, chauvinism, segregation.
Ethnocentrism is characteristic of every group that is to some extent independent, independent and aware of its identity. Ethnocentric positions are "beneficial" to the group itself in that with their help the group determines its place among other groups, strengthens its identity and preserves its cultural features. However, extreme forms of ethnocentrism are associated with religious fanaticism and racism and even lead to violence and aggression (Saressalo, 1977, 50-52) (Saressalo).
The concept of ethnocentrism also includes the concept of "stereotype". In this case, these are generalized, schematic representations of other groups, their culture and properties adopted by a group. The stereotypical way of responding is a long-term, stable and, despite new, even very recent experience, an unshakable idea of the behavioral traits of other people or groups, as well as a firm opinion about any organizations or social formations (cf. Hartfeld, 1976) (Hartfield). Stereotypes are like prejudices, they do not need logical justification, and even their objectivity and plausibility are not always indisputable (Saressalo, 1977, 50).
The American sociologist William G. Sumner (1960) (William G. Stunner) studied the emergence of ethnocentrism among primitive peoples and came to the conclusion that almost every one of these peoples claimed a special place, "dating" it back to the creation of the world. This is evidenced, for example, by the following Indian legend narrated by M. Herskovits (1951) (M. Herskovits):
“To crown his creative work, God fashioned three human figures from dough and placed them in a brazier. After some time, he impatiently took out the first little man from the stove, whose appearance was too light and therefore unpleasant. It was "unbaked" inside as well. Soon God got the second one; this one was a success: it was beautifully brown on the outside and "ripe" on the inside. With joy God made him the founder of the Indian race. But the third, unfortunately, during this time was very burnt and turned completely black. The first character became the founder of the white family, and the last - the black one.
Such legends and myths are characteristic of the prejudices of an ethnic group. Under prejudice, according to the definition of the American scientist W. Weaver (1954) (W. Weaver), they mean "an assessment of social situations on the basis of pre-mastered ideas and values, without empirical evidence or a rational and logical course of reasoning." Based on mythological thinking, own group has all the virtues; she lives for the joy of God. The characteristic features of each such group, as mentioned above, date back to the creation of the world and are either a gift or a mistake of the creator. At the same time, one's own group, of course, is ranked among the "chosen people." Such a view contains racial motivation; connected with it is the belief that the successful activity of people depends on their biological quality. The logical conclusion from such a concept is the following: certain people, according to their biological racial qualities, are initially allegedly more gifted and talented than others, more perfect, both physically and mentally, and therefore more suitable and capable for leading and managing the world and for occupying higher social positions. in society (E. Asp, 1969) (Asp).
Racism
One of the extreme forms of ethnocentrism is racism, which can be defined as a set of concepts according to which one race, both morally, mentally and culturally, is superior to some other race or other races and whose super qualities are transmitted hereditarily from one generation to to another. Racism is a stimulant of the struggle for power between nations and the ideological basis of national competition. He supports the belief that the biological mixing of different races would lead to hereditary-genetic and socio-cultural-moral degeneration of the "superior" race (Hartfeld, 1976) (Hartfield). Therefore, protective and protective means against such phenomena are necessary. Vivid examples of racism are apartheid, that is, the complete separation of races or population groups from each other on the basis of racial characteristics, and anti-Semitism and chauvinism. Apartheid manifests itself in regional division or isolation, which leads to educational, property discrimination and economic pressure and further to political isolation. In the sphere of private life, apartheid dictates the restriction and even prohibition of sexual intercourse and other contacts between racial "outsiders" and mainstream populations (Hartfeld, 1976).
In a broader sense, racism today is all that is associated with racial discrimination, racial prejudice and the violation of national equality. Modern racism manifests itself both in a hostile attitude towards settlers and in the non-recognition of the rights to self-determination and the preservation of various cultures (Liebkind, 1994, 39-40) (Liebkind).
Racism, as you know, is based on concepts and teachings about race. Gordon Allport (1992), who studied races, noted that already Charles Darwin's theory of the origin of species actually contains a division into races. Although his teaching concerned the animal world, it was later applied to human society as well. Thus, Darwinism was also used as an argument in favor of racism and as an excuse for racist prejudice. Proponents of such views see in the race properties inherent in it initially and permanently, and transmitted hereditarily. Such a simplified approach does not take into account the role and influence of the environment on the individual, ignores the type and nature of his individual behavior, denying him the ability to acquire any new traits during his life, except to receive hereditary ones. If a person has at least one racial property, all other properties of this race, especially negative ones, are arbitrarily attributed to him on the basis of stereotypes. Racial prejudices and stereotypes are an expression of a primitive approach to the question of the specificity and correlation of different types of people and population groups. Such stereotypes have always been used for political purposes. Instigators of racial hatred usually take advantage of the mob stirred up by a real or staged "common enemy" to further their goals (Alport, 1992, 107-110).
The concept of Pierre van de Berghe (1970) (quoted here from the book by E. Giddens) distinguishes between three levels of segregation (lat. segregare - to separate, remove) using the example of South African society:
1. Microsegregation - the segregation of some public places, such as washrooms, waiting rooms, passenger cars, etc. for whites and non-whites.
2. Mezzosegregation - the allocation of special residential areas for non-white citizens and forcing them to live there.
3. Macrosegregation - the creation of special national reservations.
Perhaps most visible, and even negatively symbolic, is microsegregation, the separation of public spaces between whites and blacks. But it is precisely that it is being reduced due to international condemnation and pressure; other forms of segregation persist to some extent where they are supported and controlled by racist whites (Giddens, 1989).
Racism is, unfortunately, the reality of today's world, not excluding Europe. We have to admit that there are still many people who cannot accept the fact that someone thinks differently and represents a different culture. Of course, there are some successes in the fight against racism; for example, the persecution of Jews is recognized as a violation of human rights. However, hostility and sometimes hatred of foreigners, xenophobia (gr. xenos - alien), neo-Nazism, ultra-right thinking, ideological movements directed against any group of the population, restrictions on the rights of repressed groups of the population and even terrorist attacks against them, all this is a face modern racism. It may be that different ethnic groups in European states have not yet experienced living together, and separatist (i.e., pro-separation) aspirations arise from time to time in different parts of Europe.
The experience of the United States, which, as is known, is the result of the greatest migration and can serve as an example for future changes in Europe, is exceptionally indicative for all multi-ethnic countries. E. Giddens (1989, 271) states three models that characterize the development of ethnic relations in SITA:
1. The first model: fusion, or assimilation. This means that immigrants give up their traditions and customs and adapt their behavior in accordance with the values and norms of the host country. The children of these immigrants, as a rule, feel like real "Americans".
2. The second model can be metaphorically called "smelter". This is a model of peaceful coexistence of different ethnic groups, which, while living together, do not lose their cultural and behavioral characteristics, but at the same time, these characteristics mix, “melt down” and create a new type of culture. This model is most characteristic of the ethnic situation in the United States. According to many, this is the most desirable outcome of ethnic interactions.
3. The third model is a pluralistic culture: society develops on the basis of a multicultural principle, when each ethnic group, with the consent of others, preserves its own culture. In such a society, there are different, but equal subcultures.
Australia, which received and is receiving a large number of emigrants, has long sought to implement an assimilation policy, but today it clearly adheres to the principle of the third model, when all existing cultures enrich the common culture and implement the idea of "let all flowers bloom".
The unification of Europe also means the coexistence of different cultures, although ethnic and racial prejudices such as discrimination against minorities and segregation still create tension.
Recall that the topic of this chapter is the objects of sociological research. We have sought to outline the main ones: demographic, cultural, and behavioral.
ethnocentrism
ethnocentrism
a concept that reflects the tendency to consider the norms and values of one's own. cultures as a basis for evaluating and making judgments about other cultures. E.'s concept is opposed to the relativistic approach, in which the perception of the norms and values of each culture is valuable in itself and cannot be used as a standard applicable to other cultures. E. - an inseparable property of intergroup (interethnic) relationships and has a dual character. On the one hand, it promotes cohesion within the ODA. cultural (ethnic) communities around their own. norms and values, as well as the formation of ethnic. self-consciousness as belonging to def. cultural circle; with others - leads to the denial of the values of a foreign culture, leads to cultural self-isolation and inter-ethnic. conflicts.
Lit.: Artanovsky S.N. The problem of ethnocentrism, ethnic. uniqueness of cultures and interethnic. relations in modern foreign ethnography and sociology // Actual problems of ethnography and modern. foreign science. L., 1979; Le Vine R., Campbell D. Ethnocentrism. Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior. N.Y., 1971.
L.A. Mostova
Culturology. XX century. Encyclopedia. 1998 .
ethnocentrism
(Greek ethnos - tribe, people) - the tendency of a person to evaluate all life phenomena through the prism of the values of his ethnic group, considered as a standard; preferring one's own way of life to everyone else.
☼ a concept that reflects the tendency to consider the norms and values of one's own. cultures as a basis for evaluating and making judgments about other cultures. E.'s concept is opposed to the relativistic approach, in which the perception of the norms and values of each culture is valuable in itself and cannot be used as a standard applicable to other cultures. E. is an inseparable property of intergroup (interethnic) relations and has a dual character. On the one hand, it promotes cohesion within the ODA. cultural (ethnic.) community around their own. norms and values, as well as the formation of ethnic. self-consciousness as belonging to def. cultural circle; with others - leads to the denial of the values of a foreign culture, leads to cultural self-isolation and inter-ethnic. conflicts.
Lit.: Artanovsky S.N. The problem of ethnocentrism, ethnic. uniqueness of cultures and interethnic. relations in modern foreign ethnography and sociology // Actual problems of ethnography and modern. foreign science. L., 1979; Le Vine R., Campbell D. Ethnocentrism. Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior. N.Y., 1971.
L.A. Mostova.
Cultural studies of the twentieth century. Encyclopedia. M.1996
Large explanatory dictionary of cultural studies.. Kononenko B.I. . 2003 .
Synonyms:
See what "ETNOCENTRISM" is in other dictionaries:
Ethnocentrism… Spelling Dictionary
- (from the Greek. ethnos group, tribe and lat. centrum center, center) a view of the world through the prism of ethnic identification. At the same time, life and cultural processes are evaluated through the traditions of ethnic self-consciousness, which acts as ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
ethnocentrism- Etymology. Comes from the Greek. ethnos people + kentron center. Category. The phenomenon of social psychology. Specificity. Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic or cultural group (race, people, class). On this basis, develops ... ... Great Psychological Encyclopedia
- (from the Greek ethnos tribe people and center) (in sociology, in ethnography), the tendency of a person to evaluate all life phenomena through the prism of the values of his ethnic group, considered as a standard; preference for one's own lifestyle ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
- (from Greek ethnos people + kentron focus) a phenomenon of social psychology. Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic or cultural group (race, people, class). On this basis, contempt for representatives of others develops ... ... Psychological Dictionary
- (Greek ethnos group, tribe, people and lat. centrum center, center) the property of an individual, social groups and communities (as carriers of ethnic self-consciousness) to perceive and evaluate life phenomena through the prism of traditions and values ... ... The latest philosophical dictionary
- [English] etnocentrism Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
Exist., number of synonyms: 2 nation-centrism (1) centrism (1) ASIS Synonym Dictionary. V.N. Trishin. 2013 ... Synonym dictionary
- (from the Greek ethnos tribe, people and lat. centrum the center of the circle) eng. ethnocentrism; German Ethnozentrismus. The property of ethnic self-consciousness to perceive and evaluate all the phenomena of the surrounding world through the prism of traditions and values of one's own ethnic ... Encyclopedia of Sociology
- (from the Greek ethnos tribe, people and center) the tendency of a person, ethnic and ethno-confessional groups to evaluate all life phenomena through the prism of the values of their ethnic group, considered as a standard; preference for one's own... Political science. Dictionary.
Books
- Ethnocentrism in the content of domestic and foreign school textbooks: Monograph, Kovrigin V.V. , The monograph is devoted to the problems of manifestation of ethnocentrism in school textbooks in Russia, post-Soviet countries, England, Germany, the USA and Kazakhstan. Authorizes the essence, ... Category: Ethnography Series: Scientific thought. Education Publisher: INFRA-M, Manufacturer:
The content of the article
- preference for one's ethnic group, manifested in the perception and evaluation of life phenomena through the prism of its traditions and values. Term ethnocentrism introduced in 1906 by W. Sumner, who believed that people tend to see the world in such a way that their own group is at the center of everything, and all others are measured with it or evaluated with reference to it.
Ethnocentrism as a socio-psychological phenomenon.
Ethnocentrism has existed throughout human history. Written in the 12th century Tale of Bygone Years meadows, which, according to the chronicler, supposedly have a custom and law , are opposed to the Vyatichi, Krivichi, Drevlyans, who have neither a real custom nor a law.
Anything can be considered a reference: religion, language, literature, food, clothing, etc. There is even the opinion of the American anthropologist E. Leach, according to which, the question of whether a particular tribal community burns or buries its dead, whether their houses are round or rectangular, may have no other functional explanation than that each nation wants to show that it different from its neighbors and superior to them. In turn, these neighbors, whose customs are directly opposite, are also convinced that their way of doing anything is right and best.
American psychologists M. Brewer and D. Campbell identified the main indicators of ethnocentrism:
perception of elements of one's culture (norms, roles and values) as natural and correct, and elements of other cultures as unnatural and incorrect;
considering the customs of one's group as universal;
the idea that it is natural for a person to cooperate with members of his group, to help them, to prefer his group, be proud of it and not trust and even be at enmity with members of other groups.
The last of the criteria identified by Brewer and Campbell testifies to the ethnocentrism of the individual. Regarding the first two, some ethnocentric people recognize that other cultures have their own values, norms, and customs, but are inferior to the traditions of "their" culture. However, there is also a more naive form of absolute ethnocentrism, when its bearers are convinced that "their" traditions and customs are universal for all people on Earth.
Soviet social scientists believed that ethnocentrism is a negative social phenomenon, equivalent to nationalism and even racism. Many psychologists consider ethnocentrism a negative socio-psychological phenomenon, manifested in the tendency to reject other groups in combination with an overestimation of one's own group, and define it as failure to consider the behavior of other people in a manner different from that dictated by one's own cultural environment.
But is it possible? An analysis of the problem shows that ethnocentrism is an inevitable part of our life, a normal consequence of socialization ( cm. Also SOCIALIZATION) and introducing a person to culture. Moreover, like any other socio-psychological phenomenon, ethnocentrism cannot be considered as something only positive or only negative, and a value judgment about it is unacceptable. Although ethnocentrism often proves to be an obstacle to intergroup interaction, at the same time it performs a useful function for the group to maintain a positive ethnic identity and even preserve the integrity and specificity of the group. For example, when studying Russian old-timers in Azerbaijan, N.M. Lebedeva, it was revealed that the decrease in ethnocentrism, which manifested itself in a more positive perception of Azerbaijanis, testified to the erosion of the unity of the ethnic group and led to an increase in people leaving for Russia in search of the necessary feeling " We".
Flexible ethnocentrism.
Ethnocentrism initially does not carry a hostile attitude towards other groups and can be combined with a tolerant attitude towards intergroup differences. On the one hand, bias is mainly the result of one's own group being considered good, and to a lesser extent it arises from the feeling that all other groups are bad. On the other hand, an uncritical attitude may not extend to All properties and spheres of life of their group.
In the course of research by Brewer and Campbell in three countries of East Africa, ethnocentrism was found in thirty ethnic communities. Representatives of all nations treated their group with greater sympathy, more positively assessed its moral virtues and achievements. But the degree of expression of ethnocentrism varied. When evaluating group achievements, the preference of one's own group was significantly weaker than when evaluating other aspects. A third of the communities rated the achievements of at least one of the outgroups higher than their own achievements. Ethnocentrism, in which the qualities of one's own group are fairly objectively assessed and attempts are made to understand the characteristics of a foreign group, is called benevolent, or flexible.
Comparison of one's own and other groups in this case takes place in the form comparisons- peace-loving non-identity, according to the terminology of the Soviet historian and psychologist B.F. Porshnev. It is the acceptance and recognition of differences that can be considered the most acceptable form of social perception in the interaction of ethnic communities and cultures at the present stage of human history.
In interethnic comparison in the form of comparison, one's own group may be preferred in some spheres of life, and another's - in others, which does not exclude criticism of the activities and qualities of both and is manifested through the construction complementary images. A number of studies in the 1980s and 1990s found a fairly clear tendency among Moscow students to compare "typical American" and "typical Russian". The stereotype of an American included business (entrepreneurship, diligence, conscientiousness, competence) and communicative (sociability, looseness) characteristics, as well as the main features of "Americanism" (striving for success, individualism, high self-esteem, pragmatism).
Comparison of ethnic groups in the form of opposition.
Ethnocentrism is not always benevolent. Interethnic comparison can be expressed in the form opposition, suggesting at least a bias towards other groups. An indicator of such a comparison is polar images when members of an ethnic group attribute only positive qualities to themselves, and only negative qualities to “outsiders”. The contrast is most pronounced in mirror perception when members two conflicting groups attribute identical positive traits to themselves, and identical vices to rivals. For example, one's own group is perceived as highly moral and peaceful, its actions are explained by altruistic motives, and a foreign group is perceived as an aggressive "evil empire" pursuing its own selfish interests. It was the phenomenon of mirror reflection that was discovered during the Cold War in the distorted perceptions of Americans and Russians of each other. When the American psychologist Uri Bronfennbrenner visited the Soviet Union in 1960, he was surprised to hear from his interlocutors the same words about America that the Americans spoke about the Soviets. Ordinary Soviet people believed that the US government was made up of aggressive militarists, that it was exploiting and oppressing the American people, that it could not be trusted diplomatically.
A similar phenomenon was repeatedly described in the future, for example, when analyzing reports in the Armenian and Azerbaijani press about the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
The tendency towards interethnic opposition can also manifest itself in a more smoothed form, when qualities that are practically identical in meaning are evaluated differently depending on whether they are attributed to one's own or another group. People choose a positive label when they describe their own group trait and a negative label when they describe the same trait of an outgroup: Americans perceive themselves as friendly and uninhibited, while the British consider them pushy and cheeky. And vice versa - the British believe that they are characterized by restraint and respect for the rights of other people, and the Americans call the British cold snobs.
Some researchers see the main reason for varying degrees of ethnocentricity in the characteristics of a particular culture. There is evidence that members of collectivistic cultures who are closely related to their group are more ethnocentric than members of individualistic cultures. However, a number of psychologists have found that it is in collectivist cultures, where the values of modesty and harmony prevail, that intergroup bias is less pronounced, for example, Polynesians show less preference for their group than Europeans.
militant ethnocentrism.
The degree of manifestation of ethnocentrism is more significantly influenced not by cultural features, but by social factors - the social structure, the objective nature of interethnic relations. Members of minority groups - small in size and below others in status - are more likely to prefer their own group. This applies to both ethnic migrants and "small nations". In the presence of a conflict between ethnic communities and in other unfavorable social conditions, ethnocentrism can manifest itself in very vivid forms and, although it helps to maintain a positive ethnic identity, it becomes dysfunctional for the individual and society. With such ethnocentrism, which received the name militant or inflexible , people not only judge other people's values based on their own, but also impose them on others.
Militant ethnocentrism expresses itself in hatred, mistrust, fear, and blaming other groups for their own failures. Such ethnocentrism is also unfavorable for the personal growth of the individual, because love for the motherland is brought up from his position, and the child, as the American psychologist E. Erickson wrote, not without sarcasm: it is precisely the emergence of this species that was an event of cosmic significance and that it is precisely it that is destined by history to stand guard over the only correct variety of humanity under the leadership of a select elite and leaders.
For example, the inhabitants of China in ancient times were brought up in the belief that it was their homeland - the "navel of the Earth" and there is no doubt about this, since the sun rises and sets at the same distance from the Middle Kingdom. Ethnocentrism in its great-power version was also characteristic of Soviet ideology: even small children in the USSR knew that "the Earth, as you know, begins from the Kremlin."
Delegitization as an extreme degree of ethnocentrism.
Examples of ethnocentric delegitimization are well known, such as the attitude of the first European settlers towards the native inhabitants of America and the attitude towards "non-Aryan" peoples in Nazi Germany. Ethnocentrism, embedded in the racist Aryan supremacist ideology, proved to be the mechanism used to hammer into the heads of the Germans the idea that Jews, Gypsies, and other minorities were “subhumans” with no right to life.
Ethnocentrism and the process of development of intercultural communication.
Almost all people are ethnocentric to one degree or another, therefore, each person, realizing his own ethnocentrism, should strive to develop flexibility in himself when interacting with other people. This is achieved through development. intercultural competence, that is, not only a positive attitude towards the presence of various ethnic groups in society, but also the ability to understand their representatives and interact with partners from other cultures.
The process of development of ethno-cultural competence is described in M. Bennett's model of mastering a foreign culture, which identifies six stages that reflect the attitude of individuals to the differences between native and foreign ethnic groups. According to this model, a person goes through six stages of personal growth: three ethnocentric (denial of intercultural differences; protection from differences with their assessment in favor of one's group; minimization of differences) and three ethnorelativistic (recognition of differences; adaptation to differences between cultures or ethnic groups; integration, etc.). i.e. the application of ethnorelativism to one's own identity).
Denial of intercultural differences typical for people who do not have experience of communication with representatives of other cultures. They are not aware of the differences between cultures, their own picture of the world is regarded as universal (this is a case of absolute, but not militant ethnocentrism). At the stage protection from cultural differences people perceive them as a threat to their existence and try to resist them, considering the values and norms of their culture as the only true ones, and others as “wrong”. This stage may manifest itself in militant ethnocentrism and be accompanied by obsessive calls to be proud of one's own culture, which is seen as an ideal for all mankind. Minimizing Cross-Cultural Differences means that individuals recognize them and do not evaluate them negatively, but define them as insignificant.
Ethnorelativism begins with the stage recognition of ethnocultural differences, acceptance by the individual of the right to a different view of the world. People in this stage of benevolent ethnocentrism experience joy in discovering and exploring differences. At the stage adaptation to intercultural differences the individual is able not only to be aware of intercultural differences, but also to behave in accordance with the rules of a foreign culture, without experiencing discomfort. As a rule, it is this stage that indicates the achievement of ethnocultural competence by a person.
Tatiana Stefanenko
Literature:
Brewer M.B., Campbell D.T. Ethnocentrism and Intergroup Attitudes: East African Evidence. N.Y., Halsted/Wiley, 1976
Porshnev B.F. Social psychology and history. M., "Science", 1979
Bennett M.J. A Developmental Approach to Training for Intercultural Sensitivity// International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 1986 Vol. 10. P.179–196
Lebedeva N.M. Social psychology of ethnic migrations. M., Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS, 1993
Erickson E. Identity: youth and crisis. M., Progress Publishing Group, 1996
Myers D. Social Psychology. St. Petersburg, "Peter", 1997
Leech E. Culture and Communication: The Logic of the Interrelation of Symbols. On the use of structural analysis in social anthropology. M., "Eastern Literature", 2001
Matsumoto D. Psychology and culture. SPb., "prime-EUROZNAK", 2002
Berry J.W., Poortinga Y.H., Segall M.H., Dasen P.R. Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge etc., Cambridge University Press, 2002
